have yet to have anyone (canonist or otherwise) explain to me how veiling does not come under these provisions:
The 1983 code (Canon 26) states that a custom that has been legitimately practiced for at least 30 years “obtains the force of law” and an immemorial custom (practiced over 100 years) *prevails against canonical law*…in other words, even if there were a written canon in the new code *prohibiting* head coverings, the immemorial custom would have greater weight & therefore, overrule/nullify that written law. An immemorial custom is impervious to change & therefore, binding for all time. St. Paul’s admonition for women’s heads to be covered has been in practice for almost 2000 years, so there can be no doubt it qualifies under this rule.

In addition, since Paul places this issue in the context of the liturgy, Canon 2 also applies:
“For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must
be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore,
liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of
them is contrary to the canons of the Code.”

Also,1983 Code, Canon 5, seems to mandate headcoverings even if one were to argue they aren’t considered part of the liturgy:
“Universal or particular customs beyond the law (praeter ius) which are in force until now are preserved.”