Angela:
Why do you see veiling as a form of oppression, when many Catholic women today willingly wear the veil out of respect to the Lord---more specifically, their Catholic faith?
And secondly, who are you to judge "middle eastern Indian women" to be "piece of property"? To me, that sounds stereotypical and racist.
Finally, you said that "God gave me my hair, so why should I have to cover it in front of Him???"----Did you not read Saint Paul's sermon for women to wear covering on their heads? Perhaps do not trust the Word of God and thats why you feel the need to make such adamant remarks.
Veiling the head is equivalent to something called external modesty. . . maybe its time you should look into it.

I find it very interesting that one would feel the need to wear a chapel veil to feel "holy" or to not "distract those boys." Why should I have to cover my head because the male species can't control themselves? It distracts me!!!! I now have small children and it quite frankly got in the way. I am glad Mary wore a veil 2000+ years ago when all women did...and now the only people I know who wear veils on a regular basis are the middle eastern Indian women who are treated like nothing more than a piece of property. God gave me my hair, so why should I have to cover it in front of Him??? I WILL NOT ALLOW MYSELF TO BE OPPRESSED!! Just because I don't wear a piece of fabric on my head doesn't mean that I don't respect our Lord or that I'm not humble. We don't need to have this outward "sign" to tell other people what should only be in our hearts. Chapel veils are superficial, not remotely beautiful, and distracting to the wearer and those around them--especially the women who feel the need to wear a chapel veil that is 6 feet long end to end...lets save that for the nuns!

Greetings,
I'm a college student who has recently seen the value of wearing the chapel veil among my female peers at Notre Dame. Most of them are my friends whose devotion trascends superficiality. And for the past few weeks, my family has also started to attend an indult Tridentine mass. I even gave my 14-year-old sister her first chapel veil for her birthday. Anyway, you say your wife fears attracting attention during mass if she were to wear the veil. I'm wondering: Did you think the first pioneering women who removed their chapel veils immediately following V2 "didn't" cause a scene? We are a church of both outward and inward signs of devotion, let's not forget that. Lastly, "holier-than-thou" (which is relative to the observer, and not necessarily the devotee, mind you) is better than "not-holy-at-all."
Peacefully yours,
AS Anderson

Regarding women wearing chapel veils or not. I am 63. I didn't "start" wearing them, I never stopped. When I was young and my family had no intention of going to church to make a visit and then decided to,we opened up a handkerchef and wore that. We knew it would be better to make the visit if we had nothing to wear on our heads, but if we had something that would "make do", we did. No, I don't consider hats or chapel veils should create a distraction to others. If they do, the people who are being distracted should look into themselves about why something like that causes a distraction. I didn't insist on my children wearing a hat or chapel veil. They knew I did and why and that was one of the few things I didn't insist on. Lets don't make a big issue about wearing hats or chapel veils. There are a lot of other issues we should be concerned with.

Sedevacantism = sin against Hope. :(
Pray for them.
Matt
AMDG

I had better qualify that last post. I don't know if follower of the scismatic doctrine of Sedevacantism is mortal sin.
I sent an email to Jimmy to see what his thoughts are on that issue.

It would be better on the day of judgment to be a Protestant or a Muslim than to be a Sedevacantist, one that has knowledge of the Holy Church and wilfully denies the authority of the Vicar of Christ and the Magisterium. Invincible ignorance can at least be applied to the circumstances of the former.
Like it or not, V2 was an Ecumenical Counsel with all the force of the other Counsels (Jerusalem, Nicea, etc.).
I pray that all Sedevacantists will be restored to the grace of the Church before the hour of their deaths.

Gee, I missed the part about where St. Paul, or any of the aforementioned saints made unsubstantiated allegations about St. Peter or the Pope. Even when they disagreed with the Pope, they did it respectfully, they were restrained in their criticism, and they ultimately submitted to the decisions of the Vicar of Christ.
Now, compare that to what we see here. Get the picture?

John,
I would listen to an evangelist or a Traditional so called "schismatic" and have my children catechised by them
I will pray for your children.
I would rather take my chances with a mass that was promulgated by Saints and Martyrs than by Masons
It is a shame that you want a Mass promulgated by Saints and martyrs, but you don't respect them enough to share their love of the Church and their respect for its leaders (even when the leaders were persecuting them). And it is a shame that you care so little for the reputation of a Pope, and a Blessed at that, that you will blithely toss out rumors about him without a shred of evidence.
Which of the Saints and martyrs you claim to love would do that?

Incidentally, every other Catholic Bible I own that has paragraph or section breaks separates verse 16 from the preceding as well.
Just out of curiosity, which translations do that?
Out of my Bibles, the Douay-Rheims has no paragraph or section breaks, but the Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem, New Jerusalem and New American Bible all seem to place v.16 with the preceding section.
Moreover, the DR, NJB and NAB all refer in v.16 to "such custom," which would seem to indicate it is looking back, not forward. The JB begins v. 16 "To anyone who might still want to argue..." which also suggests looking back to me, but v.17 makes it even clear that it, and not v.16, is introducing a new subject matter: "Now that I am on the subject of instructions..." The RSV refers to "no other practice" instead of "no such custom," and v.17 seems once again to be introducing a new subject matter, "But in the following instructions..."
I can see no evidence that Mary is wrong on this point.

Tom
Nothing will convince the Modernists, they despise Holy Tradition and want to make the church more liberal so they can in their own twisted way feel bette about themselves and the sins they commit and want the church to conform to the secular modern sinful world instead of asking the sinful modern world to take the high road and conform to her, it has infiltrated the clergy and worse whatever is left of the sisterhood to such an extreme I would listen to an evangelist or a Traditional so called "schismatic" and have my children catechised by them by this corrupt Novus Ordo church. When Vatican II was put forth, it had evil behind it, as John XXIII was and is speculated to have been a Mason in 1935 as was Bugnini. I would rather take my chances with a mass that was promulgated by Saints and Martyrs than by Masons

Because in my Bible, verse 16 begins a new paragraph, which makes sense, since it has nothing to do with the preceding verses
You either need a new Bible or you need a lesson in English. Verse 16 begins with the word "But...", just like verse 15 begins with "But...". It's a continuation of the same topic.

Mary Kay,
I guess the first words of my post "I'm sorry" wasn't clear. I didn't realize I was being so vague. I said I made a mistake, I meant that.
As for accusing you of not assuming the worst of people.
"We might try not assuming the worst of everyone." Last dictionary I checked defines we as you and I and even everyone else on here. Not you personally Mary Kay and nobody else.
I was trying to say that there is evidence in my opinion for both sides of the arguement and that the practice it's self is wholesome. My opinion is apparently very upsetting for you and I'm really sorry that I upset you so much.
I really tried to apologize to you, I didn't intend anything you accuse me of, and I really don't know what to say except I am really sorry. I never meant to lable you or anyone.
To everyone in this thread I'm really really sorry I was so offensive. I will try harder to control my impulses and not call names and belittle you, because that is not why I come here.

Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.

Wearing veils is not going to come back anytime soon,if ever, which means this conversation is somewhat meaningless. Those of us who think veil wearing is still required are a tiny percentange of the whole and the people who think wearing veils is not required are not going to suddenly think they should. Nothing will change even if we added another million posts to this conversation.
I am taking the right cyber door outa here. :)

Mary Kay,
who criticized you for not wearing a veil? People here are speaking in favor of the practice, instead of looking at it objectively, you read that as a slight against you because you don't. That's not a very reasonable way to have a discussion. Allena's suggestion was spoken in a very charitable way, she's trying to tell you that it doesn't matter whether it's canon law or not, and it's not about fashion. You seem to think that it only matters if it's obligatory, that's just wrong.

Mary Kay,
which part of this do you consider "ad hominem"???
Tim,
Are you deliberately quoting out of context or is it a slip?
"By definition disobedience during the Sacrifice of the Mass is disrespect..."
I said this in describing what occurred during the period from around 1969 until the 1983 Canon law superceded the 1917 canon law. It still doesn't say somebody is being a bad Catholic.
"Do you have an aversion to humility and submission?..."
It's a fair question, to which no reply was offered, it was not an assesment of someones Catholicity.
...
You have not cited anything which refutes my assertion that people aren't accusing someone of being a bad Catholic for not wearing a veil.

Let's just put the whole passage out there, rather than quoting verses out of context like good little Protestants do
So why didn't you put the whole passage out there? You omitted the last verse (16) of the passage.

Allena, you tell me to read more closely, but what I will say to you is that I'm not a mind reader.
When you start a post by addressing it to me, and then give no indication that you've changed to a more wider audience, don't tell me it's because I'm not reading closely enough.
In the same sentence that you told me to pray for a deeper faith, you ended that sentence with not depreciating wearing a veil. If you didn't want them to be connected, perhaps you could have indicated that they were two separate thoughts.
You chastise me to not assume the worst of everyone and yet you've assumed the worst of me.
Don't tell me that I view wearing a veil in a very negative fashion. You need to read a little more closely yourself. If you had, you would read where I specifically state the opposite.
Responding to everything your post would take more time than I have at the moment, so I'll limit it first to the thin ice comment. btw, you're a bit quick with the "judgmental" label.
Briefly, it has to do with the "weight of law." Several times, you have given things equal weight when they don't.
When I said you were on thin ice, it's because you seem to not be making those distinctions.
Second, you claim that "the law is not clear." This thread started with a canon lawyer saying that the law is clear, that the 1983 one abrogated the 1917 one.
Matt and Tom J disagree and their free to have their opinion. However, their opinion does not have the weight of law.
That's all I have time for.

Charlotte when most of us are saying veil I think we mean headcovering.
Personally I have always seen the lace veils, but in the 50's hats were all the fashion, hat or veil, scarf or whatever covering you choose is acceptable. The veil is the traditional (you know back to the time of the early church) type of covering most prevelant when you consider the whole of CHurch history. I don't think anyone is denying that women also wore hats, but they didn't 1000 years ago like the picture you posted. They wore scarves and the like which we refer to veils now, but hats are included in the mix. Hats are a more modern type of headcovering that varied from parish to parish, but yes, they were more prevelant here in the US, but not in the whole church or in the entirty of church history.

Brother,
Nope...one arguement with many supports. No Canon is meaningless, which is precisely why I have sighted the other Canons, which very clearly prove that Canon 6 does not apply in this case because wearing veils is an immeorial custom and part of Tradition.
I used Scripture as support because it shows this customs has literally always been part of the faith.

I once raised the issue on what precisely is the arguement here? Not the issue, but the defences.
I stated that unless a revision of a law states the older is null, than previous laws are still in effect. So unless there is another reason, technically one should follow the laws of older cannons, unless a new one replaces or abolishes it.
This is what I said:
I am pro the veils, but that will not taint my analysis, and I think that the veils might not be neccesary but not because of the following:
If the arguement that not mentioning a subject in a revision of law nulifies the previous law, then it is faulty, unless the revision clearly states that it nulifies all laws or certain laws of the previous code. And if that is your arguement, then you also agree that masons are now allowed in the Church and aren't excommunitcated...
Now as to forcing the veils now, that might be imprudent, because there is most probably no grace to back up the law. Remember the Law condemns, and if you bring them into knowledge of the Law and they will only revolt, that might even constitute a sin on the revealer. So signs of grace are definetely neccesary. You don't go to naked indians and tell them they are going to Hell for being naked right off the bat.

Mary Kay,
I'm sorry, I only meant to address the first paragraph to you personally, and then I was talking about some of the other posts and didn't indicate that clearly. Also I didn't mean to indicate that law is unimportant or that I am better than you, and I don't really feel that my comment says that:
"If you want my advice pray for a deeping of faith and let God lead you where he wants. I don't have any idea if that includes a veil or hat or whatever, but that doesn't deprieciate the value of the practice which outweighs the law which governs it's use."
You take that and accuse me of saying this:
"pray for a deepening of faith so that you see that this practice outweighs the law."
Also
" Not only a backhanded "you're not up to snuff," but also, you're treading on thin ice when you say that a private devotion outweighs the law."
That is not a quote, that is your interpretation, maybe you should try to read the posts more carefully and try to understand what people are saying before you declare what they mean and admonish them for it. We might try not assuming the worst of everyone.
I meant that just because it isn't a LAW doesn't mean one shouldn't consider doing it, or that it isn't worthwhile. What do you mean treading on thin ice? That seems a little judgemental. Do you mean I'm endangering my salvation or what?
I intended to say that the value of the practice out weighs the argument at hand as to weather it is law or not. I don't think God is offended when we do things to please him instead of because we HAVE to by canon law. The law is not clear, in my opinion there are valid points on both sides, so I wouldn't ever stop wearing it, because it seems to me to be something important, but unless it is clarified by the Vatican then it isn't required.
My whole point is that it's a holy and beautiful practice that is looked upon with what borders on hatred. So much anger and sarcasm here, especially from the women. which makes me sad. I don't think you would ever consider wearing a veil or hat because you seem to veiw it in a very negative fashion.
Brother Cadfael, in looking back you are correct nobody connected Rad Trad alone with veil wearing. I mis-interpreted the term. Sounds like something many of the very liberal and modern minded Catholics here would say, anyway sorry, but Radical Traditionalist is probably what most people would call me, but I do not refute VII, and I wasn't aware that was the distinction the term was based on. My apologies.

Tom Johnson,
Now you are making three separate arguments. The first is to interpret Canon 6 to be meaningless and then interpret Canons 20/21 to get you where you want to go. I've already addressed that one, and you don't agree.
The second argument you are making is that there is 1900 years of tradition or custom. You have not responded to the fact that more than longevity is required for a custom to acquire the force of law. It is not enough to say that the longevity is really, really long.
The third argument is that the Scripture reference to it has acquired the force of law. This has never been the Church's understanding, as far as I know. Additionally, if this argument were correct, the 1917 Code provision was superfluous.

Brother,
Correction to last post:
Brother,
I will add that when we examine the other Canons relating to customs, the case for NOT wearing veils because non-existent imo. The case for not wearing veils rests on one Canon (6), while the case for wearing veils rests on many Canons (20, 21, 24.2,26,27 and 28), and upon 1,900 years of unbroken Tradition and infallible Sacred Scripture. There is not resonable case for not wearing veils, other then Catholics just don't want to wear them.

Brother,
I will add that when we examine the other Canons relating to customs, the case for NOT wearing veils because non-existent imo. The case for not wearing veils rests on one Canon (6), while the case for wearing veils rests on many Canons (20, 21, 42.2,27 and 28), and upon 1,900 years of unbroken Tradition and infallible Sacred Scripture. There is not resonable case for not wearing veils, other then Catholics just don't want to wear them.

A digression...
It's funny that Brother Cadfael mentioned civil law. Most of Europe uses the Civil Law system, but England and 49 US states are Common Law. Since the Vatican descends from Italy, it stands to reason that they are a Civil Law jurisdiction as well. This means that most of what we American lay-people think we know about canon construction is completely wrong! Those systems are like night and day.

Brother,
Canons 20 and 21, along with 1900 years and Scripture are specific clear responses. If Canons 20 and 21, along with 1900 years and Scripture won't satisfy you, then I doubt very seriously you can be satisfied.

Tom Johnson,
You hit the nail on the head in terms of why this issue continues to be so fuzzy. Canon 6 appears to end the story, until one tries to reconcile Canon 6 with several other Canons, including 20 and 21.
It's not a problem, and it's not fuzzy. The two canons don't conflict. You read Canon 6 to mean what it very clearly says it means, 1917 Code is completely abrogated. (There is simply no other meaning that Canon 6 can have. At all.) Canon 20 applies to any other laws -- no conflict with Canon 6. Canon 21 resolves any doubts (for which there are none with respect to the 1917 Code because Canon 6 is unequivocal).
In civil law jurisdictions, it is a fairly basic rule of statutory construction that a construction failing to give meaning to part of the text is unreasonable. If there is one reasonable construction that does give effect to each part of the text, that construction is the right one. I assume the same basic rules apply in a code jurisdiction.
Sadly, this is one of those situations in which the Holy See' has not given a specific response
Canon 6 is a specific, clear response. If Canon 6 won't satisfy you, then I doubt very seriously you can be satisfied.

Tim J.,
Personally, I do not think women today are being disrepectful or prideful because they do not wear veils. It has been so long that veils have not been worn, that the canons about cutoms might come into play to defend not wearing them (boy this sure gets circular--a bit tiring).
I do think the culture of the 60s and 70s was itching to break free of what they thought was an anti-woman and anti-free choice Church (they were wrong, but that is what I think they thought). It makes one wonder if satan did indeed enter the Church in those days.

Brother,
You hit the nail on the head in terms of why this issue continues to be so fuzzy. Canon 6 appears to end the story, until one tries to reconcile Canon 6 with several other Canons, including 20 and 21.
Sadly, this is one of those situations in which the Holy See' has not given a specific response (I pray they will about this issue a mny others).
Frankly, I cannot see how 1,900 years of Traditon (backed-up by Scripture) can be so easily wiped away and I seriously doubt that was the intention when the 1983 Canon was released. I think if that version of the Canon had come out in 1950, women would still be wearing veils because in those days the Church was simply not as ceaselessly challenged and dissented against as it has been post V2.

"...nobody here has accused anyone of being a bad Catholic for not wearing a veil. "
And yet we see comments like;
"By definition disobedience during the Sacrifice of the Mass is disrespect..."
"Do you have an aversion to humility and submission?..."
"I don't think we should be "seeking loopholes" but instead be humble and submissive..."
"We can argue back and forth on whether the motivation was disrespect (which you haven't refuted...)"
"Just because everyone else is disobedient isn't a valid excuse to be disobedient as well..."
"I do clearly get a sense, from the defensive tone of those who do not want to wear the veil, that this really is about women's liberation..."
"There actually is no good reason not to wear the veil. The only reason that makes any sense is pride..."
These statements certainly imply that women who do not wear the veil are disobedient, prideful, disrespectful and lacking in humility.

Tom Johnson,
Please explain how you give any effect to Canon 6 under your interpretation.

My head hurts. Please, just let the horse go softly into the dark. You've all had your say.

Quick survey:
How many of your Churches say the Archangel Michael prayer after Mass? Just curious.

Matt, now who's making the ad hominem attacks?
My return to that there's no current canon law requiring veils is only in response to the repeated "but there SHOULD be" (essence, not literal) comments that keep recurring.
That poor rocking horse.....

Mark,
You are quite correct, and I was not trying to say that the Magisterium and Pope are the same as Revelation. I was merely describing the points that converts must come to fully attach to once they become Catholic. In Protestant traditions Scripture is the typically the sole source for the faithful to rely on, that is not true in Jesus' True Church.
You are also quite correct about my "residue." I am a faithful cradle Roman Catholic and I do recall intimately many of the traditions and rituals that have been tossed away over the last 30-40 years and the Church has suffered incredibly because of it...I take no insult that I have a residue or imprint from my earlier life, and neither should anyone else.

Tom said: "Yet, the Catholic is really not a Scripture oriented faith, it is a faith that is based very strongly on Sacred Tradition, on the teachings of the Pope, on the leadership of the Magisterium and on Sacred Scripture--yet Sacred Scripture forms but one leg of the table for a Catholic."
Tom, I'm afraid you are displaying your own "residue" because you are letting your own biases and prejudices cloud your expression of the true Catholic faith. You've just built a four-legged chair when in reality the faith comes to us through two sources: Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on belongs to the Magisterium; but remember that the Magisterium is AT THE SERVICE of the divine stream of revelation.
Sacred Scripture, in fact, is the soul of sacred theology, of preaching, catechetics and all Christian instruction: ""For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." Ultimately, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are so interrelated that it can be said there is only ONE source for the Christian life: the Gospel, the Word of God.

-except that they didn't wear veils, they wore HATS.

"And we have those who seem to agree that it is not required, but then insist that if a woman refuses to wear it, she is a Bad Catholic..."
Tim,
this is just not true... nobody here has accused anyone of being a bad Catholic for not wearing a veil. Speaking in favor of a practice does not in any way impune those who don't follow it. Can we not discuss such a matter objectively without people getting their underwear in a knot???
"It was just as wrong for that woman to criticize you for wearing a veil as it is for those on this thread who criticize those of us who don't. "
Mary Kay,
who criticized you for not wearing a veil? People here are speaking in favor of the practice, instead of looking at it objectively, you read that as a slight against you because you don't. That's not a very reasonable way to have a discussion. Allena's suggestion was spoken in a very charitable way, she's trying to tell you that it doesn't matter whether it's canon law or not, and it's not about fashion. You seem to think that it only matters if it's obligatory, that's just wrong.

Brother,
Canon Law appears to address doubts about Canon 20, in Canon 21:
Canon 21: "In a case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws must be related to the earlier ones and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them."
In other words, we cannt presume that pre-existing law has been revoked, because later laws must be related to the earlier ones and they must harmozie with them.
Further, Canon Law "must" be interpreted in the light of tradition, and wearing veils has had continuous place in tradition since the early Church. IMO, there is no excuse for the custom/tradition of wearing veils to be dropped.

Brother,
Canon 20: "A later law abrogates, or derogates, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise."
==> The law governing wearing veils was not expressly removed as this canon states so clearly it must. It doesn't get much more specific than that, and any argument to the contrary I've seen tortures -- and I do mean tortures -- the otherwise plain meaning of the text.

Here is what I think is a major "bottom line" for those us think veils should still be worn:
--Scripture contains very strong language in support of wearing veils.
--1,900+ years of Church law/custom/tradition reflects that veils were worn.
--Current Canon Law is fuzzy at best about this issue.
--The Holy See' has not spoken definitively about this matter.
--No reason, that I have ever heard or read, explains why the Church would intentionally dump a holy practice that has 1,900+ years of history and strong Scriptural support as its defense.

Tom Johnson,
Can. 6 §1. When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated:
1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.
It doesn't get much more specific than that, and any argument to the contrary I've seen tortures -- and I do mean tortures -- the otherwise plain meaning of the text.

Brother,
Do not forge that the 1983 Canon is very clear that a previous law must be abrogated specifically. Wearing veils were omitted from Canon, not specifally removed as a requirement. That, coupled with the laws about long standing customs (veils were worn through 1983), leads me to believe veils should still be worn. Yet, I am no Canon Lawyer and would be happy to be proved wrong because it would be much more pleasant to know the Church in the United States has not been wrong for 30+ years.

Tim Brandenburg,
I agree, lay Catholics are not qualified to make proper interpretations of Canon Law, and yet even with that said the Holy See' is the final word.
I would much like to read a Canon Lawyer's view regarding the Canons related to customs. Wraing customs has the strength of 1,900 years of longevity behind it and I do not see how one can get around the canons that speak about long standing customs. Yet, I remain open to be convinced. I would, however, remind you that lawyers are also human will quite often argue their own biases and as I have said before many Canon Lawyers do not come from a time when many of these traditions/customs were still in use; therefore, their bias will be more towards interpreting against the wearing of veils.

Allena, I just read the end of your post. Since you addressed your post to me, I wonder why you include your paragraph about "rad Trad." Please note that I did not, in any way, say or infer that you were rad Trad. Please save that sort of comment for people who do.
Your last paragraph is an example of unintended provocation. Whatever you intended, it comes across as "pray for a deepening of faith so that you see that this practice outweighs the law." Not only a backhanded "you're not up to snuff," but also, you're treading on thin ice when you say that a private devotion outweighs the law.

Allena, thanks for your response. That's why I phrased it as a guess and I'll stand corrected.(digging through my pockets for my spare set of keys)
It was just as wrong for that woman to criticize you for wearing a veil as it is for those on this thread who criticize those of us who don't.
It's difficult to live in an area where a priest thumbs his nose at Catholic orthodoxy the way you described. (I hope your family found a different parish.)
It is indeed important to know what is law and what isn't. A private devotion doesn't have the weight of either canon law or Magesterial teaching. Perhaps it's best to leave it at that for now.

Oh wait, I see that Dr. Peters (who has already chimed in) is a canon lawyer (http://www.canonlaw.info/). Dr. Peters, do you have some formal authority (cites, etc.) in support of your position or perhaps a brief you have already prepared? This would be helpful.

As far as the longevity of the custom goes, it doesn't seem like that BY ITSELF can determine whether a particular practice should carry the force of canon law.
After all, men wore robes to mass for a long time before someone invented trousers. Very soon, hand-holding during the Our Father will be a long held custom (thirty years) in many places... does that give it the force of canon law?
St. Paul also said that he did not allow women to speak or to teach in church. If his teaching on head covering or the length of men's hair is to be treated as a command, shouldn't we also - for the sake of consistency - forbid women to teach?

Tom Johnson,
I think they are still requird due to the longevity of the custom.
It was not custom from 1917 through 1983, would you agree with that?
And to my understanding, more than longevity is required for a custom to become a law in any event. I have never seen the other requirements addressed.