Headcoverings and the Ontology of Canon Law

Well, I've read your comments and mine and I'm not sure exactly which part of your argument you feel I've neglected. You seem to be making two main arguments. (1) Paul's teaching on head coverings depends on culturally conditioned attitudes towards hair length, and since those don't hold for us, neither does his teaching on head coverings, and (2) because this is not a moral or dogmatic pronouncement, it's a discipline, and so subject to change according to the discretion of the magisterium, because (and I'm inferring this from your question in your last comment) (3) the necessity of head coverings isn't implied by natural law or by an analysis of human nature,

Well, I've responded to (1), (2) and (3), so help me out. Which part of your argument have I not responded to? I'm ok with us disagreeing, but I don't want us to be talking past each other. If you'd rather move on, I'm okay with that too. We've said a lot already.

/r/Catholicism Thread Parent