This is what they call a “deep tease”.
Another of the three cited opponents of the position that women must wear head coverings while praying in Church, Canonist Ed Peters, posts that responding to the argument that chapel veils are still obligatory, advanced by a canon lawyer in my previous post, is not “high enough on [his] ‘to-do’ list.” He stands by his previous position, though acknowledges reading the argument “with interest”.
UPDATE: In all sincerity, I wanted to acknowledge that Mr. Peters is undoubtedly very busy, and I am sure he does not need me to reorder his to-do list. That being said, I did want to point out for my readers, and for the record, that this makes 2 of the 3 anti-requirement proponents who have declined to refute the argument or more fully explain and bolster their previous statements in light of the pro-requirement canonist’s article. Jimmy Akin has yet to respond.
So far, nobody has taken the opportunity to seriously address the canonist’s argument in my post.
From his blog:
Chapel veils, again
In the December 8 “Saint Louis Catholic” blog, a post went up on whether women are required by canon law to wear veils in Church. Responding in part to my post on this topic some two years ago, it’s an interesting read, though I frankly think the author makes several errors. Thus I still hold that head coverings are not obligatory for women in church. Alas, the issue is not high enough on my “to-do” list to warrant writing more about it than I have, but I wanted to acknowledge reading the opinion with interest. I do wonder, though, why it had to be offered anonymously? Professionals who publish significant opinions in their field should sign their names. Or at least, that’s my practice.