In 1 Corinthians 11:16, are head coverings required, or should we just not be contentious?

Paul is saying head coverings are required, and he adds that the hair is not the covering; he means a separate head covering. Why? Because the woman is under the authority of man. Paul explains in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, giving two reasons a woman is not to teach or have authority over man: first, Adam was formed first, and whoever is created first is the one who rules; second, Eve was deceived, not Adam. Today people concentrate on the second reason and skip the first, arguing Eve should no longer be held responsible, but even if that were granted, the first reason stands. This submission is stated five times in the New Testament, once by Peter, so it is not off-the-cuff. The covering symbolizes that the woman accepts this submission, and refusing it means she wants to rule, which is exactly what we see today. The Church required this until recently, and there has been no official statement rescinding it; the 1983 Code of Canon Law says of itself that it cannot rescind a practice more than a hundred years old unless it says so specifically. The change really came from Vatican II-era talk, when Bugnini said they were discussing it, and the press ran with it, so it took on a life of its own.