1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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).

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.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8