Home

Catholic Apologetics International

What’s a Woman To Do?
The Issue of Wearing Head Coverings
by Robert Sungenis

In this series of articles, I will be investigating the issues surrounding a woman’s role in the church, family and society. In the last series of my articles CFN published on biblical interpretation, we touched upon one aspect of the role of women as we discovered that the liberals of Catholic biblical scholarship have tried to convince the world that St. Paul’s mandates regarding women are his own culturally biased opinions and thus not applicable to today’s modern world. Now we are going to press deeper into the matter. In the first few articles of this present series, we will be investigating the matter of head coverings, and later we will deal with the matter of submission.

In 1 Corinthians 11:6, 7, 10, St. Paul writes: “For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man...Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels” (Douay-Rheims).

The big question for today’s modern culture is: does this Scriptural mandate apply to us? The answer that most of the prelates and parishioners of the post-conciliar church give is: “No, women are not required to wear veils today. That is an antiquated practice of the past, and today’s church has officially declared that women are no longer bound to it.”

Is any of this true? No, not one word of it, and in this series of articles I will bring forth the patristic, canonical, biblical and historical evidence to prove how badly they have been deceived. Catholic women should be wearing veils today as they did for over 1900 years at anytime they visited the inside of a Catholic church. I remember that, when I was in grade school in the early 1960s the obligation for women and girls to wear veils was so ingrained in their thinking that, if perchance one forgot their veil or hat, they would put a Kleenex on their head before they would dare set foot in the church. For some odd reason, without any official declaration from the magisterium, that practice has been virtually obliterated from the face of the earth, except, of course, among more traditionally-minded Catholic women (but even then, there are a significant number of Latin-mass women who do not wear veils, and I hope to convince them otherwise).

First, allow me to reveal why the subject of veils is so important, and why it is not “dreadful legalism,” “Phariseeism,” “fundamentalism,” and being too “scrupulous,”as the Vice-President of EWTN Theology, Colin Donovan, recently told me in an email.

If we could point to one modern innovation that has had the most damaging effect in deteriorating our present society, it is the dramatic change in the role of women: they have left wifely roles to vie as business executives; from deacon’s wives to wanna-be priests; from factory workers to fighting on the front lines; from wives in submission to those pressing for equal authority; from child-bearers to child killers. In the face of all this upheaval are Scripture’s commands, followed by a litany of ecclesiastical pronouncements for over 1900 years, that a woman is to be in subjection to her husband; that her primary duty is to raise children; and have a meek and quiet spirit. The opposite, of course, occurs when women begin to rule in the church, family and society, as the prophet Isaiah lamented in the days of Israel’s apostasy: “As for my people...women have ruled over them” (Is 3:12).

From the verses of 1 Corinthians 11:6-10 recorded above, notice that St. Paul takes great pains to get the point across about the necessity for women to wear head coverings. I did not record all the verses, but St. Paul actually takes 16 verses to explain the issue of head coverings to the Corinthians, and he does so in a context saturated with the command for a woman to be in submission to the man (1 Cor 11:1-5, 11-16). If it was such an “insignificant” issue (as Mr. Donovan assured me it was), why did St. Paul spill so much ink on the topic?

Well, let’s look at the words in 1 Cor 11:10 once again: “Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.”

First, let me clear up any confusion that might be caused by the word “power.” The word “power” was a popular Elizabethean word for “authority.” The Greek word behind both the Douay-Rheims’ and the King James’ translation is exousia, which refers to the authority that one individual or entity has over another. (Incidentally, St. Paul, being a Hebrew scholar, was most likely aware that the Hebrew root for veil, “radid” (e.g., Is 3:23), is the same Hebrew root for “subjection,” although St. Paul does not actually refer to the word “veil” in 1 Cor 11). In other words, the veil is a symbol of authority. But according to the context of 1 Cor 11, it is not a symbol of a woman’s authority, but of the husband’s authority over her, which is the reason the veil is placed on her head (as opposed to on her heart), to show that she is completely “under” his authority. This is easy to understand, since the New Testament is replete with information that the woman is to be subject to the man’s authority (cf., 1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Tim 2:11-15; Col. 3:18; Eph 5:22-33; 1 Peter 3:1-5).

Yet 1 Cor 11:10 adds that the woman should wear a covering not only for the sake of the man, but also “because of the angels.” To what might this refer? The fact is, although 1 Cor 11:1-16 is not limited to a woman’s presence in the church,1 angels are present in the sanctuary with the consecrated host, and especially during Mass when angles bring the eucharistic sacrifice to God’s altar in heaven (as we say in the canon: “may your angels bring this sacrifice to your altar in heaven”). In turn, the angels have a keen eye on the entire proceedings at Mass, including how the parishioners are conducting themselves. As St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 4:9, “we are made...a spectacle to angels,” and in Eph. 3:10: “to me...to enlighten all men, that they may see...the mystery...made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenlies.” Or as St. Peter says in 1 Peter 1:12: “things which are now declared to you...in which the angels desire to look.” St. John Chrysostom, chiding the misbehaving parishioners of his day, once said, “Know you not that you are standing in company with angels? with them you chant, with them sing hymns, and do you stand laughing? Is it not wonderful that a thunderbolt is not launched...For such behavior might well be visited with the thunderbolt” (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 24).

The angels are very sensitive regarding how “coverings” demonstrate that one is under authority, since they, in the presence of God, always cover themselves. God is uncovered, but the angels are covered (Isaiah 6:2). So too, says the Holy Spirit through St. Paul, a woman is to be veiled in the presence of her husband, for he is the image of God. So much was this mentality a part of divinely inspired teaching that St. Peter told the Catholic women of his day: “women...being in subjection to their own husbands: As Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him ‘lord’” (1 Peter 3:5-6), which, because Sarah is cited as a precedent, also tells us that the mandates from the Old Testament carry into the New, and that the principle of wifely subjection is perpetual, as St. Paul assures us by his reference to the “the law” in 1 Cor 14:34-35. Imagine what a fit Bella Abzug, Betty Freidan and Faye Waddleton would have if we told them to call their husbands “lord”!

Moreover, considering the onus that the New Testament puts on women for the spiritual predicament left to the human race after Eve’s sin (as St. Paul specifies in 1 Tim 2:14: “And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression”), it would be a wise thing for women not to offend the angels, since, if not, they will only compound their punishment.

We get a glimpse of how the angels communicate their concerns to God in the account of Jesus’ teaching on little children. He says: “See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” As you might know, we draw our Catholic teaching about Guardian Angels from passages like this. Note that Jesus shows the progression from “despising” a child to the angels who “see the face” of the Father in heaven. This tells us that the angel’s special mission is to report to the Father when one of these children is harmed. If the angels report it, it must be serious, and God will dispense His wrath accordingly upon the perpetrator; which is why Jesus also says, “...it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” In other words, it is better to suffering a horrible death than to face the eternal wrath of God. Imagine the terrible punishment being suffered by the late Fr. Goeghen from Boston, and the rest of the pedophile bishops and priests, for “despising one of these little ones.”

The necessary action of reporting the sin to God so that His wrath can be dispensed (which is similar to an imprecatory prayer, e.g., Psalm 37; Apoc 6:9-10) is noted also in the immediately following parable about the unforgiving servant. According to Mt 18:31, his unforgiving attitude results in: “his fellow servants seeing what was done, were very much grieved, and they came, and told their lord all that was done,” from which information the lord “being angry, delivered him to the torturers.” Once told of the injustice, the lord follows swiftly with punishment.

The moral of the story is this: the angels are watching us very intensely. They report to God what we are doing. Not that God does not already know what we do: rather, He is especially moved to action when His faithful ones cry out to Him for vengeance. So if a woman does not want an angel to give a bad report to God of her behavior, she best put a veil on her head. If women want their prayers heard and answered, they should make sure they wear veils, otherwise their prayers will be hindered just as a husband’s prayers are hindered for not honoring his wife (cf., 1 Cor 11:5: “But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraces her head”; 1 Peter 3:7: “giving honor to the female as to the weaker vessel and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered”).

Women, according to St. Paul, are in enough trouble already due to Eve’s sin (1 Tim 2:14); they surely don’t want to compound their judgment by repeating Eve’s sin, which was essentially the usurping of Adam’s authority, and the very reason she is told in Genesis 3:16 that her plight will be: “your desire will be to rule over your husband, but he shall rule over you.”(Stay tuned to CFN’s future installments for the Hebrew grammatical exegesis of this passage and why we can infer the word “rule” in the first clause to match the second clause).

Unfortunately, modernists have sold today’s women the proverbial swamp land in Florida. Women have been convinced that they should be “liberated,” that they should have equal authority with the man; that they should not be straddled with caring for children. But St. Paul says that the raising of children is the one sure remedy available to women to rectify the judgment from Eve’s sin, as he says in 1 Tim 2:14-15: “And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression. Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.” But, of course, today’s women are being told exactly the opposite of these truths, much of it coming from the Catholic prelature. They are told that they have the right and privilege to curtail their responsibilities to rear children (e.g., working outside the home, contraception, abortion, etc) and in doing so, they are bringing upon themselves the wrath of God, not only in this life, but the next.

So, women, if you want to avoid God’s wrath, wear a veil. It is the surest sign to God and the angels that you don’t want to repeat Eve’s sin. The blessings that will flow to you, your children, and many future generations will be beyond your imagination. God always blesses obedience. In fact, I would venture to say that, if women wore veils today, our whole society would be turned around. As the old saying goes, the one who rocks the cradle, rules the world.

Now that we have the Scriptural foundation secured, many readers are probably wondering what the popes and canon law have said on this issue. We will begin that study in the next issue of CFN, which will be quite lengthy. For now, allow me to give the precedent established by the Fathers of the Church, which they stated unanimously, on both the wearing of veils and a woman’s requirement to be in submission to her husband. In the present CFN installment, we only have room for a few quotes on veil wearing. In the next issue we will start with the patristic quotes on submission:

On Wearing Veils:

Clement of Alexandria: “For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled. They say that the wife of Aeneas, through excess of propriety, did not, even in her terror at the capture of Troy, uncover herself; but, though fleeing from the conflagration, remained veiled”(The Instructor, Book III, Ch. XI)

Augustine: “It is not as though one part of humanity belongs to God as its author and another to darkness, as some claim. Rather the part that has the power of ruling and the part that is ruled are both from God. Thus the apostle says, ‘A man certainly should not cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but a woman is the glory of man” (Against the Manichaeans, 2, 26, 40)

“We ought not therefore so to understand that man is made in the image of the supreme Trinity, that is, in the image of God, as that the same image should be understood to be in three human beings; especially when the apostle says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: ‘For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.’ What then shall we say to this? If the woman fills up the image of the trinity after the measure of her own person, why is the man still called that image after she has been taken out of his side? Or if even one person of a human being out of three can be called the image of God, as each person also is God in the supreme Trinity itself, why is the woman also not the image of God? For she is instructed for this very reason to cover her head, which be is forbidden to do because he is the image of God....”

“But because too great a progression towards inferior things is dangerous to that rational cognition that is conversant with things corporeal and temporal; this ought to have power on its head, which the covering indicates, by which it is signified that it ought to be restrained. For a holy and pious meaning is pleasing to the holy angels. For God sees not after the way of time, neither does anything new take place in His vision and knowledge, when anything is done in time and transitorily, after the way in which such things affect the senses, whether the carnal senses of animals and men, or even the heavenly senses of the angels” (On the Trinity, Bk XII, Ch 7).

Ambrosiaster: “The veil signifies power, and the angels are bishops” (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles, Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum 81:122).

“This was the church’s tradition, but since the Corinthians were ignoring it, Paul made his appeal to nature.” (Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum 81:124).

Ambrose: [On 1 Cor 11:14-16]: One act is becoming to a man, another to a woman...How unsightly it is for a man to act like a woman!” (Letter to Layman, 78; FC 26:436).

Chrysostom: “Being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. It induces the woman to be humble and preserve her virtue, for the virtue and honor of the governed is to dwell in obedience” (Homilies on First Corinthians, 26, 5).

“For this cause He left it to nature to provide her with a covering, that even of it she might learn this lesson and veil herself.” (Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily XIV, verse 6).

“A woman does not acquire a man’s dignity by having her head uncovered but rather loses her own. Her shame and reproach thus derive from her desire to be like a man as well as from her actions” (Homilies on First Corinthians, 25, 4).

“No governor should come before the king without the symbols of his office. Such a person would never dare to approach the royal throne without his military girdle and cloak, and in the same way, a man who approaches the throne of God should wear the symbols of his office, which in this case is represented by having one’s head uncovered” (Homilies on First Corinthians 26, 4).

“To oppose this teaching is contentiousness, which is irrational. The Corinthians might object, but if they do so, they are going against the practice of the universal church.” (On 1 Cor 11:14-16; Homilies on First Corinthians, 26, 5).

Jerome: “It is usual in the monasteries of Egypt and Syria for virgins and widows who have vowed themselves to God and have renounced the world and have trodden under foot its pleasures, to ask the mothers of their communities to cut their hair; not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command” (Letter CXLVII:5).

Tertullian: “To her, then, to whom it is equally unbecoming to be shaven or shorn, it is equally becoming to be covered.” (On the Veiling of Virgins, Chap VII)

“Behold two diverse names, Man and Woman ‘every one’ in each case: two laws, mutually distinctive; on the one hand (a law) of veiling, on the other (a law) of baring.” (On The Veiling Of Virgins 1).

“What is the meaning of the expression ‘every woman’ except women of every age, every rank and every circumstance? No one is excepted.” (On Prayer, 22, 4, on 1 Cor 11:5)

“It is on account of the angels, he says, that the woman’s head is to be covered, because the angels revolted from God on account of the daughters of men” (On Prayer, 22, 5).

“Thus he says concerning the veiling of women: ‘Does not nature teach you this?’ Again, in saying in his letter to the Romans that the Gentiles do by nature what the law prescribes, he hints at the existence of natural law and a nature founded on law” (The Chaplet 6, 1; FC 40:242).

Pope Linus: Elected in 67 A.D. as the second Pope of the Catholic Church, he died in 76 A.D. and is buried near the tomb of St. Peter. The Liber Pontificalis states that “Pope Linus forbade women to enter a church with uncovered heads.”

End for CFN

In the last issue of CFN we covered the Scriptural mandates and the patristic teachings of the requirement for women to wear veils. We saw that the mandate and practice was well-established in the beginning of the Church. (And yes, surprise, surprise, it never stopped until the 1970s, and without any official magisterial statement to do so).

Now, before we get back to the subject of veil-wearing, I would first like to continue our investigation by citing patristic teachings which show a consensus among the Fathers that the woman is to be submissive to the man. This is important for us to cover because not only is it intimately connected to veil-wearing, but today’s prelature is consistently trying to water down the traditional and biblical teaching of submission. Today we hear a lot of talk about “mutual submission” - a topic we will cover in depth in future CFN articles. You won’t find such teachings among the Fathers, or the Medievals, since they all knew that submission to authority was the backbone of a healthy Church and society. Below are just some of the quotes from the Fathers and Thomas Aquinas on this subject:

Ignatius: “...and one Church which the holy apostles established from one end of the earth to the other by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat and toil; it behooves you also, therefore, as ‘a peculiar people, and a holy nation,’ to perform all things with harmony in Christ. Wives, be ye subject to your husbands in the fear of God; and ye virgins, to Christ in purity, not counting marriage an abomination, but desiring that which is better, not for the reproach of wedlock, but for the sake of meditating on the law” (To the Philadelphians, Ch 4).

Augustine: “For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man” (Against the Manichaeans 2, 12, 16)

“Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man;’ and, ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.’ So also the Apostle Peter writes: ‘Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord’” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Bk 1, Ch 10).

“For the name of Christ is on the lips of every man: it is invoked by the just man in doing justice, by the perjurer in the act of deceiving, by the king to confirm his rule, by the soldier to nerve himself for battle, by the husband to establish his authority, by the wife to confess her submission, by the father to enforce his command, by the son to declare his obedience, by the master in supporting his right to govern, by the slave in performing his duty...” (Letters, CCXXXII)

“Nor can it be doubted that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’ [1 Cor 11:3]; and ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’” (On Marriage and Concupiscence 1, 9, 10, NPNF1 5:267).

Clement of Alexandria: “The ruling power is therefore the head. And if ‘the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,’ the man, ‘being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.’ Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, ‘Subjecting, ourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh.’ And in that to the Colossians it is said, ‘Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord’” (Stromata, Bk 4, Ch 8).

Chrysostom: “Wives be subject to your husbands” he writes to wives: “That is, be subject for God’s sake, because this adorns you, Paul says, not them. For I mean not that subjection which is due to a master nor yet that alone which is of nature but that offered for God’s sake” (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 12:304).

“Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity...To love therefore, is the husband’s part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield.” (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304).

“‘Subjecting yourselves one to another,’ he says, ‘in the fear of Christ.’ For if thou submit thyself for a ruler’s sake, or for money’s sake, or from respectfulness, much more from the fear of Christ...rather it were better that both masters and slaves be servants to one another...Thus does God will it to be, for he washed his disciples’ feet" (Homilies on Ephesians, Homily XIX, NPNF1, 142).

“Then after saying, ‘The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is of the Church,’ he further adds, ‘and He is the Saviour of the body.’ For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then ‘the Church,’ that is, both husbands and wives, ‘is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.’ For she is the body, not to dictate to the head, but to submit herself and obey.” (Homilies on Ephesians 5:22).

“Wherefore, saith he, ‘Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.’...For if it is their duty to be in subjection ‘as unto the Lord,’ how saith He that they must depart from them for the Lord’s sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounded duty...For he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, ‘withstandeth the ordinance of God (Rom 13:2), much more does she who submits not to her husband. Such was God’s will from the beginning.” (Homilies on Ephesians, NPNF1, 143-144).

Ambrosiaster: As the church takes its beginning from Christ and therefore is subject to him, so too does woman take hers from the man and is subject to him.” (CSEL 81.3:117-118).

Epiphanius: “And the apostolic word has also escaped their notice: ‘I do not permit a woman to teach in such a way as to exercise authority over men. She is to preserve the virtue of quietness.’ And again, ‘For man is not from the woman, but woman from man.’” (Panarion, 49, 3).

Serverian: Since man did not make woman, the question here does not concern the origin of woman. Rather it concerns only submission. (Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, 15:260).

“For just as God has nobody over him in all creation, so man has no one over him in the natural world. But a woman does - she has man over her” (Pauline Commentary, 15:261).

Theodoret: “Paul is particularly concerned here with believing women who are married to unbelieving men: thus, their subjection is in service to the Lord, that is, as the Lord commands.” (Interpretation of the Letter to the Colossians PG 82:621A).

“Man has the first place because of the order of creation” (Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 234).

Tertullian: “Do you go forth (to meet them) already arrayed in the cosmetics and ornaments of prophets and apostles; drawing your whiteness from simplicity, your ruddy hue from modesty; painting your eyes with bashfulness, and your mouth with silence; implanting in your ears the words of God; fitting on your necks the yoke of Christ. Submit your head to your husbands, and you will be enough adorned” (On the Apparel of Women, Ch XIII).

“Now, when I find to what God belong these precepts, whether in their germ or their development, I have no difficulty in knowing to whom the apostle also belongs. But he declares that ‘wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands:’ what reason does he give for this? ‘Because,’ says he, ‘the husband is the head of the wife.’ Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: ‘even as Christ is the head of the Church;’ and again, in like manner: ‘He who loves his wife, loves his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church" (Tertullian Against Marcion, Ch XVIII).

Origen: “First, if our prophetesses have spoken, show us the signs of prophecy in them. Second, even if the daughters of Philip did prophesy [Acts 21:8-9], they did not do so inside the church. Likewise in the Old Testament, although Deborah was reputed to be a prophetess [Judges 4:4], there is no indication that she ever corporately addressed the people in the way that Isaiah or Jeremiah did. The same is true of Huldah [2 Kings 22:14].” (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4, 74, 6-16).

Thomas Aquinas: “For though the wife be her husband's equal in the marriage act, yet in matters of housekeeping, the head of the woman is the man, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:3).” (Summa Theologica, Treatise on the Theological Virtues, Question 32, Article 8).

“For the higher reason which is assigned to contemplation is compared to the lower reason which is assigned to action, and the husband is compared to his wife, who should be ruled by her husband, as Augustine says (De Trinitate xii,3,7,12).” (Summa Theologica, Treatise on Gratuitous Grace, Question 128, Article 4).

“The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 14:34): ‘Let women keep silence in the churches,’ and (1 Timothy 2:12): ‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’ Now this pertains especially to the grace of the word. Therefore the grace of the word is not becoming to women. I answer that, Speech may be employed in two ways: in one way privately, to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this respect the grace of the word may be becoming to women; in another way, publicly, addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted to women. First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Genesis 3:16" (Summa Theologica, Question 177, Article 2).

Canon Law and Head Coverings:

Most of the objections raised by modernist Catholics are based on the idea that the new code of canon law issued in 1983 under John Paul II does not reiterate the specific mandate for women to wear head coverings that appeared in the 1917 code of Canon Law, and therefore there is no longer any obligation for them to do so. The 1917 code says:

“Men, in a church or outside a church, while they are assisting at sacred rites, shall be bear-headed, unless the approved mores of the people or peculiar circumstances of things determine otherwise; women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed especially when they approach the table of the Lord.”

The modernist further argues that, Canon 6 of the new 1983 code abrogates the 1917 code, and therefore, any commands given in the 1917 code are not applicable after 1983. Canon 6 states:

“When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: (1) the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.”

On the surface, this seems like a solid case for the plaintiff, but as Solomon teaches us in the Proverbs: “He who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Pro. 18:17).

First, irrespective of what either the 1917 or 1983 code say in this matter, the fact remains that women donning head coverings as they entered the Church has its roots in tradition, and it continued unabated for almost two millennia until it suddenly fell into disuse in the 1970s (coincident with the Women’s Liberation movement, just so no one forgets). Hence, the 1917 code was merely reiterating, and putting into more specified and legal form, what the Church already knew from Scripture and the Fathers, and which she was faithfully practicing. Similar to the Women’s Liberation movement of the 1970s, however, already in 1917, the rise of the Women’s Suffrage movement was convincing some Catholic women that they need not follow the practices of the traditional Church. In answer, the 1917 code reminded them of their ecclesiastical obligations. Nothing had changed as far as the Church was concerned. Unfortunately, by the time of the 1970s, the Church had bowed sufficiently enough to the pressure from women’s liberation groups, which by this time had seeped far and wide into the Church, and thus, weakened as she was, she failed to follow the lead of the 1917 code.

Second, it goes without saying, and is merely a matter of procedure, that a new code of canon law supercedes and abrogates a former code, since there cannot be two legal entities competing against one another. Legally speaking, only one entity can be the authority. It was the same with the New Covenant that replaced the Old Covenant. The New Testament is clear that, legally speaking, the New Covenant completely abrogated the Old Covenant (cf., Hebrews 7:18; 8:7, 13; 9:15; 10:9). We are not legally bound to obey any of the laws in the Old Covenant.

Ah, but here is the catch. Although the New Covenant, on a legal basis, supercedes the Old Covenant, nevertheless, it continues to borrow from and promote the legal principles contained in the Old Covenant, which is why the New Testament writers consistently cite Old Testament laws and practices as being applicable, in principle, in the New Testament (cf., 1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:13-14; 5:18; 1 Peter 3:6, etc). The New Covenant takes from the Old all the things that were good, for as St. Paul reminds us, “the law is holy, and the commandments are holy and righteous and good” (Rom. 7:11).

All legal enterprises work the same way. For example, in a court of law, although former cases have no legal authority upon the case presently being argued, still, an attorney can cite previous legal decisions as “precedent” to help the judge or the jury decide the case at hand. Hence, what was decided in previous times has, in principle, a huge bearing on how the court will decide the issue. Unless there is some overwhelming reason to reject the legal tradition, it will be the most influential source in arriving at a decision.

So, we would not then be surprised to see in the 1983 code of canon law the same respect for previous laws and customs. In fact, the 1983 code goes out of its way to accommodate them. For example, canon 20 states:

“A later law [laws in the 1983 code] 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.”

Here we see that the 1983 code puts limits around itself in relation to previous canon law. Apparently, the 1983 code will not allow itself to automatically “abrogate” an earlier law unless the 1983 code: (1) “states so expressly,” (2) makes a statement about that law which “is directly contrary to it,” or (3) “reorders the entire matter.” With regard to the issue of women wearing veils, none of these three things were done in the 1983 code.

Just so we know we are on the right track, canon 21 reinforces the meaning and extent of canon 20. It states:

“In case of doubt [e.g., about the application of veil wearing], 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.”

Very interesting, no? Far from totally disavowing itself from the 1917 code, if the 1983 code is silent on an issue, it requires that we not presume that a previous law was revoked, and, in fact, the 1983 code says it “must be related to” and “must be harmonized with” the 1917 code.

Granted, as we have seen earlier, on a legal basis the 1983 code “abrogates” the 1917 code, but it is clear that, the 1983 imposes a legal stipulation on itself, a stipulation which requires it to consult with the 1917 code so that the final decision on a given issue will be in harmony with, not opposed to, the 1917 code. This would be especially applicable in regards to an ancient and scriptural practice such as veil-wearing - a practice that continued uninterrupted for over 1900 years in the Church.

Canon Law in Regards to Liturgy:

Now, let’s attack this from another angle using the built-in legal stipulations found in the 1983 code. Since the 1917 code made veil-wearing part of the liturgy due to the fact that women could not pray with their head uncovered at Mass, and men could not pray with their head covered, we can use the canonical laws regarding liturgy to address this issue. For example, Canon 2 says:

“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.”

Here we see that the 1983 code is admitting that it has not “defined” many of the things that take place in “liturgical actions.” Since veil-wearing is a liturgical action, then it follows that, since the 1983 code does not address veil-wearing, “therefore” the “law” of veil-wearing is “in force until now” and “retains its force “unless…contrary to the canons of the code,” and obviously it is not contrary, since the 1983 code does not address veil-wearing.

Canon Law in Regards to Custom:

Now, let’s attack this problem from yet another angle afforded to us by the self-imposed limitations of the 1983 code. Title II of the 1983 code has six canons in regards to “custom.” Custom is important in Catholic legal code for two reasons:

First, as Canon 27 says, “Custom is the best interpreter of laws.” This means that, even though canon law is its own legal entity, it is not an end in itself, since it must be interpreted in accordance with tradition, and, as we saw above, it must “harmonize” with previous law.

Second, if an act is practiced long enough in the Catholic Church, then it assumes what the code calls “the force of law,” and it becomes a law, in itself, without having to be validated by or connected to a canonical law. Regardless whether the custom enters or leaves canon law (as it did in 1917 and 1983, respectively), it remains a custom, for custom, legally speaking, is totally distinct from canon law. In fact, so strong is custom that, if the custom has been practiced for 100 years or longer, then not even a canonical law can nullify it. We find this law regarding customs stated in two of the 1983 codes:

Canon 26 says: “Unless the competent legislator has specifically approved it, a custom contrary to the canon law now in force or one beyond a canonical law obtains the force of law only if it has been legitimately observed for thirty continuous and complete years. Only a centenary [100 years] or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.”

Now, ask yourself the question: Before the 1917 code had included veil-wearing as part of canon law, how many years did the Church practice the custom of veil-wearing? Answer: since the practice of veil-wearing was never interrupted after St. Paul gave the original scriptural command in 1 Cor 11, and since we have seen the Fathers and Medievals give their unanimous consent to its perpetuation, it is not difficult to see that veil-wearing must be an “immemorial custom” in the eyes of the 1983 code. As such, it is impervious to abrogation.

In fact, as the 1983 code puts it, practices such as veil-wearing could even “prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.” Of course, at this point I am arguing hypothetically in order to emphasize my point because, in fact, there is no canon in the 1983 code which “prohibits” veil-wearing, and thus the thrust of Canon 26 is all the more forceful. I hope you see my logic.

This is the glory of the Catholic Church - tradition holds sway. Perhaps THAT is why the 1983 code doesn’t mention anything about veil-wearing, since its author knew that mentioning it would be superfluous in light of the traditional safe guards built around immemorial customs. Ironically, what the modernist thinks is a non-obligation due to silence, is, in fact, silence due to obligation.

That the force of law associated with centenary or immemorial laws is virtually impregnable is noted in two more canons. Canon 5.1 states: “…contrary customs are…considered suppressed unless the Code expressly provides otherwise or unless they are centenary or immemorial customs…” and Canon 28 says: “…a contrary custom…unless it [the code] makes express mention of them, however, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs…” So we see that, even if a custom is “contrary” to the new code, centenary and immemorial customs have virtual immunity from being reversed unless the code specifically says otherwise. Again, I am making a hypothetical argument in order to overemphasize the point, since (a) veil-wearing is not a “contrary” custom but a 1900 year old tradition backed up by divine commands in Scripture, and (b) veil-wearing is not specifically addressed, let alone abrogated, in the 1983 code. In other words, if “contrary” customs possess a certain amount of immunity, imagine how much immunity non-contrary customs, like veil-wearing, possess!

So far, we’ve covered all the bases that canon law has to offer. Things don’t look good for the modernist Church. More to come, next time. (NB: I know a good place to by inexpensive veils).

Robert Sungenis

Right away we can see a problem, because the practice of Catholic women wearing veils stopped long before the 1983 code was published, which tells us that there was something else going on around this time period that forced the practice into disuse.

CFN Part III

In the last issue of CFN, we addressed the matter of Canon Law. We saw that the 1983 Code of Canon Law does not rescind the Scriptural and Traditional-based practice of head coverings for women, and, in fact, it does not even address the issue. By the 1983 code’s own admission, if the issue is not addressed, then one cannot presume that the code has rescinded the practice, let alone seen as tampering with or antithetical to “immemorial customs” such as head coverings for women

Because of its self-imposed limitation, when in the 1983 code John Paul II says:

“Therefore, in promulgating the Code today, I am full aware that this act is an expression of pontifical authority and therefore is invested with a primatial character” (p. xxix),

this means, unless he officially decides to rewrite the code, John Paul II is bound by what he himself put in the 1983 code. Thus he is bound to abide by the rule of “customs” as outlined in canons 23-28; by the stipulation in canon 2 regarding the continuity of liturgical practices; and the stipulations in canons 5, 20 and 21 regarding the limits and proper interpretation of canon law. Because of these things, it can be safely said that there has been no official change in the traditional teaching on head coverings.

If this is the case, then how did the traditional practice fall into disuse in our generation? Was it because of a misinterpretation of the 1983 code of canon law? Hardly, for most Catholic women had already dispensed with head coverings long before the 1983 code was published. In fact, they began putting their hats on the shelf shortly after the closure of Vatican II some twenty years earlier. As nuns were leaving their convents and priests were leaving their parishes and students were leaving their seminaries, so women were leaving their traditional role as submissive wives to their husbands. The discarding of the veil or hat symbolized that departure. The silence of 1983 code on head coverings was merely a capitulation to the whim of the liberal Catholics who were now running the show.

As for pinpointing the possible time and cause, it is widely reported that during Vatican II a group of journalists had asked Annibale Bugnini (the prelate who was eventually exposed as a Freemason and stripped of his work at the Vatican by Paul VI) whether women would still be required to wear head coverings. Bugnini is said to have replied that the matter was not a topic of debate at the Council, but apparently, he gave some subtle indication that the matter could be open for discussion at a future date. The journalists, whether because they already had a liberal agenda to fulfill or were accidentally inferring a conclusion from what Bugnini implied, nevertheless, interpreted his remarks to mean that women would not have to wear head coverings any longer in the Catholic Church. Correct or not, their interpretation was reported in newspapers all over the world and soon hatless women became the prevalent, yet unofficial, practice. That, coupled with the fact that the 1960s was a decade of social revolution which entertained many heretofore unheard of ideas and practices, liberal bishops and priests began softening the requirement of head coverings, yet without one official word from the Vatican to do so.

As more and more Catholic woman were coming to Church functions without the traditional head covering, it wasn’t long before the Vatican was approached concerning the official teaching of the Church on this burning issue. Surprisingly, the same man who may have fomented the disuse by his off-hand comments in 1963, Annibale Bugnini, held an interview, which was subsequently reported in The Atlanta Journal of June 21, 1969, in an article titled “Women Required to Cover Head, Vatican Insists.” The article stated:

A Vatican official says there has been no change, as reported, in the Roman Catholic rule that women cover their head in church. The Rev. Annibale Bugnini, secretary of the New Congregation for Divine Worship, said the reports stemmed from a misunderstanding of a statement he made at a news conference in May. Bugnini stated: “The rule has not been changed. It is a matter of general discipline.”

Since Bugnini revealed that a statement he made in May 1969 was “misunderstood,” it stands to reason that whatever he said in1963 regarding head coverings was also “misunderstood,” since there could be little else to explain why a hoard of journalists all interpreted him as saying that head coverings would no longer be required. Knowing Bugnini’s background (a Freemason bent on changing the traditional practices of the Church, and the chief architect of the Novus Ordo Mass), what was “misunderstood” both in 1963 and 1969 was probably something that Bugnini subtly planted in the minds of the reporters. The likelihood is that someone at the Vatican got wind of Bugnini’s “misunderstood statement” and then ordered him to make it clear that the issue of head coverings “has not been changed” and “is a matter of general discipline.” Shortly thereafter, Bugnini’s anti-Catholic identity was finally exposed in that same year and Paul VI had him deported from the Vatican, but the damage had already been done. For the first time in Catholic history, women were entering the churches in droves without their head coverings, all because of Bugnini’s “misunderstood” statements to the press. Yet, it must equally be recognized that, the last official statement we have from a Vatican envoy is that, regarding head coverings for women, “the rule has not been changed [and] it is a matter of general discipline.” But hardly anyone paid attention to that clarification.

The matter of head coverings did not come up again (and never has come up again since) except for a brief mention by Paul VI in his apostolic letter of 1975, Inter Insignores. The main topic of Inter Insignores, however, was not head coverings, but the role of women in the church, particularly the prohibition of women to the priesthood. In the letter, of which I will underline the pertinent parts, Paul VI writes:

Another objection [to ordaining women as priests] is based upon the transitory character that one claims to see today in some of the prescriptions of Saint Paul concerning women, and upon the difficulties that some aspects of his teaching raise in this regard. But it must be noted that these ordinances, probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on their head (1 Cor 11:2-16); such requirements no longer have a normative value. However, the Apostle's forbidding of women to speak in the assemblies (1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Ti, 2:12) is of a different nature, and exegetes define its meaning in this way: Paul in no way opposes the right, which he elsewhere recognizes as possessed by women, to prophesy in the assembly (1 Cor 11:15); the prohibition solely concerns the official function of teaching in the Christian assembly. For Saint Paul this prescription is bound up with the divine plan of creation (1 Cor 11:7; Gen 2:18-24): it would be difficult to see in it the expression of a cultural fact. Nor should it be forgotten that we owe to Saint Paul one of the most vigorous texts in the New Testament on the fundamental equality of men and women, as children of God in Christ (Gal 3:28). Therefore there is no reason for accusing him of prejudices against women, when we note the trust that he shows towards them and the collaboration that he asks of them in his apostolate.

Although Paul VI’s statement appears to demote the status and requirement of head coverings, such a conclusion cannot be based on the format and the content of Paul VI’s words for the following reasons:

1) Paul VI’s main topic, and the one to which he appears to be making a definitive decision for the Church, is the issue of ordaining women to the priesthood, not head coverings. The issue of head coverings is added only to serve as evidence that St. Paul was not a misogynist or that he did not have “prejudices against women.” Thus, Paul VI is not making a decision on whether women should wear head coverings. Moreover, the rule of interpreting magisterial documents is this: unless the magisterium is addressing the specific topic in question and intends on giving a definitive decision on that topic, than that topic is not being officially addressed and no formal decision regarding its validity is being decided.

In effect, no one can appeal to Inter Insignores to support the contention that the Catholic Church has made an official declaration that it no longer requires head coverings for women, especially in the face of Bugnini’s statement from the Vatican six years earlier that said: “The rule has not been changed. It is a matter of general discipline.” An interlocutor may, of course, use Paul VI’s statement to demonstrate what the pope’s opinion may have been in 1975 before he studied the issue in depth, but he cannot refer to it as an official teaching of the Church. No pope would want to be held to such rigorous and non-contextualized use of his words.

(2) Regarding the mind of the pope, it is obvious that Paul VI did not want to have his words regarding head coverings interpreted as official Church teaching, since he is careful to say that such ordinances were “probably inspired by the customs of the period.” By using the word “probably,” it is clear that Paul VI is giving a personal opinion on the origin and nature of head coverings, which opinion, in fact, is quite dubious, since there is little evidence to support such an assertion, The fact that the wearing of head coverings was practiced for the 1975 years prior to Paul VI’s opinion means that the preponderant teaching and practice of the Church did not see it as merely a “custom of the period” to be discontinued in any of the remaining nineteen centuries. Accordingly, as we noted earlier, the 1983 code of canon law under John Paul II has stated quite clearly that such “customs” attain the “force of law” if they have been practiced for a sufficient amount of time (canons 23-28), and as such, they are impervious to alteration, especially from letters such as Inter Insignores in which the pope is not setting out to address the issue directly at all.

(3) This leads us to investigate just what Paul VI meant when he said “such requirements no longer have a normative value.” As we noted above, since the pope is basing the conclusion of “normative value” on the premise that head coverings were “probably inspired by the customs of the period,” then, by virtue of the indecisiveness of the word “probably,” his conclusion about “normative value” is based on an unproven, or even faulty, premise, and therefore the conclusion is logically invalid. The rules of logic demand that one cannot make a definitive conclusion based on a premise that is unproven.

That, coupled with the fact that the mind of all the popes previous to Paul VI understood head coverings, indeed, to have “normative value” by the mere fact that the Church, long after the first century, continued the practice of requiring women to wear head coverings, then the tradition and the custom have been established, and a conscientious post-conciliar apologist would certainly not want to put Paul VI in the position of appearing to create an official Church teaching against an immemorial tradition. If the apologist does not take such precautions, it would necessitate that, after the first century, head coverings had no “normative value” because, being merely a “custom of the period,” the patristic and medieval Church were mistaken in not seeing the practice as a mere first century idiosyncracy, and thus mistaken in requiring all its women to abide by such a superfluous practice for nearly two thousand years. This is precisely the dilemma of the modern Catholic apologist - he must constantly cut off his nose to spite his face, and in the process he distorts the whole image.

(4) Since in Inter Insignores Paul VI does not cover the issue of head coverings in any depth whatsoever, but, to be quite candid, makes unproven assumptions that should not be used in proving his case against ordaining women, we do a disservice to him and to the Church if we attempt to use his cursory statements on head coverings as an official teaching of the Church. Unfortunately, many post-conciliar apologists do this very thing. It is almost as if they are looking for an excuse to get around the clear teachings and warnings in 1 Corinthians 11 and the traditional Church.

In light of Paul VI’s imprecise opinions regarding head coverings in Inter Insignores, we must consider that, besides his own modernistic leanings, Paul VI was surrounded by liberal exegetes of Scripture who, based on the Protestant-based exegetical methodology of Historical Criticism (which our clerics wasted no time enthroning in Catholic academia), were constantly feeding him non-traditional interpretations of Scripture. A good example of how liberals permeated the curia can be gleaned from the events leading up to Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1969. The pope assigned 68 clerics to discuss the issue of contraception, after which they were to offer him their conclusions. Of the 68, only 4 were against contraception. Obviously, the other 64, if they had the authority, would have given women full right to practice artificial birth control. We all know, of course, that when the final decision had to be made Paul VI was guided by the Holy Spirit to make the right one, despite what he may have believed previously or what he was convinced to believe from the 64 dissenters. The tradition was clear: contraception was wrong, and Paul VI could not go against it. Interestingly enough, the tradition is just as clear on head coverings, and it is an issue directly addressed by Scripture and the Fathers but, unfortunately, Paul VI did not write an encyclical on that issue.

Hence, it is quite likely that Paul VI’s cursory statement on head coverings in Inter Insignores was not what he himself originated regarding the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11; rather, it was the product of liberal exegetes who were at that time promulgating such innovative ideas. Not only is this suggested by Paul VI’s direct reference in Inter Insignores to “exegetes” who had conferred with him, but it is also evident if one reads the literature on the issue of head coverings and other related issues during the 1970s, both in Catholic and Protestant camps. Women’s issues were one of the hottest topics of the 1970s, and the liberals were making quite an impact with their new-fangled interpretations of Scripture. The books advocating a reinterpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 and which were advising that head coverings were passé, became the first shots across the bow in this ongoing war between liberals and traditionalists concerning the role of women in the Catholic Church. These interpretations not only went against 2000 years of Catholic tradition but also 2000 years of Old Testament tradition. In Old Testament times, uncovering a woman’s head was seen as a way of humiliating her or punishing her (cf., Numbers 5:12-18, Isaiah 3:16-17, Song of Solomon 5:7). Even in late second millennium BC, a Hebrew woman would never consider entering the Temple without a head covering.

Today, however, in light of all the other signs of a generation who has lost faith in God, liberals claim that such proscriptions of Scripture are based on cultural biases of the times. For the same reason, this is precisely why the Scriptural mandates against homosexuality simply no longer resonate with modernist exegetes. They have dismissed these prohibitions as outdated and archaic remnants from the past.

One of the favorite scriptural verses of liberal exegetes is Galatians 3:28. Whenever the need arises to put a damper on any scriptural passages requiring women to come under certain restrictions or authority, the liberals will invariably cite Galatians 3:28 as their immunity from such mandates. Everything from advancing the cause for women priests, to Eucharistic ministers, to altar girls, to chancellors at diocesan chanceries, heads of parish councils, and many other modern ecclesiastical inventions, have all been based on St. Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28. Unfortunately, not only do these interpretations make St. Paul contradict himself against other passages he wrote, but they totally divorce Galatians 3:28 from its historical and theological context. Galatians 3:28 was never used in Church history the way it is being used today by the modernists in the post-conciliar era. Suffice it to say, Galatians 3:28 is one of the most abused and misunderstood passages in all of Scripture.

But that is a big subject, and we’ll have to save it for next time. Suffice it to say for now, there has hardly been a discussion concerning head coverings in the post-conciliar Church, let alone an official recision of the previous canonical mandates. Annibale Bugnini, the then secretary of the New Congregation for Divine Worship and Vatican envoy, said himself in 1969: “The rule has not been changed. It is a matter of general discipline.” So be it.

End for CFN 9-10-04

In the previous issue of CFN, we discussed the causes for the disuse of head coverings. We looked specifically at the statements of Annibale Bugnini who in the 1960s was the secretary of the New Congregation for Divine Worship and Vatican envoy. He stated in unequivocal terms: “The rule has not been changed. It is a matter of general discipline.” We also analyzed Paul VI’s statements in the letter Inter Insignores and discovered there was no abrogation of the law on head coverings. In fact, although I failed to mention it last time, another reason Paul VI did not rescind the requirement for head coverings is that Inter Insignores was written in 1975 when the 1917 code of canon law (which mandated head coverings) was still in effect.

We left off citing Galatians 3:28, a passage which has become the sine qua non of the neo-modernist movement. It is probably the most quoted verse in neo-modernist literature in their relentless pursuit to overturn traditional Catholic doctrine and practice. That being the case, we are going to examine Galatians 3:28 in detail. We will discover that the neo-modernists don’t have a leg to stand upon.

Let’s look at the verse and some of the surrounding context:

26 For through faith you are all children of God in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is no male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendant, heirs according to the promise. (NAB)

Based on verse 28, the neo-modernist asserts that, because St. Paul says “there is no male and female,” he means that the historic distinctions between the sexes have been eliminated in the areas of family, culture, church and government. No longer, they claim, are societal and ecclesiastical functions and positions to be based on gender. As we all know, the neo-modernist’s ultimate quest is to get women into the Catholic priesthood. The neo-conservative will not go quite that far, but nevertheless, he views Galatians 3:28 as opening up a whole host of prerogatives that women did not possess previously.

In a recent letter exchange I had with EWTN’s Vice President of Theology, he asserted that Galatians 3:28 is so powerful a verse that is has spawned the “liturgical renewal and...theological and anthropological personalism of the Second Vatican Council.” Although as an EWTN spokeman he does not advocate the interpretation that women can be priests, nevertheless, he believes Galatians 3:28 allows women to participate in other priest-like activities such as, being present on the altar during the consecration; distributing the Eucharist; serving as altar girls; giving “reflections” from the pulpit during the homily, having authoritative roles in religions education, the chancery, universities and seminaries, and other authoritative or ecclesiastical functions.

The problem with his view is that it has absolutely nothing to do with Galatians 3:28.

First, let’s pose this simple question: If Galatians 3:28 is the watershed verse the EWTN spokeman asserts it to be, why don’t we read of St. Paul elevating it to the same status? Is there any place in his epistles St. Paul introduces a new or significant ecclesiastical role for women, or even claims to do so based on the teaching of Galatians 3:28? The answer, I can assure you, is a resounding no. Galatians was one of St. Paul’s earliest epistles, superceded only by 1 Thessalonians. Hence, if St. Paul, in some subtle way, was teaching that there should be a new functionary role for women in Galatians 3:28, why did he then reverse this teaching in his latter letters, such as 1 Corinthians? Remember, in 1 Cor 1:3-16 St. Paul says that women must have their head covered to show they are under the authority of men. This is the same St. Paul who in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 told women to keep quiet at Mass, so much so that if they wanted to ask a question they should they should wait to ask their husbands at home, adding that this is not his mandate but exists both in “the law” and was a direct “command of the Lord.” It is the same St. Paul who, years later while he was a prisoner in Rome, wrote 1 Tim. 2:11-15, which told women to be in submission to the man because Adam was “formed first” and “Eve, being deceived was in the transgression.” Moreover, although Paul and Peter certainly had their skirmishes (cf., Galatians 2:10f), they had no disagreement on the role of women, since we find St. Peter in 1 Pet. 3:1-5 telling women to obey their husbands, modeling themselves after Sarah who lived 4000 years ago and obeyed her husband calling him “lord.”

So how does EWTN see a whole new vista of female prerogatives in ecclesiastical, familial and governmental roles for women based on Galatians 3:28? In addition to avoiding St. Paul’s other writings, in short, EWTN has committed one of the most common, but serious blunders in scriptural exegesis - they have wrenched Galatians 3:28 out of its context. Galatians 3 is not concerned at all about roles for men and women. Galatians 3 is concerned about one thing, and one thing only - salvation. As Galatians 3:10-25 clearly shows, since Christ has come, all men have the prerogative to be free from the law which had bound them in sin. Because faith replaced the law, we, the whole human race, can now be free of the law’s condemnation. Baptism makes all of us sons and daughters of God and we leave behind our status as orphans cursed under the law (Gal. 3:26-27). It is in this very context - a context dealing only with the antithesis of grace versus law - that St. Paul then says in verse 28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for we are all one in Christ.”

Interpreted in light of its context, Galatians 3:28 is teaching the same thing that St. Paul taught in Romans 2:9-11, that is, “whether Jew or Greek, God is no respecter of persons,” since he offers salvation to all people. Jew, Greek, slave, freeman, male or female, all have the opportunity to be saved and become united in Christ, for the law which separated us from Christ has been set aside (cf., Hebrews 7:18; 8:13; 10:9). Galatians 3:28 is simply not making any statements, whatsoever, about particular functions of women in the society. This is confirmed by the fact that, as St. Paul advances his discussion in the following chapter, he continues precisely with the same “grace versus law” theme with which he started the context as far back as Galatians 2:1. In fact, Paul does not say one more word about women in the entire epistle, except for an allegorical allusion to Sarah and Hagar, since they represent the very categories under discussion, that is, grace versus law.

Why do neo-modernists, then, try to use Galatians 3:28 to promote their cause? Considering all the other Pauline passages that destroy their agenda, Galatians 3:28 is the only verse they can twist well enough to give them at least a shot at deceiving the uneducated. They are well aware of the fact that every other statement St. Paul wrote in the New Testament concerning women makes a concerted effort to limit, not enhance, their functionary role in the Church. That is why you never see liberals quoting from the passages I cited above, unless, of course, they are trying to argue that those verses “cannot be applied to women today because they are culturally biased.” Galatians 3:28 is their only hope, since, a cursory reading by people who don’t know how to exegete Scripture will, with a little persuasion, produce the conclusion that St. Paul was exalting women to heights never before seen in the Church. Of course, they will also have to convince them that the Church of 1900+ years must have been asleep at the switch not to see these wonderful new “truths” that liberal exegetes have been able to glean so easily from Scripture. Thus we have the neo-modern Catholic Church - a labyrinth of faulty Scripture exegesis, combined with a virtual disdain for tradition, and hierarchs that propagate opinions disguised as official teaching to disseminate their erroneous ideas.

Be that as it may, let’s get back to the idea promoted by the EWTN spokesman, i.e., that the rise of women in ecclesiastical roles today is supported by the “the liturgical renewal and the theological and anthropological personalism of the Second Vatican Council.” If that is their assertion, then perhaps EWTN might want to investigate Vatican II a little closer. Allow me to help speed the process along. Not only does Vatican II not explicitly subscribe to EWTN’s innovative exegesis of Galatians 3:28, it only mentions the verse once in its entire sixteen documents! This is in the face of the fact that the book of Galatians is mentioned 17 times (3x in Ad Gentes, 1x in Dei Verbum, 1x in Apostolicam Actuositatem, 6x in Presbyterorum Ordinis, 3x in Gaudium et Spes, 2x in Evangelica Testifactio, and 1x in Perfectae Caritatis) but none of these references quote from or even address Galatians 3:28.

The only place Vatican II cites Galatians 3:28 is Lumen Gentium 32, but the context of the paragraph agrees with our traditional interpretation (i.e., it refers to salvation, not functionary roles in the Church), not EWTN’s. It reads:

“Therefore...sharing a common dignity as members from their regeneration in Christ, having the same filial grace and the same vocation to perfection; possessing in common one salvation, one hope and one undivided charity. There is, therefore, in Christ and in the Church no inequality on the basis of race or nationality, social condition or sex, because ‘there is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.’”

Not exactly an explicit recipe for “liturgical renewal,” is it?

EWTN might also be surprised to find out that Vatican II mentions nothing about changing the role of women in the Church. For example, it mentions nothing about female “Eucharistic ministers” or altar girls or any of the dozens of other ecclesiastical and authoritative roles that neo-modernists have virtually forced upon unsuspecting women and young girls today based on the erroneous idea that Galatians 3:28 promotes such advancement.

And while we are on the subject of Galatians 3:28, it must be noted that EWTN now interprets this passage in the same manner as do militant feminists.

Advocates of the pro-abortion Women Church consistently interpret Galations 3:28 to mean that men and women should have equal roles in priestly actions in the sanctuary - actions that immemorial Tradition have reserved to men alone.

Rabid feminists such as Rosemary Radford Ruether, Emily C. Hewitt, and others constantly misuse Galatians 3:28 to justify women lectors, altar girls and their push for women’s ordination.

It is also of great interest that EWTN would now see Galatians 3:28 as a justification for altar girls, since even Mother Angelica found the practice of altar girls abhorrent. Mother Angelica was so scandalized by the Vatican’s “permission” for altar girls, she went so far as to suggest that the document was signed without the Pope’s knowledge or approval.

Donna Steichen, in her superb book Ungodly Rage, reports that the push for altar girls comes from the result of feminist influence in the Church. The notorious liberal theologians Sister Jean Chittister and Sister Mary Kolbenschlag lobbied for altar girls as favoring the feminist agenda. Steichen reported on the 1986 “Woman in the Church” Congress that included a host of feminist speakers, and housed display-booths from organizations such as Crazy Ladies Bookshop, National Organization for Women, Pax Christi, and Bear Tribe Medicine Society. The conference contained petitions for Pope John Paul II to “speak out” for Women’s Ordination and altar girls.

Donna Steichen also wrote that the Feminist Network of organizations such as the Women’s Ordination Conference, New Ways Ministry, Women-Church Convergence, Catholics for a Free Choice, and others all encouraged Catholics to disobey the existing laws so that the Church will be “forced to legitimize altar girls, inclusive language” and other abuses.

Thus the approval of altar girls is nothing less than a feminist victory. It also defies the forceful condemnation by Pope Benedict XIV. On the absolute prohibition of altar girls, the Holy Father wrote:

"Pope Gelasius in his 9th Letter (chap. 26) to the Bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: 'Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.' We too have forbidden this practice in the same words ...." (Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Al latae Sunt, July 26, 1755, sec. 29).

How can EWTN, which is supposed to be a Catholic organization, justify altar girls, or remain silent in the face of this “approved” abuse? The sad fact is that EWTN laid down its arms in the fight against altar girls and women in the sanctuary, and now favors a Scriptural exegesis of Galatians 3:28 that conforms more to the wiles of WomanChurch than fidelity to the Catholic Church of all time.

Nevertheless, if EWTN wants to justify present-day abuses by making Vatican II its sole authority, then, for the sake of argument, to Vatican II we will go. There is, in effect, only one place where the role of women is even addressed, and it is in Gaudiem et Spes:

“At present women are involved in nearly all spheres of life: they ought to be permitted to play their part fully according to their own particular nature. It is up to everyone to see to it that woman’s specific and necessary participation in cultural life be acknowledge and fostered.” (Sec. 3, 60).

This text cannot be appealed to honestly within our present discussion since the context of this section of Gaudium et spes is not liturgical, but cultural. Neither can this text be legitimately employed to justify the innovations we see in today’s neo-modernist church - innovations that would have horrified most of the Council Fathers who signed Gaudium et spes. Besides, when Cardinal Ratzinger admits that the writings of the modernist Teilhard de Chardin exerted a wide influence on the documents of Vatican II, and particularly, he said, on the document Gaudium et spes, then we should exercise great prudence and reserve when faced with any post-Conciliar interpretation of this document that breaks with our received Tradition. But by EWTN’s interpretation of Galatians 3:28 and Vatican II one might think that the role of women was being revolutionized by St. Paul.

EWTN’s defense of its position then transitions into an appeal to philosophy and other esoteric foundations. The Vice President of theology wrote the following words to me:

In the area of marital theology we have seen a similar theological development. For centuries it was the theological and canonical practice to emphasize the distinctions of nature in societies (civil, family, Church), rather than the equal personal dignity of human individuals. From Dietrich von Hildebrand in the 1920s, through Pope Pius XI and XII, Vatican II, Paul VI and John Paul II we have seen an increasing emphasis on the personalist and supernatural dimension of realities over their natural dimension. This conforms to St. Thomas Aquinas' insight that a person is greater than a nature. This emphasis does not destroy the natures of things, such as the proper vocation of laity (of either sex) versus clergy (all male), of husband versus wife, or of man versus woman. Instead, within the bounds determined by the nature (male, female, marriage, clergy, laity etc.) it emphasizes the moral dictum that "persons are never the object of use, but only of love."

This is just another ploy of the neo-modernist mindset - to make it appear as if the traditional Church was not “personal” or did not give “equal dignity of human individuals.” EWTN makes it sound as if the Church in our day has just discovered these marvelous truths and, for the first time in history, she has begun to teach the real essence of what it is to be human; and that the Church of yesteryear was impersonal and looked upon people as objects. This is a serious indictment against our Catholic heritage.

Fortunately, EWTN’s thesis is totally baseless. By the mere citation of “Pope Pius XI and XII” they are admitting that such “personalism” already existed prior to Vatican II. Even Vatican II’s footnotes contain references traditional Church teaching on the human person, citations which cover the whole history of the Church, stemming from the early Fathers through the Council of Trent and beyond.

Similarly, EWTN’s citation of St. Thomas’ distinction between the “person” and the “nature” also proves that the Church knew of “personalism” long before John Paul II. Wasn’t it St. Thomas who was the principle architect of medieval theology long before Vatican II came along? Moreover, we will find the same demarcation between “person” and “nature” in the early Fathers. Were they not the ones who made those very distinctions in understanding the Trinity, and which they then permeated throughout Catholic life and teaching? Wasn’t it St. Augustine who wrote the “Confessions” - one of the most personable books of all time - and was he not the principle influence of the early and medieval Church? All the post-conciliar talk of “personalism” and “anthropology” has all been said before - and better - by many people in many places. Consequently, EWTN’s appeal to something “new” in Catholic teaching is nothing but a great façade.

Continuing with their new theology, the EWTN spokesman states:

With respect to marriage we find this precept, or personalist norm, present in St. Paul's discourse on marriage, "defer to one another out of reverence for Christ"... The subordination of woman to man is a subordination of love, to receive the "sacrifice" (self-gift) of the man and to render a return of love. The hierarchy of life and love within marriage, as in the Trinity, and between Christ and the Church, is thus an order of surrender, of self-gift, and NOT power....A merely natural subordination, that of authority and power, is not enough for a Christian marriage. The emphasis should be on an ordered communion of persons, and thus on deference (where principle or sin is not at stake), on collegial decision-making (where urgency is not an issue) and thus on forming a communion of heart, mind and will. The authority of the husband should be service, love and reverence, not power...This is undoubtedly more difficult to live than the natural reality, which has reigned throughout human history... However, the Church in our time is calling Christian couples to attempt to live this model of marital communion, rather than just the natural reality. I believe this theological developmental also greatly influenced the decision to drop the sign of subordination.

You probably already figured it out, but the clause “drop the sign of subordination” refers to the disuse of head coverings for women. It is fortuitous that he made this reference, for now we see just what is behind the shelving of the hats that started back in the 1960s. The removal of the head covering is the ultimate symbol of the new regime. In advancing this position, EWTN is trying to make it sound as if the Church immediately after St. Paul and up until 1983 (when the new code of canon law was published) was clueless about what Scripture taught on the true nature of authority. To EWTN, it wasn’t until the Church decided to “drop the sign of subordination” that she truly began to understand what St. Paul was actually saying in these crucial passages. (Why this crucial understanding of the text took almost 2,000 years to be revealed EWTN doesn’t explain). In fact, even Vatican II will not escape EWTN’s wrath, since, being written eighteen years before 1983, Vatican II must quote from the 1917 code of canon law that contained Canon 1262 - the canon requiring women to wear head coverings. Since Vatican II didn’t “drop the sign of subordination,” apparently EWTN thinks the Church of 1965 had a little more learning to do. Thanks to the neo-modernists in today’s Catholic Church we have finally arrived at the truth after waiting so long! What would we do without them?!

EWTN is falling into the typical “mommy” theology prevalent in the neo-modernist Church. It is one of the very reasons we see a steep rise in homosexuality, since by the redefining of the sexual roles, many men have had their masculinity emasculated and are turning into androgynous robots. Notice EWTN’s definition of authority: “The authority of the husband should be service, love and reverence, not power.” By injecting the word “power” into the explanation he is trying to win the argument by demagoguery, since his purpose is to portray husbands who take command of their wives and children as power-hungry bullies. In fact, not only has this EWTN spokesman distorted the husband’s role, he has more or less reversed the roles of husband and wife. No wonder he doesn’t think the traditional Church had the truth. If the Church of yesteryear didn’t teach that the husband’s authority was merely “service, love and reverence,” obviously EWTN is not going to find it in the Church’s traditional teaching. According to EWTN, it only appeared when the neo-modernist made the decision to “drop the sign of subordination.” In other words, EWTN’s version of a husband is one who has voluntarily relinquished his sole headship of the house. He becomes merely a waiter to service his wife’s needs, reverencing her while he is doing so. Unfortunately, this Milquetoast image is precisely the problem with modern man today.

You will notice that EWTN’s appeal to this new theology is based on “...St. Paul's discourse on marriage, ‘defer to one another out of reverence for Christ.’” The quote comes from Ephesians 5:21. Similar to what the neo-modernist does in distorting Galatians 3:28, St. Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 5:21 is one of the most abused and misunderstood passages in all of Scripture. The neo-modernist tries to overturn all of St. Paul’s teaching that wives are to be subject to their husband’s authority based on the sole verse of Ephesians 5:21. It is the source for all the talk about “mutual submission” we hear so much of today in liberal theology. I can assure you that, based on a thorough study of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium’s dogmatic teaching, EWTN’s appeal to Ephesians 5:21 can easily be shown to be nothing but a theological farce. But that is a big subject, and we’ll have to cover that next time. Until then, ladies, hold on to your hats!

End for CFN 10-10-04

In the last issue of CFN we discussed Galatians 3:28 and Vatican II. We found that neither of these sources give any directives, whatsoever, concerning new functionary roles for women in the Church.2 In this present installment we are going to analyze another Scripture passage abused by the post-conciliar modernists, Ephesians 5:21. The verse reads: “Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.” As of the mid-twentieth century, post-conciliar modernists apply this passage to husband and wife, that is, they teach that spouses are to be “mutually submissive” to one another. Although this interpretation never saw the light of day in Church tradition, one will find it saturating modernist theological literature, both Catholic and Protestant. It is one of the best examples how a simple and straightforward Scriptural passage can be twisted and distorted to such a degree that it is made to say exactly the opposite of what it intended and what it was interpreted to mean in centuries past. This upheaval of traditional understanding is made even more egregious since John Paul II has reiterated this new and erroneous interpretation in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem. It is just another example of how far afield Wojtylian modernism has attempted to move the Catholic Church. In fact, we will see that the teaching of tradition is so clear on this issue we wonder how anyone with even a modest theological background could have missed it.

Before we get into an analysis of this crucial passage we will look at one of the best examples of pre-conciliar understanding not only of Ephesians 5:21 but of the whole area of the role of women in our modern era. We don’t have to look far. Pius XI wrote a beautiful and comprehensive summation of traditional teaching on the subject of the woman’s role in society and Church in his famous encyclical Casti Connubii. I will underline Pius XI’s more pertinent statements. In the section titled “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery (74-77)” he writes:

The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away the with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further an assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs, and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological psychological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion an mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman, even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband, maybe at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the whole family of an ever-watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as among the pagans the mere instrument of man.

This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of family life.

As, however, the social and economic conditions of the married woman must in some way be altered on account of the changes in social intercourse, it is part of the office of the public authority to adapt the civil rights of the wife to modern needs and requirements, keeping in view what the natural disposition and temperament of the female sex, good morality, and the welfare of the family demands, and provided always that the essential order of the domestic society remain intact, founded as it is on something higher than human authority and the wisdom of God, and so not changeable by public laws or at the pleasure of private individuals.

As we can see, Pius XI mentions nothing about “mutual submission,” and neither did any pope, council, saint, doctor, Father or theologian before him. For Pius XI and the rest of the traditional Church, the wife is to be in submission to her husband and the husband is never said to be in submission to his wife. Moreover, in his last paragraph, Pius XI is careful to balance out the issue, teaching that women are to be given the utmost respect, but a respect that is in keeping with their God-given role as wife, mother or single servant of God.

Unfortunately, Pius XI’s teaching has all but been emasculated today. The buzz phrase among modernists and neo-conservatives is “mutual submission.” Let’s take a gander at some of the neo-conservative literature. In the August 28, 2003 issue of The Wanderer, editor of Catholic Replies, James J. Drummey, received a question from a reader regarding the biblical passages that state that a woman is to be in submission to her husband. The reader referred to 1 Peter 3:1 (“In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands”) and Ephesians 5:22 (“Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord”) and asked: “Please explain how the Catholic Church interprets these statements.” Mr. Drummey then wrote three paragraphs of explanation, all of which made reference to the teaching of John Paul II in the 1988 apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem (“The Dignity of Women”).

The first thing we should notice here is that the reader asked: “how the Catholic Church interprets these statements,” but Mr. Drummey quoted only from John Paul II. Whether intentionally or not, this certainly gives the impression that Mr. Drummey considers only John Paul II’s writings as representative of the Catholic Church on this particular question. Unfortunately, the reader was deprived of the entire tradition of the Church which holds a wealth of knowledge on this very topic, and something quite opposed to the pope’s opinion.

In his opening sentence, Mr. Drummey gives a synopsis of John Paul’s teaching:

Pope John Paul has explained that these passages are to be understood as a mutual submission of both spouses since Eph 5:21 says: ‘Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.’

Notice that the answer contains no word about the meaning or application of the specific command for wives to submit to their husbands, which appears in the next two verses, Ephesians 5:22-23: “Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord. Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church,” the very verses that the inquirer to Drummey’s forum posed to him. Drummey summarily dismisses that verse from the discussion and subsumes it under the more general category of “mutual submission,” all without one word of explanation to his reader. Unfortunately, Mr. Drummey, along with The Wanderer for whom he writes, have decided to be indiscriminate of any papal word or deed, and thus they have few qualms in overlooking over 1900 years of Catholic tradition for one sentence in an apostolic letter that doesn’t even purport to give the definitive or binding teaching on the meaning and application of spousal submission.

The same type of interpretation can be found in other neo-conservative publications. For example, in a 2003 issue of Envoy Magazine a woman sent the following question (note the reticence she has in accepting the biblical command):

I recently read an excerpt from a forthcoming book by a Catholic woman in which she used the word “submission” to refer to a woman’s position toward her husband as the head of the family. I think the word submission is inappropriate...the word “submission” has a painful edge to it...

The following answer was given by a Fr. Brian Wilson of the staff of Envoy:

Okay, fine. Now, have you noticed that he [St. Paul] in the same passage that husbands should love their wives? Yes? All right then, do you think that means that wives don’t have to love their husbands? Well, no, don’t be silly; of course not. So then, what makes you think that by the same token husbands shouldn’t be subject to their wives? Love is not a one-way street, and neither is subordination, or “being subject to.” Both the subordination and the love are mutual.3

If this is what is appearing in neo-conservative circles, you can just imagine the horrendous interpretations that are popping up among the ultra liberals. Suffice it to say, these interpretations are utter novelties in the annals of Catholic thought and practice. A thorough examination of the patristics, the medievals, other papal encyclicals, and last but not least, Scripture itself, reveals that “mutual submission” was never taught or intended in the tradition of the Catholic Church, either officially or unofficially.

Continuing with his answer, Mr. Drummey provides the reader with a quote from Mulieris Dignitatem that confirms his understanding of the pope’s teaching:

However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual (n. 24).

On the one hand, the above statement recognizes that the Church’s subjection to Christ is mandatory and is not reciprocal. That is to say, the Church is obliged to submit herself to Christ. If she does not submit, Christ will judge her (cf., Apocalypse 2-3). On the other hand, Christ is not obliged to submit Himself to the Church, since He is in the superior position in the relationship. If and when Christ did submit Himself to the Church, it would not be on a mandatory basis, but, as happened, for example, when He washed the apostles’ feet, His submission would be completely voluntary, and thus would not be the same as the Church’s compulsory submission to Christ. It would be for this reason, perhaps, that John Paul stipulates the Church’s submission to Christ is “one-sided.”

For the purposes of this discussion, it is important to note two related facts about John Paul’s above statement in “n. 24": (1) his use of the phrase “one-sided,” since it requires the Church’s submission to Christ but relieves Christ of submission to the Church, shows the pope has understood and is applying the legal definition of submission; and (2) he has established the premise that Christ’s love for the Church is not a submission to the Church. These two points will be very important as we proceed in this discussion.

We also see in “n. 24" that, in light of his understanding of the relationship between Christ and the Church, John Paul II erroneously concludes that husbands and wives do not have a “one-sided” arrangement. Even though the remaining context of Ephesians 5:23-33 teaches a “one-sided” relationship as it compares the church’s subjection to Christ with the wife’s subjection to her husband (and only Christ’s love for the Church with the husband’s love for his wife), John Paul II insists that the husband is required to be in subjection to the wife because of Ephesians 5:21's clause “be subject to one another.” Hence, in John Paul II’s estimation, Ephesians 5:21 has the same legal requirements for the husband as Ephesians 5:22 has for the wife, and thus Ephesians 5:21 is placed in opposition to, superior to, or the sole interpreter of Ephesians 5:22. In effect, John Paul II makes Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22 balance (or cancel) each other out, and thus he concludes that the submission between spouses is to be understood as “mutual.”

That the above is indeed John Paul II’s intention is confirmed by a General Audience address given on August 11, 1982. He writes:

The author [St. Paul], addressing husbands and wives, recommends them to be “subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21)....The husband and the wife are in fact “subject to one another,” and are mutually subordinated to one another....Love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife, and thereby subject to the Lord Himself, just as the wife is to the husband.

Allow me to point out a few items about John Paul II’s analysis, which we will discuss in the remainder of this essay. Notice first he asserts that Ephesians 5:21 is speaking directly to husbands and wives, and gives no indication that the verse could possibly be speaking to the Church at large. This will become important, since it is not the way traditional exegesis has understood the passage.

Second, John Paul II says that love makes the husband subject to the wife, and thus posits a cause-effect connection between love and subjection.

Third, he says that the husband’s subjection to the wife is “just as” the wife’s subjection to the husband, thus concluding that there is no distinction between the subjection of one to the other.

Compared to traditional teaching, John Paul II’s opinions are very radical, but before we analyze them further, interestingly enough, in the September 18, 2003 issue, The Wanderer published an op ed column by James K. Fitzpatrick which deals with the issue of wifely submission in Ephesians 5:22 that James Drummey and Fr. Wilson had previously addressed. Fitzpatrick takes quite a different tack than Drummey and Wilson. Commenting on the passage, Fitzpatrick writes:

...during Mass when the epistle is read...I have heard fellow parishioners at social gatherings joke about the lines, as if they are not to be taken seriously. Over the past decade or so, I have noticed that most priests who deal with this theme in their homilies treat it as an example of a culturally determined concept that should be interpreted in light of the modern understanding of the dignity of women, as if St. Paul’s thoughts were shaped by the same forces that denied women the right to vote. Or they skirt the topic entirely, much as they would his call for slaves to be obedient to their masters, which pop up just a few paragraphs down in this same epistle. The dangers implicit in this reaction should be obvious. Picking and choosing and reinterpreting the Bible based on the cultural biases of our time, is the essence of modernism. Betty Friedan and Cosmopolitan magazine do not deserve a veto over Sacred Scripture. St. Paul deserves to be treated more seriously on this topic. If not, why treat him seriously elsewhere? Or any of the Gospels for that matter. If they become outdated when we decide that they are, everything is up for grabs.4

Notice that, unlike Drummey, Mr. Fitzpatrick does not whittle down the issue into one of the “dignity of women.” He lays it right on the line. To him, those who dismiss St. Paul’s words as “culturally biased” are imbibing the “essence of modernism.” I genuinely appreciate and applaud Mr. Fitzpatrick’s candor and honesty. However, I question whether he or the The Wanderer fully comprehended the profound ramifications of such a position before printing it. For it is precisely the “dignity of women” (the very meaning of “Mulieris Dignitatem”) that serves as the foundation for John Paul II’s teaching that spouses are to be “mutually submissive.” Moreover, as we will see later in this essay, it is John Paul II’s belief that St. Paul’s demand for wives to be submissive to their husbands is indeed a “culturally conditioned” demand that needs to be reinterpreted for modern women - the same interpretation today’s self-professed liberals give to St. Paul’s injunctions. In the words of the Wanderer’s Mr. Fitzpatrick, this is the “essence of modernism,” and indeed it is.

Scripture, the Fathers and St. Thomas on the Wife’s Submission to Her Husband:

John Paul II’s opinion that Ephesians 5:21 teaches “mutual submission” between spouses is in direct conflict with the Fathers, Tradition, and Scripture. These witnesses are quite clear that the Pauline command for a wife to be in submission to her husband is a separate, legal command for the wife; and is not to be modified or reinterpreted with respect to any kind of voluntary service spouses may give toward one another.

In order to see this clearly we shall do a survey of the patristic testimony on the over half-dozen passages in the New Testament that require the wife’s submission, some including prescriptions for discipline if she refuses to comply. Conversely, there is no command in all of Scripture stating that a husband is to be in subjection to his wife, or anything even close to it. The Tradition of the Church has confirmed this fact. Let’s examine the pertinent passages.

1 Corinthians 11:3

But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.

The first and most obvious question a good Catholic would want to know about this passage is: What was the Church’s traditional understanding? We don’t need to go far to establish it. St. Augustine writes on 1 Cor 11:3: “For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man” (Against the Manichaeans 2, 12, 16). As it is stated clearly in Ephesians 5:22-33, Augustine uses Christ’s headship over the Church as the model for the husband’s headship over the wife. He makes no reference to “mutual submission” or anything of the sort, either here or in any of his other writings. In another place he writes:

Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man;’ and, ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.’ So also the Apostle Peter writes: ‘Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord’” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Bk 1, Ch 10).

For the name of Christ is on the lips of every man: it is invoked by the just man in doing justice, by the perjurer in the act of deceiving, by the king to confirm his rule, by the soldier to nerve himself for battle, by the husband to establish his authority, by the wife to confess her submission, by the father to enforce his command, by the son to declare his obedience, by the master in supporting his right to govern, by the slave in performing his duty... (Letters, CCXXXII)

St. Clement of Alexandria expresses the same sentiments regarding 1 Cor 11:3:

The ruling power is therefore the head. And if ‘the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,’ the man, ‘being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.’ Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, ‘Subjecting, ourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh.’ And in that to the Colossians it is said, ‘Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord’ (Stromata, Bk 4, Ch 8).

St. Thomas Aquinas says the same on 1 Cor 11:3, even using Augustine as further witness to this truth:

For though the wife be her husband's equal in the marriage act, yet in matters of housekeeping, the head of the woman is the man, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:3). (Summa Theologica, Treatise on the Theological Virtues, Question 32, Article 8).

For the higher reason which is assigned to contemplation is compared to the lower reason which is assigned to action, and the husband is compared to his wife, who should be ruled by her husband, as Augustine says (De Trinitate xii, 3, 7, 12). (Summa Theologica, Treatise on Gratuitous Grace, Question 128, Article 4).

Not only are these witnesses straightforward about the wife’s obligation to submit to her husband, notice again that none of them refer to “mutual submission” (or any similar term) in interpreting the wife’s responsibility to her husband or in the understanding of the spousal relationship in general. Moreover, the Fathers and Aquinas understand “submission” in the legal sense (i.e., the wife is obligated to submit; the husband is not) and apply that sense to the Scriptures they are interpreting.5

To be continued next issue.

End for CFN 11-10-04

In our continuing critique of the post-conciliar Church’s attempt to reinterpret the proscriptions of Scripture regarding the woman’s role in society, church and family, in the last issue we left off citing some of the Fathers and Aquinas on the subject of submission. As we noted, most of today’s liberal-minded prelates seek to diminish the traditional teaching on this subject, preferring to speak of a “mutual submission” between husband and wife. We have seen thus far that there is no such teaching in either the patristics, Scripture or the magisterium of Tradition. Let’s continue our analysis of the Scriptural mandates and how the Church has consistently interpreted them. Our next stop is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

For the record, the phrase “to be subject” is from the Greek word hupotasso, the same word St. Paul uses in Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5 and 1 Peter 3:1, 5 in his command for the wife to submit to her husband. Additionally, we notice in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that St. Paul uses “the law” as his precedent and authority. This means the wife’s submission to the husband is not a some new-fangled teaching being forced upon the churches, but one that has come directly from the precepts of the Old Testament, and which apparently is still in force. Again, this shows the legal undergirding of the wife’s obligation to be in submission. In addition, in verse 37, St. Paul adds: “the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” Thus, by reference to “the law” and “the commandments,” St. Paul gives two legal witnesses to his testimony concerning a woman’s obligation to submit to her husband, the same two or three witnesses he requires of himself (cf., 2 Cor. 13:1; Heb 10:26-31).

The Church Fathers had no qualms about this passage. In fact, so precise was their interpretation that they insisted on prohibiting women from ever speaking in Church. As representative of their teaching, we will cite a relatively early Father, Origen, on 1 Cor 14:34:

First, if our prophetesses have spoken, show us the signs of prophecy in them. Second, even if the daughters of Philip did prophesy [Acts 21:8-9], they did not do so inside the church. Likewise in the Old Testament, although Deborah was reputed to be a prophetess [Judges 4:4], there is no indication that she ever corporately addressed the people in the way that Isaiah or Jeremiah did. The same is true of Huldah [2 Kings 22:14]. (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4, 74, 6-16).

Next in line is 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

But, as it becomes women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. 13 Adam was first formed; then Eve. 14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression. 15 Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

As representative of the Church’s consensus, Aquinas understands this passage as follows. You will notice that it is not what you see occurring in post-conciliar churches today:

The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 14:34): ‘Let women keep silence in the churches,’ and (1 Timothy 2:12): ‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’ Now this pertains especially to the grace of the word. Therefore the grace of the word is not becoming to women. I answer that, Speech may be employed in two ways: in one way privately, to one or a few, in familiar conversation, and in this respect the grace of the word may be becoming to women; in another way, publicly, addressing oneself to the whole church, and this is not permitted to women. First and chiefly, on account of the condition attaching to the female sex, whereby woman should be subject to man, as appears from Genesis 3:16 (Summa Theologica, Question 177, Article 2).

Next we have Colossians 3:17-19:

All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. 18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter towards them.

The tradition of the Church has understood this in the same way as the above passages. John Chrysostom writes:

Wives be subject to your husbands” he writes to wives: “That is, be subject for God’s sake, because this adorns you, Paul says, not them. For I mean not that subjection which is due to a master nor yet that alone which is of nature but that offered for God’s sake. (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 12:304).

Chrysostom adds that there is great harmony if the husband loves his wife and the wife is submissive to the husband.

Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity...To love therefore, is the husband’s part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield.” (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304)

Augustine says the same about Colossians 3:18:

Nor can it be doubted that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’ [1 Cor 11:3]; and ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’ (On Marriage and Concupiscence 1, 9, 10, NPNF1 5:267).

Theodoret says the same:

Paul is particularly concerned here with believing women who are married to unbelieving men: thus, their subjection is in service to the Lord, that is, as the Lord commands.” (Interpretation of the Letter to the Colossians PG 82:621A).

Next is Titus 2:4-5:

That they may teach the young women to be wise, to love their husbands, to love their children. To be discreet, chaste, sober, having a care of the house, gentle, obedient to their husbands: that the word of God is not blasphemed.

Here the wife is told both to “love” her husband and be “obedient” to him (NB: “obedient” is the Greek hupotasso, which is also translated “be in submission” or “be subject,” as in all the previous passages). The wife is to make sure she does these things so that “the word of God is not blasphemed.”

Next is 1 Peter 3:1, 5-6. This passage gives even more graphic language regarding the wife’s requirement to be submissive to her husband, using Sarah as the example par excellence:

In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands: that, if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives... For after this manner heretofore, the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance.

Representing the consensus of the Fathers on 1 Peter 3:1, Tertullian writes:

Do you go forth (to meet them) already arrayed in the cosmetics and ornaments of prophets and apostles; drawing your whiteness from simplicity, your ruddy hue from modesty; painting your eyes with bashfulness, and your mouth with silence; implanting in your ears the words of God; fitting on your necks the yoke of Christ. Submit your head to your husbands, and you will be enough adorned. (On the Apparel of Women, Ch XIII).

Now, when I find to what God belong these precepts, whether in their germ or their development, I have no difficulty in knowing to whom the apostle also belongs. But he declares that ‘wives ought to be in subjection to their husbands:’ what reason does he give for this? ‘Because,’ says he, ‘the husband is the head of the wife.’ Pray tell me, Marcion, does your god build up the authority of his law on the work of the Creator? This, however, is a comparative trifle; for he actually derives from the same source the condition of his Christ and his Church; for he says: ‘even as Christ is the head of the Church;’ and again, in like manner: ‘He who loves his wife, loves his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church. (Tertullian Against Marcion, Ch XVIII).

Last but not least, there is Ephesians 5:22-33

22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: 23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it:26 That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: 27 That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church:30 Because we are members of his body, of his flesh and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother: and shall cleave to his wife. And they shall be two in one flesh. 32 This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the church. 33 Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular love for his wife as himself: And let the wife fear her husband.

Let’s open up the investigation of this passage by asking an obvious question: If by a reading of Ephesians 5:21 (“Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ”) it is concluded that spouses are required to submit to one another on an equal basis, then why did St. Paul include the sentence: “Let women be subject to their husbands” in Eph. 5:22 if that so-called “truth” was already covered in Eph 5:21's statement “Be subject to one another”? Would it not be superfluous and confusing to specify, in the very next verse, only one of the submitting parties (the wife), while the other spouse (the husband) receives no direct command, here or any other place in Scripture?

Let’s look closer at Ephesians 5:22-33 for the answer. The underlined words show that the wife is told three times to be in subjection to her husband, while the italicized words show that the husband is never told to be in subjection to his wife; rather, he is told three times to love her. Moreover, not only is the wife told to be submissive, but verse 24 adds that it is to be “in all things.”6 “All things” covers a lot of territory, does it not? Could the teaching be any more emphatic? An unbiased reading of the text clearly shows that not only is the husband’s submission to the wife absent from the context, but the wife’s submission is accentuated in addition to what was originally introduced in Ephesians 5:22! In addition to the clear emphasis on the wife to submit to the husband, St. Paul never confuses the husband’s love with wife’s submission. The two are kept entirely separate. Hence, the weight of the context on this issue is absolutely overwhelming.

To Whom Does Ephesians 5:21 Apply?

As noted above, modernists claim that Ephesians 5:21 is the topic sentence for the remainder of the chapter, and thus conclude that it applies directly to husbands and wives. They neither make any acknowledgment that the verse can apply to all Christians, nor do they posit any distinction between the general submission required in Ephesians 5:21 with the specific submission required in Ephesians 5:22-33. The Fathers and the Tradition saw Ephesians 5:21 quite differently. They made the necessary distinction between the context that ends with Ephesians 5:21 (“Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ”), and the context that begins with Ephesians 5:22 (“Let women be subject to their husbands”).

As representative of their views let’s look, for example, at Chrysostom. Interestingly enough, Chrysostom ends his “Homily XIX” at Ephesians 5:21, and then begins his “Homily XX” at Ephesians 5:22, thus treating the two contexts separately, indicating that verse 21 is a general statement for the whole church in a context that begins as far back as Ephesians 4:1, a section in which St. Paul does not specifically address the husband/wife relationship; rather, he speaks to all the relationships that Christians have in and out of the Church (e.g., bishop/priest; pastor/parishioner; master/slave, husband/wife). Ephesians 6:1-9 does the same, and thus the command to “be subject to one another” is surrounded on all sides by general instructions for all classes of people.

Theodoret regards the distinction between Ephesians 5:21 and Ephesians 5:22 in the same way, that is, there is a general law wherein each Christian is to subject himself to the other as a humble servant (Ephesians 5:21), but the legal specifics that go beyond the general admonition are covered in the remaining context, that is, Ephesians 5:22-6:9:

We must not be submissive to those who command us to act unlawfully. But to those who call us to live with piety, we must be subject to one another. Having laid down this general law of obedience, Paul next advises the Ephesians in detail on their duties to another. (Commentarius in omnes B. Pauli Epistolas, 2:33).

The Greek Grammar

Not only do the Fathers show us a distinction between Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22, the Greek grammar reinforces it. The phrase “being subject” in Ephesians 5:21 is from the Greek imperative-present-participle, hupotassomenoi. This is a somewhat unusual form in Greek. Its uniqueness would certainly catch a Greek expert’s eye, especially if he saw four other imperative-present-participles preceding the one in question. He would immediately know that the author (St. Paul) was trying to signal the reader to see that all the verses employing the imperative-present-participle are directly connected. Such is the case in Ephesians 5:19-21. Here are the verses as recorded in the Douay-Rheims:

19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord: 20 Giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God and the Father: 21 Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.

The underlined words are the imperative-present-participles. The first is lalountes, appearing in verse 19, which is normally translated as “speaking.” The second is adontes and translated as “singing.” The third instance is psallontes and is translated as “making melody”or “psalming.” The fourth instance is eucharistountes, appearing in verse 20, and is translated as “giving thanks.” The fifth instance, of course, is hupotassomenoi, appearing in verse 21, and translated as “being subject.”

As the context clearly shows, these five commands are given to all the Christians of the Church, not specifically to husbands and wives. We can conclude from St. Paul’s grammatical arrangement that verse 21 is directly related to verses 19-20.7 Interestingly enough, the Greek manuscripts that contain the phrase “be subject”8 in Ephesians 5:22 (i.e., “wives be subject to your husbands”), reveal that here St. Paul breaks his pattern of using the participle that he used in verses 19-21. In verse 22 he switches to the non-participle, hupotassasthe, which is an obvious sign that he is now on another topic and direction.

Not only does the grammar of Ephesians 5:19-21 show us the nature of Christian submission, but so do the specific words St. Paul chooses to express his teaching. Let’s look at the verses again:

19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual canticles, singing and making melody in your hearts to the Lord: 20 Giving thanks always for all things, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to God and the Father: 21 Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.

The underlined words describe the Christian who is constantly mindful of God and continually seeks to give Him worship. He does so, in part, by creating intimate communication

with his fellow Christians (cf., James 5:13-14). He “speaks” to his Christian brothers in psalms, hymns and spiritual poems; he “sings” to them by using the God-given gift of “melody.” In everything he expresses “thanks” to God. He is never bitter or despondent. It is an atmosphere saturated with heavenly love. It is an idyllic scene, almost like the ones we see in traditional art of saints walking in heaven with halos and playing music on harps.

That being the case, we certainly wouldn’t expect the leading participants in this idyllic atmosphere to be strutting around with an air of authority. There are appropriate times for the exercise of authority, and there are times when one’s authority is better off deferred or concealed. In the general atmosphere of Christian worship and comradery, it is best not to assert one’s authority, but to humble oneself before others, knowing that anything one possesses, whether talent or authority, is from the Lord. For example, a Christian employer needs to know how to get along with his Christian employee, and vice-versa. The hierarchy of the Church needs to know how to get along with their clerics and parishioners. Unlike the world, Christians answer to a higher authority. In so doing, they show care and concern for even “the least of his brethren” (e.g., Matthew 25:40, 45). Superiors, in order to foster good relations among all Christians, will voluntarily “submit” themselves as servants in an effort to be much more sensitive to their underlings than the world’s rulers are to theirs, because that is what Christ, their model, showed them when He washed the apostles’ feet (cf., Matthew 20:25-28; John 13:14). The important point to distinguish in each of these cases, however, is that the legal requirement for subordinates to be subject to superiors is not suddenly evaporated if and when the superiors voluntarily humble themselves to their underlings “in the fear of Christ.”

As noted previously, the Fathers understood Ephesians 5:21 in the same way. As Jerome says of the passage:

Let bishops hear this, let priests hear, let every rank of learning get this clear: In the church, leaders are servants. Let them imitate the apostle...The difference between secular rulers and Christian leaders is that the former love to boss their subordinates whereas the latter serve them. We are that much greater if we are considered least of all.”(Migne PL 26:530A, Col. 653-654).

This is also Chrysostom’s understanding. We see this as he applies Ephesians 5:21 to masters and slaves, a category of relationship that is not even mentioned among the verses in question (i.e., Ephesians 5:22-33):

‘Subjecting yourselves one to another,’ he says, ‘in the fear of Christ.’ For if thou submit thyself for a ruler’s sake, or for money’s sake, or from respectfulness, much more from the fear of Christ...rather it were better that both masters and slaves be servants to one another...Thus does God will it to be, for he washed his disciples’ feet. (Homilies on Ephesians, Homily XIX, NPNF1, 142).

We see here that Chrysostom has used the same example of Christ washing the disciples’ feet that I had used earlier. This shows that Chrysostom understands that, when Christ “submits” Himself to the apostles, it is based on the desire to serve and love them, not because He is legally mandated to obey them, or even that His submission to the apostles should then be classified as “mutual.” Again, the Fathers consider Ephesians 5:21 as merely a general command to all Christians to have the proper attitude and readiness of service toward each other. But when the Fathers address the specific duties of underlings toward those in authority, they never say that the latter is to be submissive to the former, that is, masters are never told to be “subject” to their servants; bishops are never told to be subject to their clerics, and husbands are never told to be subject to their wives. Since Scripture was careful to make that distinction, the Fathers never referred to superior/subordinate relationship with the words “mutual submission.” In the legal framework, there is no such mutuality or mixing of roles.

In Homily 10, Chrysostom shows this important distinction as he maintains that those in subordinate positions (e.g., wives and servants) are to continue showing the proper legal submission:

For if I charge free men to submit themselves one to another in the fear of God - as he said above, ‘submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ’ - if I charge moreover the wife to fear and reverence her husband, although she is his equal; much more must I so speak to the servant. It is no sign of low birth, rather it is the truest nobility, to understand how to lower ourselves, to be modest and unassuming, and to give way to our neighbor.

Here he says, even though the wife is equal, she is to “fear and reverence” her husband (as does Ephesians 5:33 - “And let the wife fear her husband”). Thus, human “equality” is not to be used as an excuse to withhold one’s submission when it is legally due to someone else.

Again, in Homily 10, Chrysostom clearly defines the separate roles of husband and wife. The wife is to submit, the husband to love, even if one or the other of the spouses fails in their role.

For though that which is due from others may not follow, we ought of course to do our duty. This is an example of what I mean. He says, “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ.” And what then if another submit not himself? Still obey thou the law of God. Just so, I say, is it also here. Let the wife at least, though she be not loved, still reverence notwithstanding, that nothing may lie at her door; and let the husband, though his wife reverence him not, still show her love notwithstanding, that he himself be not wanting in any point. For each has received his own.

An emphasis on remaining in subjection to an authority would be an important one for New Testament Christians to acknowledge, since in their newfound liberty they might fall into the mistaken notion that traditional roles of authority have become obsolete.9 A servant, for example, may think that because he now enjoys Christian liberty, he is not required to obey his master, at least not in the same way he did previously. Similarly, a wife might think that since she and her husband are now Christians, she is not required to submit to him. Not so, says St. Paul. In Colossians 3:22 he tells servants they have no such liberty, but are to continue being subject to their masters (“Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh”). In 1 Timothy 6:1 he tells servants:

Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honor; lest the name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed. 2 But they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but serve them the rather, because they are faithful and beloved, who are partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

Again, in Titus 2:9 St. Paul tells the bishops: “Exhort servants to be obedient to their masters.” St. Peter does the same in 1 Peter 2:18: “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward.” As for the command to wives to continue to be submissive to their husbands, we have addressed those passages earlier (cf., 1 Cor. 11:3; 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-14; Titus 2:5, 1 Pet. 3:1-6, et al).

We’ll cover more on this important topic of submission in our next issue.

End for CFN 12-07-04

In the last issue of CFN, we investigated the Scriptures and the Patristic testimony on various New Testament passages teaching that the wife is to submit to her husband. In this issue, we will investigate more of these Scriptures and begin a final analysis of John Paul II’s views. In February, we will have the concluding installment to this series.

The Fathers on Ephesians 5:22

As we have seen, the Fathers did not interpret Ephesians 5:21-22 as teaching a mutual submission between husband and wife. All the exegetes that spoke on the passage separated Ephesians 5:21 from 5:22, and interpreted 5:22 as referring only to a wife submitting to her husband, and did not modify the teaching by reference to “mutual submission.” There was not one variant voice. Let’s look at a representative sample.

In Homily 10, Chrysostom writes on Ephesians 5:22:

Then after saying, ‘The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is of the Church,’ he further adds, ‘and He is the Saviour of the body.’ For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then ‘the Church,’ that is, both husbands and wives, ‘is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.’ For she is the body, not to dictate to the head, but to submit herself and obey.”

Chrysostom again speaks on Ephesians 5:22, this time stating that if the wife refuses to submit to her husband she will incur the wrath of God:

Wherefore, saith he, ‘Wives, be in subjection unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.’...For if it is their duty to be in subjection ‘as unto the Lord,’ how saith He that they must depart from them for the Lord’s sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounded duty...For he who resists these external authorities, those of governments, I mean, ‘withstandeth the ordinance of God (Rom 13:2), much more does she who submits not to her husband. Such was God’s will from the beginning.” (Homilies on Ephesians, NPNF1, 143-144).

Ambrosiaster (the writings attributed to Ambrose), concurs with the other Fathers:

As the church takes its beginning from Christ and therefore is subject to him, so too does woman take hers from the man and is subject to him.” (CSEL 81.3:117-118).

Ignatius of Antioch says the same:

...it behoves you also, therefore, as ‘a peculiar people, and a holy nation,’ to perform all things with harmony in Christ. Wives, be ye subject to your husbands in the fear of God; and ye virgins, to Christ in purity, not counting marriage an abomination, but desiring that which is better, not for the reproach of wedlock, but for the sake of meditating on the law” (To the Philadelphians, Ch 4).

Scriptures Identical to Ephesians 5:22

Not only do none of the Fathers use Ephesians 5:21 as a qualifying verse for interpreting Ephesians 5:22, not surprisingly, neither does Scripture. We see this in the two other passages that use identical language concerning wives being in subjection to their husbands.

Colossians 3:17-19:

17 All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. 18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter towards them.

First, we notice the same formula that appears in Ephesians 5:22-33, that is: wives are to submit; husbands are to love. Second, and more importantly, we notice that the command for the wives to submit to their husbands is not preceded by a statement saying “being subject to one another,” or any hint of “mutual subjection.” Thus, Colossians 3:17-19 assures us that the biblical command, “wives be subject to your husbands” stands alone when interpreted. It is not dependent or connected to a “mutual subjection” introduction. This is especially true since the clause “being subject to one another” does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament! Its exclusiveness is further confirmation that it applies to the confined context of Ephesians 5:19-21 regarding the Church at large, not to the husband/wife issues in Ephesians 5:22-33, or any other New Testament passage.

1 Peter 3:1

The same format is evident in 1 Peter 3:1 (“In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands...”). Here the identical command for the wife to be submissive appears, and, once again, there is no preface regarding “being subject to one another.” Rather, the preceding verse says: “For you were as sheep going astray, but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls.” Obviously, there is no qualifying instruction regarding “mutual submission” to explicate the meaning of a wife’s submission to her husband. In fact, the Greek adverb “in like manner” (Gr: homoios) refers to a wholly different kind of qualification - one that bases the wife’s subjection to her husband on the fact that Christians are to submit to Christ because he is “the shepherd and bishop” of their souls. The comparison shows that as Christ is in authority over Christians, so the husband is in authority over his wife, and neither are understood as reciprocal. Christ’s authority is based on His titulary role as “shepherd” (Greek: poimena = pastor, e.g., Eph. 4:11) and a “bishop” (Greek: episkopon, e.g., 1 Tim. 3:2). Thus, when Peter says “in like manner,” this indicates that the term “husband” is also a titulary role for the man, and the basis upon which he rules over his wife.

That there is no mistaking what St. Peter means is confirmed by the remaining context. First, the rest of verse 1 reveals that the wife’s subjection to her husband is such an important feature of their relationship that it will be instrumental in converting the non-Christian husband to the Faith (“that, if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives”). Obviously, an assertive or domineering wife would not be conducive to his conversion.

Second, St. Peter elaborates on what kind of subjection the wife is to give to her husband. He declares:

2 Considering your chaste conversation with fear. 3 Whose adorning, let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: 4 But the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit which is rich in the sight of God. 5 For after this manner heretofore, the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: 6 As Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance.

Thus, even in the cosmopolitan world of Greek and Roman culture that many of these first century Christian women found themselves, Peter proscribes any worldly adornment. The truly submissive woman is one who has a meek and quiet spirit, fearing God above all. It is certainly not the picture of women we see today who feel not the slightest compunction asserting themselves ahead of men in all areas of authority.

Third, as in all the Pauline passages we have seen on this topic, this Petrine passage gives no suggestion that the husband is to be in “mutual submission” to his wife. Rather, he is told to give “honor” (Greek: timé = honor, respect, recognition, value)not submission to his wife, with the understanding that of the two spouses, she is the “weaker vessel.”

7 Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honor to the female as to the weaker vessel and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered.

Can John Paul II’s Interpretation in Mulieris Dignitatum be Reconciled With Tradition?

Considering the possible distinction between submission from love and submission due to authority that we cited earlier, one might argue that John Paul II’s introduction of “mutual submission” may not be departing from traditional teaching. In other words, one might argue that if the pope’s intention is to say that the husband’s “submission” to the wife is out of love for her, but the wife’s submission to the husband is due to his authority, then perhaps there is not a sufficient problem to warrant alarm.

The problem with this type of defense is quite evident, however. John Paul II does not use it. First, as we have seen, neither the Fathers, the medievals, the doctors or previous popes have made such a distinction. No one has ever stated, based on the biblical passages in view, that the husband is to be subject to the wife on the same basis as the wife is subject to the husband. All the major exegetes have understood Ephesians 5:21 as a general admonition to all Christians to promote a common deferential relationship with one another; not as something exclusive to the spousal relationship, or something that defines or modifies the wife’s legal responsibility to submit to her husband. Against this tradition, John Paul II asserts that the husband is not only to be subject to the wife, but according to the wording of Mulieris Dignitatum the subjection is “just as” the wife’s subjection.

The equality of submission is also denoted by the pope’s use of the word “mutual,” since its technical meaning requires that whatever is true for the wife’s subjection to the husband must be true for the husband’s subjection to the wife. “Mutual” means: “having the same relationship, each to the other,” or “belonging to, shared with, or applicable to all alike.”10 If the submission is “mutual” and “just as” the other, then it is apparent John Paul II does not contest that he would have it understood that in his understanding of a “two-sided” relationship the husband is obligated to submit to the wife on the same basis as the wife is obligated to submit to the husband (whereas in a “one-sided” relationship, Christ is not obligated to submit to the Church). As the astute scholar he is purported to be, John Paul has to know that his “two-sided” or “mutual submission” interpretation was not taught by his predecessors. As such, the fact that he does not even make reference to their traditional teaching on these decisive biblical passages, let alone interact with them, is most disturbing.

Second, John Paul does not make the proper distinctions between the various types of submission involved. It is obvious from a reading of the Pauline and Petrine passages that the wife is told more than a half-dozen times in the New Testament to be in legal submission to her husband, whereas the husband is never told to do the same. As such, the New Testament designates a special category for the wife’s submission to her husband that precludes it from being mixed with or made equal to the common submission that Christians generally give toward one another. Left without distinctions, “mutual submission” is an oxymoron. Accordingly, “mutual submission” does not mean “mutual love,” or “mutual cooperation” or “mutual respect,” “mutual communication” or “mutual deference,” which represent the various attempts at redefining “mutual submission” in order to make the novel teaching palatable. None of the aforementioned terms have a legal foundation. “Submission,” on the other hand, has a primary legal and/or canonical basis, since it refers to the authority that one person or group has over another, such as the government having authority over its citizens, bishops over priests, employers over employees or husbands over wives. If one does not submit to these authorities, then he/she will suffer the legal or canonical consequences. Theology is a science of making the proper distinctions, and unfortunately, all kinds of false ideas are the result of a failure to do so, though most of them sound good on the surface.

Third, John Paul’s views on this subject are somewhat contradictory. As we have seen earlier, on the one hand, John Paul II states in Mulieris Dignitatem that spousal submission is not like the submission between Christ and the Church, since that between Christ and the Church is a “one-sided” submission. This means that Christ does not submit to the Church (at least in the same way as the Church submits to Christ). Hence, Christ’s love for the Church, which is included as part of the context of argument in Eph. 5:25, cannot be considered, or result in, Christ’s submission to the Church, since love does not necessitate submission. Yet in his General Audience address of August 11, 1982, John Paul says that “love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife...just as the wife is to the husband.” Thus the husband is said to be made subject to the wife because of love, whereas love is not said to make Christ subject to the Church. The contradiction John Paul displays is in the face of the context of Ephesians 5:22-33 which gives no distinction between the Church’s submission to Christ and the wife’s submission to the husband, but actually compares one to the other.

What Did Previous Popes Say?

The confusion in John Paul II’s view is not seen in the teachings of his predecessors. Previous popes took the same view as the Fathers and medievals we have already covered. The most recent pope to speak on this issue was Pope Pius XI. He stated it thus:

Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commands in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church...(Casti Connubii, 30).

The only thing Pius XI added, and rightly so, was, as we noted in an earlier essay, an explanation of the conditions and limitations of the husband’s authority over the wife.

This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different condition of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact (ibid).

Prior to Pius XI, Pope Leo XIII gave the same consensus as the Fathers and medievals. Pius XI refers to his words in Casti Connubii:

With great wisdom Our Predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on "Christian Marriage" which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.”11

Obviously, we see nothing in either Pius XI or Leo XIII regarding “mutual submission.” Leo XIII speaks only of “mutual relations,’ but in “both in him who rules and in her who obeys,” thus clearly defining the separate roles of both husband and wife.

More Analysis of Mulieris Dignitatem:

Let’s analyze more of Mulieris Dignitatem to round out the picture. I will underline the problematic sentences. John Paul II writes:

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.

Here John Paul says that St. Paul’s command is a “new way” of understanding husband and wife relations. Is it? Does St. Paul say that he is giving a new command? We saw earlier that St. Peter, basing his teaching on the principles of the Old Testament, told the Christian wives of his day to “be subject to their husbands...like Sarah who was obedient to Abraham and called him lord” (1 Peter 3:1, 5). If today the wife’s submission is based on a woman who lived 4,000 years ago, there is certainly nothing “new” about requiring the wife to submit to her husband. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 St. Paul tells the women to “keep silent in the churches” and to “ask questions of their husbands at home” and bases his command on “the Law” of the Old Testament and on “the Lord’s commandment” given directly to him. There is certainly nothing “new” about those two sources. Similarly, in 1 Cor 11:3f and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, St. Paul bases the commands for woman to be in subjection to the man on the relationship stemming from the time of Adam and Eve when their respective roles were put in place by God. Obviously, there is nothing “new” about Adam and Eve. Hence, there is nothing “new” in any of St. Paul’s writings regarding a woman’s role, and certainly nothing regarding “mutual submission” as the sense in which the wife’s subjection to her husband is to be understood. In fact, there are more passages in the New Testament that directly command the wife to be in submission to her husband than in the Old Testament!

John Paul II continues:

But the challenge presented by the “ethos” of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favor of the “subjection” of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a “mutual subjection” of both “out of reverence for Christ.” The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride.

Unless we are misunderstanding him, John Paul II is advocating that the references to the “subjection of woman” in Scripture cannot be understood as a command which singles out the sole responsibility of the wife. In other words, John Paul II claims that when you see “woman be subject” you must read “both be subject.” This is in the face of the fact that Ephesians 5:21 is the only place in Scripture where a general command to submit oneself to another appears in the same vicinity as the command for wives to submit themselves to their husbands.12 “Mutual submission,” as we have noted earlier, means that whatever is true for the wife’s submission to the husband must be true for the husband’s submission to the wife, for that is what the word “mutual” means. Hence, if the wife’s submission is legally mandated, then the husband’s submission is legally mandated. But as we have seen from an analysis of the Fathers, the medievals and two recent popes, no one has ever taught such a legal interchange between spouses. John Paul II, as he appears in various other cases, stands alone in the history of the Catholic Church.

If John Paul II does not intend to teach what I have described above, it surely is not clear in Mulieris Dignitatem. For the sake of the faithful, if he does not intend to teach it, he needs to make it clear. In the meantime, is a good Catholic obliged to give the pope the benefit of the doubt in instances like this? Certainly, in his general approach to the pope, charity and humility ought to lead a good Catholic to do so. However, in light of the specific Patristic, Magisterial and Scriptural evidence laid out thus far, and the additional information we are about to share, it is very difficult to do so. Catholics are not required to put blinders on, even in humble deference to the pope. This would indeed be a very dangerous and extreme kind of deference, and certainly not a genuine service to the Church or the Holy Father. Hence, we are obliged to raise our concerns, respectfully yet confidently, to the degree our abilities and calling require, which we are presently endeavoring to do in this essay. As for now, since there is no other statement in the last 25 years (at least one that I know of) in which John Paul modifies or clarifies his statement regarding “mutual submission,” then according to Canon Law, it is our “right and duty” to take him at his word and offer our conscientious and responsible objections. As Canon 212:2-3 states:

“The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”

If John Paul’s view were the correct one, St. Paul and St. Peter had many opportunities to say so. All they needed to do was add the necessary qualification regarding spousal submission, and a simple one it would have been. But, inspired by the Holy Spirit, they never did. They told husbands to love their wives, not to be subject to them. There is not one command, or even a suggestion in the whole Bible, or in the patristics, or in any papal, doctoral or conciliar statement, that men are to submit to their wives. Granted, all Christians, whether they be popes, bishops, employers, husbands, government officials, etc, should all have an attitude of spiritual “submission” to one another, for we are all “foot washers” in the general sense of the term. Unfortunately, unless one distinguishes between the general submission Christians offer to one another over against the specific legal submission required of those under authority, this will create undue confusion and distort St. Paul’s teaching, and this has occurred in many Catholic circles today. Many think wives are no longer required to be obedient to their husbands because of the “new” interpretations of Scripture. Many contemporary wedding vows are minus a reference to the wife promising obedience to her husband. This is a recipe for disaster. The statistics for divorce since the time the women’s liberation went into full force, which now hovers around 60% of all U.S. marriages, bear this out. Unfortunately, some of this thinking is due to the ambiguous and misleading statements in Mulieris Dignitatem. As we have seen from the traditional teaching, however, the submission of the wife to the husband is not voluntary. The wife is as much obliged to submit to her husband as a priest is to a bishop or a citizen is to the government, and the submission on that level is not mutual. The husband is to honor and love his wife, not submit to her.

End for CFN 1-05

To be completed next issue

How Could Such an Interpretation Seep Into Catholic Thinking?

The basic question now facing us is this: If the Fathers, the medievals, two popes, not to mention Scripture itself, give no indication that Ephesians 5:21-22 is to be interpreted as teaching a “mutual submission” between husband and wife, where might such an interpretation have originated? We don’t have to go far to find the answer. It has been in the modernist/liberal hermeneutic for quite a while. The “mutual submission” interpretation burst forth in the 1930s from liberal Protestant seminaries and pulpits. Rest assured, it was not an interpretation of the variety which made a distinction between submission from love and submission from authority. Rather, the exegetes asserted that the husband’s submission to the wife was to be understood in the same way as the wife’s submission to her husband. Protestant biblical commentaries written during these years make it plainly evident that their liberal theologians were anxiously reinterpreting Ephesians 5:21 to introduce a “mutual subjection” interpretation to Ephesians 5:22. After the days of Margaret Sanger and the suffrage movement in the 1920s, liberal Protestants had gained a substantial foothold in their universities and seminaries, and soon their liberal theology became worldwide, spawning the women’s liberation movement of the 60s and 70s.

Additionally, when Pius XII gave Catholic scholars the go-ahead to experiment with the methodology of historical criticism for use in Catholic biblical studies (which originated with Protestant liberals as far back as the early 1800s), the floodgates were opened. Fueled by the ecumenical ties fostered by John XXIII and Paul VI, the main elements of Protestant liberalism seeped far and wide into Catholic scholarship. Using the same historical-critical tools they borrowed from liberal Protestants, Catholic scholars were coming to the same conclusion about the role of women - that Paul’s injunctions against women (i.e., acquiring authoritative roles in government, church and family) were culturally conditioned, if not culturally biased. Rather than exegete the Pauline passages at face value, it was now time, so we were told, to reinterpret them in light of the advances in modern society regarding the status of women. Not surprisingly, we find Catholic liberal scholarship’s premier biblical exegete, Fr. Raymond Brown, stating that Scripture not only contains errors in matters of history and science,13 but also in “religious matters,” that is, commands such as those which tell women to be subject to their husbands.14

John Paul II himself suggests that the injunctions against women were the result of a cultural conditioning in the time of St. Paul. He states in Mulieris Dignitatem:

‘Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife’ (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a ‘mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ’ (cf. Eph 5:21).

In other words, the statement “wives be subject to your husband” is said to be so culturally conditioned by the age in which he finds himself that St. Paul must bring forth a new interpretation to an otherwise common maxim. That is, St. Paul is said to be employing the clause “wives be subject to your husbands” not so much as a biblical command to wives, but as if he were quoting an outdated maxim of the past in order to reinterpret it or neutralize it in the present! As we have seen, John Paul II claims that St. Paul’s new interpretation is one of “mutual submission” between spouses, without any apparent distinction or qualification. Unfortunately, it appears from all the evidence we have gathered that John Paul II is oblivious to the possibility that it is his own interpretation of St. Paul that may be culturally conditioned (i.e., conditioned by the modern women’s liberation movement), since no Father, no medieval, no saint, no doctor or pope previous to him ever stated or even suggested that “wives be subject to your husbands” is to be interpreted as a “mutual subjection” between spouses.

Are we surprised to see these kinds of statements from John Paul II? No, not if one has been following his pontificate for the last 25 years. The record shows that Cardinal Wojtyla quoted admiringly from all the top liberal Catholic and Protestant scholars of the day in, for example, his 1978 book Sign of Contradiction (e.g., he quoted from Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Henri de Lubac, Walter Kasper, Teilhard de Chardin, L. Feuerbach, Rudolph Otto, Martin Heidegger, Albert Camus, et al.), the landmark book that laid much of the groundwork for the Assisi Interreligious Prayer Gatherings occurring in 1986 and 2002, another innovation unprecedented in the annals of Catholic thought and practice.

The Impact of Genesis 3:16

Another possible reason for the pope’s radical interpretation of the “wives be subject to your husband” passages is his understanding of Genesis 3:16's clause “he shall rule over you.” It appears to be John Paul II’s view, as it is with virtually all liberal exegetes, that the husband’s rule over the wife was not originally intended by God, but was a result of Eve’s sin. Thus, since the Gospel is specifically put in place to deal with sin, this pope reasons that a husband’s rule over the wife should be set aside for the supposedly more gospel-oriented role of “mutual submission.” He writes in Mulieris Dignitatem:

This statement in (Gen 3:16) is of great significance. It implies a reference to the mutual relationship of man and women in marriage.... But the words of the biblical text directly concern original sin and its lasting consequences in man and woman....The words of the Book of Genesis quoted previously (3:16) show how this threefold concupiscence, the “inclination to sin,” will burden the mutual relationship of man and woman.

Here I think it is implicit that the pope’s use of “mutual relationship” means, or at least leads to, “mutual submission,” and the only reason he did not use the term “mutual submission” is that the section of Mulieris Dignitatem which includes this phrase had not been written until later in the apostolic letter where it was addressed more thoroughly.

John Paul II then makes a connection with Genesis 3:16 in the following paragraph:

If Mary is described also as the “new Eve,” what [is] the meaning of this analogy? Certainly there are many. Particularly noteworthy is the meaning which sees Mary as the full revelation of all that is included in the biblical word “woman”: a revelation commensurate with the mystery of the Redemption. Mary means, in a sense, a going beyond the limit spoken of in the Book of Genesis (3:16) and a return to that “beginning” in which one finds the “woman” as she was intended to be in creation...

To what is John Paul II referring when he says “the limit spoken of in the Book of Genesis (3:16) and a return to that ‘beginning’”? I think it is adequately clear he believes that the command “he shall rule over you” is the “limitation,” and this limitation was not intended from the “beginning.” It was merely a consequence of Eve’s sin. Accordingly, Mary is viewed as the New Eve, the liberator of women, since she will reverse the “he shall rule over you” punishment imposed on Eve and the rest of womankind. That being the case, it is John Paul II’s plan that we implement this new state of affairs at the present time (even though it was never implemented by any pope previous to him). It appears to be his view that the traditional Church, for the past two thousand years, failed to see feminine liberation as a vital part of the Gospel, that is, until the “mutual submission” interpretation came to set the record straight.

To show that the above analysis of John Paul II’s view is endorsed by other neo-conservative Catholics, I will quote again the words of Fr. Brian Wilson who, as you remember, was cited earlier in this essay as supporting the “mutual submission” view. Fr. Wilson writes:

On the one hand, there are certainly elements of domination in the relation between the sexes which, rather than a sacred part of God’s plan, are evil and a result of sin. Commenting on Genesis 3:16 Pope John Paul sees this event as establishing a “form of inequality” in the relationship that contradicts God’s plan.15

Then Fr. Wilson quotes from John Paul II’s General Audience address of June 18, 1980:

Does not the rule “over” the other - of man over woman - change essentially the structure of communion in the interpersonal relationship? Does it not transpose into the dimension of this structure something that makes the human being an object, which can, in a way, be desired by the lust of the eyes?

Analysis of John Paul II’s Interpretation of Genesis 3:16

Even if the pope’s contention that Eve’s submission is caused by sin, does that mean we, at this present time, are now supposed to be reforming or alleviating the divine mandate that a wife is to be in subjection to her husband? No, there is no such command in Scripture or in any Church teaching. As we have noted, the New Testament passages which speak of the wife having to be in subjection to her husband make no attempt to extricate women from the injunction of Genesis 3:16. In fact, they base their bedrock teaching directly upon Genesis 3:16, a divine truth which the inspired authors see as perpetual.

We see this perpetual basis, for example, in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, which states that the woman is to be in silence and in subjection to the man precisely due to the fact that Eve was the first person who sinned. St. Paul gives no indication, either in the context of 1 Timothy 2 or elsewhere, that the silence and subjection is a temporary state of affairs, or one that is waiting for the enlightenment of future theologians (e.g., 20th century historical-critics) to show us that a literal interpretation of Genesis 3:16 is “culturally biased.” No, St. Paul is clear that as long as this present earth exists the original roles of man and woman stemming from Genesis 3:16 will abide.

We see the same thing in 1 Cor 14:34-35. St. Paul told the women “in all the churches” to be in silence (Note the plural, that is, the injunction applies to ALL the churches), so much so that if the wives have any questions they should ask their husbands at home, not at church. St. Paul contends that the commands to women are not merely his personal opinion, rather, they are from “the law” and the “commandments of the Lord.” Similar to 1 Timothy 2:11-14, he gives no indication that these injunctions are someday going to be relaxed as the Gospel progresses into society before the return of Christ.

What Does Genesis 3:16 Really Teach?

The above analysis is based on John Paul II’s contention that Genesis 3:16's clause “he shall rule over you” is a deviation from what was supposed to be practiced by husband and wife from the “beginning.” But we need not view Genesis 3:16 in that light at all. The clause “he shall rule over you” is not to be viewed as a consequence of Eve’s sin for the simple reason that Adam was already given headship and authority over Eve before sin ever entered the human race! St. Paul assures us of this fact as he states that Adam’s authority over Eve was granted to him because “Adam was created first” (1 Timothy 2:13). Thus, Adam’s rule over Eve is based on the order of creation. Unfortunately, John Paul fails to mention this fact, and because of this failure he has distorted the relationship between husband and wife in the area of authority and submission.

That being the case, where are we to look for the consequences of Eve’s sin? Very simply, following the grammatical/historical approach to exegesis, the aftermath of Eve’s sin is to be deduced from the clause “And your desire shall be toward your husband.” We are to understand that, because of her sin, as well as the subsequent proclivity to sin which became a punishment for the human race (i.e., concupiscence), Eve will desire something from Adam but will be frustrated in her attempts to attain it. What is it that she will “desire”? Fortunately, we have a lot of help from the context.

The Hebrew word for “desire” (teshuqah) does not refer to some sort of overwhelming affection Eve would have for Adam. It denotes something far more sinister. We see a more precise understanding of its lexical meaning in the next and final time this particular phrasing appears in the Old Testament, Genesis 4:7, regarding Cain’s plight immediately after he murdered Abel. God said to Cain:

“If you do well, is there not acceptance? If you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door and its desire is toward you, but you shall rule over it.”

Here we see that sin’s “desire” [Hebrew: teshuqah] is to rule over Cain, but God tells Cain to rule over sin.16 Thus, Genesis 4:7 helps explain the relationship in the Hebrew grammar between the “desire” and the “ruling,” the very two elements that appear in Genesis 3:16. In this light, the consequence of Eve’s sin is not that Adam would suddenly be put in authority over her. It was just the opposite. Adam, because he was created before Eve, was already in authority over her, but sin would tempt Eve to desire to rule over Adam. God, in turn, would frustrate her desire and see to it that Adam maintained his God-given rule over her. Prior to sin, Eve’s motives would be untainted by a sinister desire to usurp Adam’s authority, and thus she would naturally assume her designated place as wife, helper and subordinate. Sin, however, would tempt her to see otherwise.

Projecting this dynamic into the future, we can safely say that whenever we see women assuming authority over men and seeking to supplant them as God’s rulers, it is due to sin. Consequently, if the rule of submission deteriorates, it is not because God wishes women to be liberated from their husband’s rule, but because sin is multiplying for the purposes of judgment (e.g., 2 Thess 2:7-11). As we noted earlier, this was exactly the state of affairs in ancient Israel when that nation began to apostasize. As Isaiah laments:

O my people, their oppressors are children, and women rule over them. O my people. Those who guide you lead you astray, and confuse the direction of your paths (Isaiah 3:12).

Finally, what are the consequences of Eve’s desire to rule over Adam? We see many of them in our society today. Women leave the home and put their children (if they have any) in the care of paid-providers, while they compete with the man in all the areas of leadership, including government, church and employment. The high incidence of females in the work force consequently limits the employment available to men. The children of such marriages grow up lacking the care and sensitivity known traditionally with stay-at-home motherhood. Because they become insecure, the children turn to drugs, sex, pornography, rock music, peers or anything that will relieve the gaping hole they feel inside. Females in the white collar workforce especially tend to become enticed by the opportunities of advancement and thus pregnancy is curtailed by contraception, and failing that, abortion is the next alternative. No wonder St. Paul (immediately after he tells woman to obey their husbands), says: “Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety” (1 Tim 2:15), and in other places says the wife is to “...be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed” (Titus 2:5), and that even widows should “marry, have children, and manage a home” (1 Tim 5:14). Unfortunately, many of today’s women find out too late that they are happiest when they respond to their maternal instincts and are compliant with their husbands. But the typical family today has 1.7 children per household across America, Europe, Russia and China. Most of the First World countries cannot even replace their dying populations.

When women are at home after a long day’s work, the society has conditioned them to compete with the husband for authority. When decision time comes, wills clash. If not repaired, divorce ensues. In the wake of “women’s liberation,” the sad fact is that over half of all marriages end in divorce, and over sixty percent of second marriages have the same fate. Moreover, since married women are now more accessible in the work force, the military and government, the incidence of adultery among them is staggering. Husbands, because they have been brainwashed by a media which stereotypes them as weak and cowardly misfits, fail to assert their God-given role of leadership, and the family becomes highly dysfunctional. This malaise begins to perpetuate itself through successive generations until the family and society are so weak they cannot function any longer. They are replaced by single-family homes, orphanages, or even same-sex parenting. When all is said and done, an inordinate amount of problems we are experiencing today in modern society can be traced to one overriding problem: a confusion in the roles of the sexes. Men want to act like women, and women want to act like men, and unfortunately, their children suffer the worst consequences. These are just a few of the things that happen when “Eve” is allowed to fulfill her desire to rule over Adam.

Although after a reading of Mulieris Dignitatem it is apparent that John Paul II’s heartfelt desire is to elevate women past the incidents of barbarism and domination they sometimes sustained in past cultures, we can also say, based on the above exegesis and historical research, that the way for the pope to accomplish this is not by reinterpreting the Scriptural teachings concerning wives being subject to their husbands. Reinterpreting them to fit the mores of contemporary society will only create bigger problems. The biblical passages on authority are fixed in stone and their truths can never change. As we have seen, neither Scripture, Tradition nor the Magisterium teach that the husband is to be in submission to his wife. Rescuing women from unfair domination can only be accomplished by accentuating the command contained in the second leg of St. Paul’s teaching: “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church.” It is love, not submission, that men so desperately need to be taught. Men know all about domination and submission. Their whole world is governed by the pecking order, and the competition out there is rather fierce. Likewise, men know when someone is trying to usurp their authority under the pretext of establishing equality or mutuality, and the so-called “women liberators” fill that bill precisely. The quickest way to unrest and eventual divorce is for the wife to usurp her husband’s authority over his own household. He will naturally resent it and rightly fight against it. If not rectified, he will crawl into a mental shell or leave the home altogether for greener pasture. To prevent this, the Church needs to teach husbands the art of loving, the very thing St. Paul tells them so often, for husbands, because of their own selfishness, often find it hard to do. When husband’s do, indeed, love their wives as Christ loved the Church, submission to his gentleness is a pleasure for the wife, not a competition she must win by seeking his equal submission to her.

As St. John Chrysostom stated so wisely many years ago, and still remains true today:

Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity...To love therefore, is the husband’s part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield.” (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304)

Robert A. Sungenis, M.A.

Catholic Apologetics International