Colin Donovan, responding to EWTN's QandA board regarding Robert Sungenis' critique of his answer regarding women wearing veils, responds to EWTN patron, Mark Wyatt. Mr. Wyatt then sent Mr. Donovan's answer to CAI, and Mr. Sungenis has thus responded in kind."

Mark Wyatt: Mr. Donovan, have you read Robert Surgenis response to your response to this subject? I do not mean to be overly critical, we all make mistakes, but I wonder if you are going to offer a retraction, or at least a supportable counter argument. I am a recent Catholic convert, and honestly search for truth in Christ's Church. I am very concerned about the apparent state of the Church today (esp. in the US). I realize the Church IGNORES many issues (veils, altar girls, etc.), some which are not strictly illegal (i.e., altar girls), but this does not change the fundamental truth of the matter. If the Church chooses to ignore an issue, then perhaps it is better to follow It's example rather than to create an apology for the issue. EWTN is a trusted source of information (including for myself). Please keep it that way.

Sincerely, Mark J. Wyatt

Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 07-01-2004: I am not the least bit apologetic about my position on the obligation. Anyone is free to reject my explanation of WHY the Church might have done so. That is not the real issue.

R. Sungenis: It's certainly part of the issue, since Mr. Donovan styles himself as a spokesman for EWTN and a teacher of its millions of patrons, and a representative of the magisterium's teaching. If Mr. Donovan thinks that his position can be classified as a personal opinion, then he ought to put a disclaimer on his piece. Otherwise, EWTN patrons take his opinion as if the Catholic magisterium has officially taught it.

As it stands, Mr. Donovan's opinion is, for all intents and purposes, quite opposed to the magisterium's official teaching, as we will see below. Unfortunately, the way Mr. Donovan does Catholic apologetics these days is to wet his finger and stick it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing. Yet, as you will see below, he has the gall to accuse those who take an opposite view as "fundamentalists" and "Pharisees." We always know when someone's argument is weak - they resort to name-calling.

C. Donovan: Paul VI's judgment was that veils did not pertain to the divine deposit of the faith, as Sungenis himself notes (dismissing it as an opinion influenced by modernists).

R. Sungenis: First, I made no such statement. Second, Paul VI made no reference to the "divine deposit of the faith" in Inter Insignores, and thus we are not to judge the validity of the issue on the basis of "divine deposit." If not, then we must ask: Is Mr. Donovan trying to convince us that we are required to obey Church mandates only if we can find them in the "divine deposit of the faith"?? I don't think so. Most of what is written in Canon Law, for example, is not a "divine deposit of the faith," rather, it contains disciplines and codes of conduct that the Church can authorize based on the fact that she possesses the "divine deposit of the faith" that give her such authority to add disciplines to it.

For example, let's take the example of the Catholic discipline of not eating meat on Friday. Was that a part of the "divine deposit of the faith"? Certainly not, yet the Church was so forceful about that discipline that it said anyone who violated it committed mortal sin. Can you imagine Catholics in the late 1950s and 60s arguing with the magisterium that Catholics were not required to abide by that law because it was not part of the "divine deposit of the faith"? I don't think so, but that is precisely what Mr. Donovan is claiming.

By the way, the issue of not eating meat on Friday brings up another very important point. Most modern Catholics are not aware of this, but the discipline of not eating meat on every Friday was never rescinded. We are still obligated to refrain from eating meat on Friday, and not just the Fridays of Lent.

Here is Canon Law 1251: "Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday."

The only way this has been qualified is that the Episcopal Conference could add, according to Canon 1253 that, if you do not refrain from eating meat on Friday, you are required to do some act of penance.

But which Catholics do you know, except what Mr. Donovan calls "fundamentalists," are the ones abiding by these canonical mandates? Hardly anyone. For some odd reason, most Catholics think that the obligation to abstain from meat has been totally and forever rescinded!

And what I am suggesting to you dear Catholic, is that the same distorted and modernistic rationalization has led to thinking that veil wearing no longer has the force of law. The fact remains that, the law was never changed, but everyone thinks that just because few practice it anymore (thanks to the Annabale Bugnini), then the Church has officially and formally done away with the practice. Not so. There hasn't been ANY (note that, Mr. Donovan) official statement from the magisterium rescinding the obligation for women to wear veils. It has only been assumed as the case, just as eating meat on Friday has been assumed to be the case.

C. Donovan: By such logic, the individual assumes the office of judging whether the Pope's decisions are properly made. This is an insidious principle, made doubly so by the insignificant issue being debated.

R. Sungenis: This is Mr. Donovan's old stand-by argument: He wants you to take as a given that his opinion is directly from the pope so that anyone one who disagrees with Mr. Donovan's opinion is "judging" the pope. The only thing that is "insidious" is Mr. Donovan's intrusion into the magisterium as if he is their bona fide spokesman.

As for his remark that the issue being debated is "insignificant," now I can see precisely why Mr. Donovan comes to the conclusions that he does. Women wearing a sign of being under authority is "insignificant" to Mr. Donovan because he is a modern man who has been enlightened by modern culture that women have been liberated from such antiquated roles. Unfortunately for him, St. Paul didn't think so, otherwise he wouldn't have spent almost a whole chapter of 1 Corinthians speaking about something so "insignificant." And apparently the Church prior to Mr. Donovan's age didn't think so either, since for 1975 years prior, all the women were wearing veils!

But let's not bother Mr. Donovan with these traditional details. He has shown us that the Church of tradition no longer has influence upon him or what transpires in the world, and he has shown us that he makes dogmatic decisions for the rest of us based on nothing more than his opinion of offhand remarks in an encyclical that wasn't dealing with the issue at hand.

C. Donovan: Rather, let the papacy change its mind.

R. Sungenis: The bottom line is this: based on the litany of Canon Laws I presented to Mr. Donovan in my last post (and which he apparently read) showing that veil covering is a custom that retains the force of law, then unless Mr. Donovan can show us that the present magisterium has officially and formally rescinded the force of law inherent in veil covering, then it is a fact that the papacy has not "changed its mind." Any canonist could explain to Mr. Donovan that Mr. Donovan's opinion of the pope's offhand remarks do not qualify as the "papacy changing its mind."

Until if and when the papacy directly and formally addresses the issue of veil covering, then Mr. Donovan ought to retract, or at least qualify, his statement that women are no longer required to wear veils. Otherwise, not only does he put women in jeopardy before God, but he also makes it appear as if the Church contradicts herself.

C. Donovan: In the meantime, it is a dreadful legalism to suggest that women must wear veils. IF the Pope was wrong, then at worst what he has loosed on earth is loosed in heaven, as the Lord promised.

R. Sungenis: Again, Mr. Donovan is playing the "I follow the pope, even if he might be wrong, and you don't follow the pope" card, but I hope we can all see through that ploy now.

Also he is assuming that Paul VI's offhand remarks in Inter Insignores qualify as filling the category of "binding and loosing" in Matthew 16! This shows that Mr. Donovan has a severely distorted view of what Mt 16:18-19 teaches. No pope or council in Church history has ever held the faithful bound or loosed to something that a pope has never officially addressed! In actuality, "dreadful legalism" occurs when people like Mr. Donovan take offhand and non-official remarks and turn them into legal mandates for the whole Church. (By the way, I suppose Mr. Donovan would also insist that not eating meat on all Fridays is "dreadful legalism").

In addition, let's see how Mr. Donovan's opinion that "it is a dreadful legalism to suggest that women must wear veils" would fit in with St. Paul's and the traditional Church's teaching. If Mr. Donovan's statement is a truism in itself, that is, its meaning is not dependent on the culture, then Mr. Donovan is saying that veil wearing, in itself, is "dreadful legalism." I hope you can see now, dear Catholic, from where Mr. Donovan is coming. He has already decided, prior to any papal remarks on the issue, that veil wearing is "dreadful legalism," and everything he says afterward, including his opinion of Paul VI's statements, is based on that premise. We are safe in pinning this presupposition on Mr. Donovan because no where in the current magisterium's treatment of this issue has anyone, including Paul VI in Inter Insignores, ever stated that veil wearing was "dreadful legalism." It is strictly Mr. Donovan's opinion, and it is a totally inappropriate one at that. Thank you, Mr. Donovan, for showing us the real reason you are against veil wearing. Perhaps you can take that up with St. Paul, and the Holy Spirit who inspired him, when you get to heaven. As for now, let the rest of us follow what the magisterium has officially and formally taught on this subject.

C. Donovan: This is what the great grace of Petrine primacy accomplishes for the Church. It delivers Christians from scrupulosity and fundamentalism, such as existed among the Pharisees of Jesus' time.

R. Sungenis: That's funny. It was the Petrine primacy, prior to Mr. Donovan's distorted interpretation of Inter Insignores, that enforced the practice of veil wearing for over 1900 years! And again, I suppose that Mr. Donovan fails to realize that when he calls veil wearing a "dreadful legalism" that stems from "scrupulosity and fundamentalism" and which "existed among the Pharisees," that he has just indicted all the Petrine office holders of history of having the same faults, including St. Paul himself! Again, the only thing Mr. Donovan has succeeded in doing is showing us the biased presupposition he personally held before he ever came to examine this issue.

Unfortunately, in order to get his biased opinion across, he has resorted to name-calling. Like the liberals to whom he has now cast in his hat into the ring, Mr. Donovan regards those who abide by the OFFICIAL teachings of the magisterium as "fundamentalists."

Here is an interesting side note. The Bishop of Fatima who just approved and oversaw Hindu worship at the shrine of Fatima in Portugal, when criticized for allowing it, said, "Well, we don't want to be fundamentalists." I'll, let you, dear reader, make your own judgments about the word "fundamentalism."

If you would like to know more about the Hindu worship at Fatima, read John Venarri's article at www.oltyn.com/cfn.htm. Incidentally, since Mr. Donovan works for EWTN, you should also know that John's report contains the following:

"On an April 25, EWTN broadcast with Father Mitch Pacwa, Father Robert J. Fox ridiculed those Catholics who resist the ecumenical orientation at Fatima, he assured the viewers that everything they hear about what's going on at Fatima is a "fabrication", and that Fatima will retain its Catholic identity. The recent Hindu ceremony at Fatima shows how fraudulent are Father Fox's "assurances". It also means that Father Fox and EWTN are guilty of neutralizing the healthy resistance that Catholics should mount against these interfaith outrages."

Any organization that condones and supports the Hindu worship now taking place at Fatima, has become apostate, including EWTN's spokesman, Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, and I assume, Mr. Colin Donovan.

Robert Sungenis
July 2, 2004