Catholic Apologetics International
Should Women Wear Veils?
Robert,
Colin Donovan of EWTN answered a question regarding women wearing veils. He says they are not required to wear veils. I want to know if you think it is correct. Here is his answer below. Would you comment on it, please?
Thank you,
John
Colin Donovan: The 1917 Code of Canon Law. canon 1262, stated, 1. It is desirable that, consistent with ancient discipline, women be separated from men in church. 2. 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. When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon was not re-issued; indeed, canon 6 abrogated it, along with every other canon of the 1917 Code not intentionally incorporated into the new legislation. Thus, there is no longer any canonical obligation for women to wear a head-covering, much less the more specific veil.
R. Sungenis: Mr. Donovan is making a lot of assumptions without proof or evidence from Canon Law. For example, the 1983 Code of Canon Law says the following about previous Codes of Canon Law, namely, the 1917 code:
Canon 20: “A later law 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. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.”
So here we see that Canon Law puts limits around itself in relation to previous Canon Law. In other words, the 1983 Code does not automatically “abrogate” an earlier law unless it “states so expressly,” makes a statement about that law which “is directly contrary to it,” or “reorders the entire matter.” None of these were done in the 1983 code regarding women wearing veils. Canon 21 adds even more force to Canon 20 as it says:
Canon 21: “In a case of doubt, 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.”
In other words, if the present code of law does not mention anything about veils, and thus causes doubt in one’s mind, in that case, the 1983 code says no one can “presume” that the law requiring veils is not required. Instead, whatever the 1983 code says about women in general must be harmonized with the 1917 code.
Further, the 1983 code speaks of “Custom” as having the force of law. If wearing veils is considered a custom, then these canons apply.
First, Canon 27 says: “Custom is the best interpreter of laws.” That is, if the custom of women wearing veils can be shown to be based in Tradition, and has been practiced and never rescinded in that Tradition, it is a custom that then must be used to interpret any code of canon law. Canon law is not an end in itself (contrary to what Mr. Donovan is assuming), but is to be “interpreted” in accordance with Tradition. According to canon law, Tradition does not suddenly disappear when a new code of canon law appears.
How powerful is “Custom” when deciding these issues? Again, the 1983 Code tells us. In Canon 24.2 it states: “A custom contrary to or beyond canon law cannot obtain the force of law unless it is reasonable; a custom which is expressly reprobated in the law, however, is not reasonable.”
In other words, a “custom” is considered “reasonable” if it is not “expressly reprobated in the law.” As long as it is “reasonable,” the “custom” has the “force of law,” even if it is “contrary to or beyond canon law.” So if someone were to argue that the requirement for women to wear veils is “contrary to or beyond” the 1983 code of canon law, still, since the “custom” of wearing veils is well-established in Tradition, and is also “reasonable,” then the 1983 code does not affect it.
Please note that, someone could claim that the 1983 code was “contrary to or beyond” women wearing veils only if the 1983 code specifically said something “contrary,” to the effect of: “Women are not to wear veils,” or something that claimed the veil-wearing was “beyond” canon law, such as “Women are not required to wear veils because we recognize no such tradition, custom, or previous canon law that stipulated such a requirement.”
But in reality, no one can argue that veil-wearing is “contrary to or beyond” the 1983 code, not only because the 1983 makes no such concession, but also because veil-wearing was not only part of previous canon law, but it permeated the Tradition for over 1900 years, unless, of course, someone can show us in church history a universal practice in which women were not wearing veils.
Next, what does the 1983 code consider as a “custom” that can have the “force of law”? Canon 26 answers that question. It states: “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”
Notice that, even if the “custom” were “contrary or beyond” present canon law (which veil wearing is not, since the 1983 code does not forbid veil-wearing), even then, if the “custom” has been practiced for “thirty (30) continuous and complete years” it is not affected by current canon law and “obtains the force of law.” Ask yourself this question: Has veil-wearing for women been in practice for “thirty continuous years” prior to the 1983 code of canon law? Obviously, yes.
Notice this also in Canon 26: “Only a centenary or immemorial custom, however, can prevail against a canonical law which contains a clause prohibiting future customs.”
A “centenary” custom is one that has been in practice for 100 years. An “immemorial” custom is one that has been practiced in the entire Tradition of the Church. Obviously, veil-wearing fulfills both these criteria. But, of course, this applies only if the 1983 code “prohibits” veil-wearing, which it does not. In effect, Canon 26 proves the case of veil-wearing so forcefully that it becomes impregnable.
Now note this stipulation in Canon 28 of the 1983 code: “...Unless it makes express mention of them, however, a law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs, nor does a universal law revoke particular customs.”
Here we see the same, and a little more, of what we saw in the previous canons. Canon 28 has reiterated the principle that, unless the code of 1983 “makes express mention of” veil-wearing, then a 1983 “law does not revoke centenary or immemorial customs.” But note this also: not even a “universal law” can “revoke particular customs.”
So, when in the 1983 code of Canon Law 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” (page xxix), this means that, unless he decides to change it, John Paul II is bound by what he himself put in the 1983 code. That means he is bound to abide by the rule of “customs” as outlined in Canons 23-28, and therefore, no change from the “immemorial” custom of women wearing veils is, or has been, made by the Magisterium.
Now, what if someone were to argue from earlier canons in the 1983 code? Those canons are not going to help either, since they support the canons of Ecclesiastical Laws (Canons 20-21 we cited earlier) and the canons on Customs (Canons 23-28). 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 hasn’t “defined” many of the things that take place in “liturgical actions.” If we understand veil-wearing as being related to “liturgical action” since it is practiced mainly during the liturgy (and since the previous code of 1917 put veil-wearing in a liturgical context), then it follows that, since veil-wearing is one of those “liturgical actions” which the 1983 code does not address, “therefore,” the “law” of veil-wearing is “in force until now” and “retain[s] its force “unless...contrary to the canons of the code,” which obviously it is not.
Let’s look at Canon 5: “Universal or particular customs presently in force which are contrary to the prescripts of these canons and are reprobated by the canons of this Code are absolutely suppressed and are not permitted to revive in the future.”
So, unless the 1983 code specifically “reprobates” veil-wearing, then it cannot be “suppressed,” and it can be “revive[d] in the future,” which is what we can do presently – revive it.
Canon 5 continues: “Other contrary customs are also considered suppressed unless the Code expressly provides otherwise or unless they are centenary or immemorial customs which can be tolerated if, in the judgment of the ordinary, they cannot be removed due to the circumstances of places and persons.”
Even though, as we have seen before, this canon doesn’t specifically apply (since veil-wearing, if someone wants to call it a “custom,” is not a “contrary custom,” but a traditional, scriptural and beneficial custom), still Canon 5 shows how secure from being suppressed veil-wearing really is, since even if it were “contrary,” it is protected by the “centenary or immemorial customs” clause we saw in Canon 26 and 28.
Canon 5.2 then says: “Universal or particular customs beyond the law which are in force until now are preserved.”
Again, if veil-wearing is considered a custom, and is also considered “beyond” the 1983 code because the 1983 code doesn’t mention veil-wearing, then veil-wearing is “preserved.”
Canon 6 says: “When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: (1) the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.”
Now, this is relevant because Mr. Donovan says the following in his argument against women wearing veils:
“When the 1983 Code of Canon Law was promulgated this canon [1262 requiring women to wear veils] was not re-issued; indeed, canon 6 abrogated it, along with every other canon of the 1917 Code not intentionally incorporated into the new legislation. Thus, there is no longer any canonical obligation for women to wear a head-covering, much less the more specific veil.”
First, we should point out that Canon 6 of the 1983 code does not say that it “abrogated it,” that is Canon 1262 of the 1917 code which required veils. Rather, Canon 6 says that it abrogated the “Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917.” That is, as a matter of legal jurisdiction, no one can base legal or canonical decisions on the 1917 code any longer, for it has no legal force. But we are not arguing for veil-wearing based on a legal or canonical basis, but on a “custom” basis, and a “custom” that is not merely “thirty” years in the making, or even a “centenary” in the making, but is, in fact, “immemorial.” The fact that veil-wearing became part of canon law does not mean that it is dependent on canon law for its existence or practice.
Granted, someone could possibly make a legal argument that, since no canon presently requires a women to wear veils then she is not legally obligated to wear one, but we have already seen in Canons 23-28 that “custom” can have “the force of law” even though it is not a law itself. If it has the “force” of law then it acts like a law even though it is not, in itself, a law. That is what Catholic tradition is all about. We don’t need “laws” to show us the right thing to do; rather, we do the right thing because it is right, and Tradition and Scripture show us veil-wearing is right. The only ones who are arguing for women not to wear veils are those, like Mr. Donovan, who want to make a legalistic argument against the practice, but of course, that is akin to the Pharisees arguing with Jesus that it is not legal for the disciples to pick grains of wheat on the sabbath.
As I stated above, custom, in the Catholic Church, has the “force of law,” and thus it is just as binding as any canon could be. The irony is that, if one wants to base his decision regarding veils on its legality, the 1983 code contains about a dozen “legal” canons stating that previous customs and practices, not forbidden by the new code and existent for thirty or more years, have in themselves the “force of law.” In fact, if the custom is 100 years old or immemorial, it can actually have more force of law than a canonical law (Canon 26). With both Scripture and Tradition giving the custom of veil-wearing its force, there is no precedent for claiming that canon law abolished the requirement for veil-wearing.
Mr. Donovan: Moral Law: Many wonder, however, if given St. Paul's instructions in 1 Cor. 11 there is not a moral obligation to do so despite the revision of canon law. First of all, if that were true it would be a matter of faith and morals and the Church would not have abrogated this canon.
R. Sungenis: Here again we see Mr. Donovan make the same mistake of building on a premise he hasn’t yet proven. We have seen that the 1983 code did not “abrogate this canon.” As Canon 20 says: “A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law,” and Canon 21 says: “In case of doubt, the revocation of a pre-existing law is not presumed, but later laws [1983 code] must be related to the earlier ones [1917 code] and, insofar as possible, must be harmonized with them.”
Consequently, Mr. Donovan’s attempt to pit canon law against 1 Corinthians 11's command for women to wear veils is misplaced. We already saw that Canon 2 says that the 1983 code itself admits that, “for the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions.” Thus, the Code gives itself an excuse for not addressing the issue of head covering, and thus it cannot be accused of eliminating an issue of “faith and morals” regarding 1 Corinthians 11. Obviously, although Canon Law strives to be comprehensive, by its own admission, it is not; otherwise, it would not have to be redone very often. If it fails to address an issue, then according to its very own canons, that does not mean that the issue is no longer a matter of necessity.
Mr. Donovan: Secondly, that it is not true is clear from the language of the canon, which conforms to the moral theology tradition of the church in matters of dress. Dress is a matter of custom. What is modest and becoming in one culture may not be in another. Modesty goes beyond the domain of sexuality. As St. Thomas Aquinas explains it concerns 4 things,
First, "the movement of the mind towards some excellence, and this is moderated by "humility." The second is the desire of things pertaining to knowledge, and this is moderated by "studiousness" which is opposed to curiosity. The third regards bodily movements and actions, which require to be done becomingly and honestly, whether we act seriously or in play. The fourth regards outward show, for instance in dress and the like" [ST II-II q160, a2].
Dress, external behavior, mannerisms, etc. are signs of the person, and becomes so in the cultural context in which the person lives, and in which it indicates something to others. The Christian conforms to the culture in such matters, unless sin is intrinsically involved (dress intended, or which will have the general effect, to arouse the opposite sex). Modesty is humility in dress and mannerisms, an outward sign of the disposition of the inner man. By not standing out the Christian assumes a humble posture toward his neighbors.
R. Sungenis: First, Mr. Donovan’s attempt to make head coverings a mere matter of “dress” or “modesty,” is certainly off the mark. St. Paul certainly did not make such an exclusive argument in 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Rather, St. Paul makes it quite clear that head coverings are to be worn due to one of the most basic paradigms of creation – that the man is in authority over the woman (1 Cor 11:3-5). A women’s head covering symbolizes she is under authority. There is no subject, outside of Christ, that St. Paul and the New Testament addresses more comprehensively and in more detail than the issue of women being under the authority of man (1 Cor 11:1-16; 1 Cor 14:33-38; 1 Tim 2:11-15; Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:22-33; Tit. 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-5). [Note: For those who have a question about Eph. 5:21, please consult my article “Mutual Submission of Spouses?” at www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/Mulieris_Dignitatem.asp]. In fact, Paul argues that a women’s head covering is so important that it is worn “because of the angels.”
Mr. Donovan: Thus, whether men and women sit on opposite sides of the church, men wear a skull-cap, and women a veil, as the Jews of St. Paul's day did, is ultimately a matter of modesty, and thus of custom. As the "approved mores of the people" change, the Church, desiring to be "all things to all men" (except in sin), the custom changes. Only the Magisterium is competent to determine where custom leaves off and divine law begins. We are always safe in following the Church, rather than our own judgment, for even if the Church makes a prudential error, it is "bound in heaven" (Mt. 16:13-18).
R. Sungenis: Again, the Magisterium makes no such argument regarding the veiling of women. Modesty has little to do with head coverings, since the head is an object that does not need to be covered up for sexual reasons, but only for reasons of authority, as 1 Corinthians 11:1-16 makes clear. The 1917 Code also recognized the distinction between “head coverings” and “modesty” when it placed an “and” between the two (“...women, however, shall have a covered head and be modestly dressed, especially when they approach the table of the Lord. (Canon 1262, §2).”
Mr. Donovan: Liturgical and Marital Theology: One might also ask, isn't the wearing of a head-covering the expression of theological subordination to God, and natural subordination of wives to their husbands? This is certainly true. All human beings are subordinate (ordered under and to) God by both grace and nature. Also, in the natural order the right ordering of the family requires the headship of the husband. Why would the Church drop such a useful sign? I can think of three reasons.
R. Sungenis: Again, Mr. Donovan is assuming that because a specific command for head covering does not appear in the 1983 Code this means that the Church has “drop[ed]” the sign. It does not. In fact, we can add a little history concerning this issue to reinforce the point that veil covering is still part of church rubrics, albeit it has fallen into general disuse because parishioners are not being given correct information.
For example, although anecdotal, it is reported that during the Second Vatican Council, journalists asked Cardinal Annibale Bugnini (pronounced: Bunini) whether women would still have to wear head coverings. He replied that the matter was not a topic of debate at the Council. For some reason, the journalists interpreted him to say, whether inadvertently or deliberately, that women would not have to wear veils, and unfortunately, this misinformation was reported all over the world. That, coupled with the fact that the 1960s was a decade of social revolution that entertained many heretofore unheard of ideas and practices in the Church, many women stopped wearing veils, even though there was no specific mandate from the Church to do so.
Since the question of veils still lingered in the minds of many faithful Catholics who knew it was a 2000-year old tradition, Pope Paul VI addressed the issue through one of his emissaries in mid-1969. An article in The Atlanta Journal of June 21, 1969, titled “Women Required to Cover Head, Vatican Insists,” states: “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.’”
Then in 1975, Paul VI, in addressing the matter of whether women could be ordained to the priesthood, made a brief mention of head coverings in his letter titled Inter Insignores. I will underline the parts that are relevant to our topic. He 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 regarding the head covering appears to demote its status and importance in current Church practice, one cannot make such a conclusion 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 is making a definitive decision for the Church, is the issue of ordaining women priests, not head coverings. The issue of head coverings is added only to serve as evidence that St. Paul was not a misogynist or had “prejudices against women.” Thus, Paul VI is not making a definitive decision on whether women should, or should not, wear head coverings. The rule of interpreting magisterial documents is: unless the magisterium is addressing a specific topic, and intends on giving a definitive decision on that topic, than that topic is not being decided upon. Thus, no one can use Inter Insignores to teach that the Catholic Church no longer requires head coverings for women. He may use it to show what Paul VI’s thinking may have been at the time, but not as an official teaching of the Church. No pope would want to be held to such rigorous use of his words.
(2) Regarding the mind of the pope, it is obvious that Paul VI does not want to have his words regarding head coverings to be 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,” Paul VI is thus making a personal judgment of the origin of head coverings which, in fact, is quite dubious, since there is little evidence to support such an assertion, and, the fact that the wearing of head coverings was practiced for the 1975 years prior to Paul VI’s letter means that the remaining popes and councils of the Church did not see it as merely a “custom of the period” that was not to continue in the remaining 19 centuries of Church practice. In any case, the 1983 Code of Canon Law has stated quite clearly that such “customs” can attain the “force of law” if they have been practiced for a sufficient amount of time (Canons 23-28), and are impervious to canonical decisions, let alone letters from a pope who is not addressing the issue in the main.
(3) This leads us to make an analysis of Paul VI’s statement that “such requirements no longer have a normative value.” As we see in #2 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 the use of the word “probably,” his conclusion is based on an unproven or faulty premise, and therefore the conclusion is 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 the Church previous to Paul VI understood head coverings to have “normative value” by the mere fact that the Church continued the practice of requiring women to wear a veil, then the tradition and the custom have been established, and Paul VI certainly would not want to be interpreted as making an official Church teaching against that tradition. Otherwise, to promulgate the idea that, after the first century, head coverings have no “normative value” would mean that the Church for over 1900 years was mistaken in both not seeing the practice as a mere first century aberration and requiring all its women to abide by such a superfluous practice.
(4) Lastly, since in Inter Insignores Paul VI does not cover the issue of head coverings in any depth whatsoever but merely makes unproven assumptions that are not only not germane to his case against ordaining women but would need much more study in order to come to a firm conclusion, we do a disservice to him and to the Church if we attempt to use his cursory statements as an official teaching of the Church against head coverings.
We must also remember that Paul VI was surrounded by liberal exegetes of Scripture who, based on the methodology of historical criticism they enthroned from liberal Protestants, were constantly feeding him modernistic interpretations of Scripture. It is quite likely that Paul VI’s cursory statements on head coverings was not what he himself came to believe but what the current liberal establishment of clerics were promulgating at the time. This is quite evident if one reads the literature on this issue and other related issues, both in Catholic and Protestant camps, during the 1970s. 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 – interpretations that not only went against 2000 years of Catholic tradition but also 2000 years of Old Testament tradition.
For example, 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). A Hebrew woman would never consider entering the Temple without a head covering. But today, in light of all the other signs of a generation who has lost faith in God, the liberals do the same thing with Scripture’s teaching on homosexuality, and many other social and cultural issues, claiming that the proscriptions of the New Testament are based on cultural biases of the first century. Nothing could be further from the truth.
A good example of how liberals permeated the curia can be gleaned from the events leading up to the encyclical Humanae Vitae. Paul VI asked 68 qualified clerics to discuss the issue and offer him their conclusions. Of the 68, only 4 were against contraception. The other 64, if they had the chance, would have allowed women 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 by the 64 dissenters.
Mr. Donovan: First, as explained above, signs are cultural. When the culture no longer sees the significance the sign loses its meaning, except to those who have retained the understanding of it. Certainly, the practice of an important sign can re-introduce it into a culture, whether of the Church or society as a whole. And, some signs the Church never changes, can't change, such as the sacramental signs. In the Orient rice is not used instead of wheat in the Eucharist, for example, even though rice is the main staple there. Thus, there is an argument in favor of maintaining this sign as conveying a truth about supernatural and natural hierarchy. However, why not maintain all the distinctions of men and women mentioned in canon 1262?
The answer to that question is my second reason - these external signs would be an obstacle for many people of our time to accepting the truth. A sign can become a counter-witness, by conveying a meaning which in current circumstances would generally be read in a way which misrepresents Church teaching. While the truths intended by these signs remain valid, properly understood and in union with other truths, they would have the net effect of conveying only a partial truth about women and men. In the contemporary world, in which the equality of men and women as persons is emphasized, this is a legitimate concern. As St. Paul teaches us in 1 Cor. 8, we must not use our Christian freedom to hinder souls. Since there is no intrinsic moral obligation to these practices, they can be set aside, as the Church has done.
R. Sungenis: Again, Mr. Donovan assumes the Church has “set aside” the teaching on veil coverings, but one will search in vain for even one official and binding teaching on this subject. As the 1983 Code stated, unless the Church specifically sets aside a practice, then we cannot “presume” that it is set aside. Arguments from silence will simply not prove anything for Mr. Donovan.
Second, Mr. Donovan’s reasoning is that “In the contemporary world, in which the equality of men and women as persons is emphasized, this is a legitimate concern.” He is trying to drive a wedge between today’s world and the Church of Tradition, implying that, because the Church of Tradition continued the practice of head covering, then it was neither providing women “equality” with men nor treating them as “persons.” This is a serious indictment against the Church. Mr. Donovan thinks that he can stand against 1900+ years of Church tradition and judge them as uniformed and insensitive to women simply because they required her, under biblical mandate, to put a covering on her head. The truth is that Mr. Donovan has obviously imbibed the spirit of the times and it is that spirit which is influencing how he interprets both Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. All three become a wax nose one can mold in any shape one wishes, as long as it placates the social mores and cultural practices of the day. Mr. Donovan couldn’t be more wrong. It was the traditional Church which saw in women their true and dignified role before God. It was by recognizing their submission to man that they truly became women of God. According to St Paul, women honor themselves, their husbands and God by submitting to the authorities placed over them, and the veil on her head symbolized that submission.
Unfortunately, many of today’s women no longer want to submit. They want to rule, which is precisely the reason Paul VI, in Inter Insignores, and John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, had to tell women, twice, that they could not be ordained and thus could not rule in the Church. But they are so emboldened that they are still trying to circumvent these ecclesiastical mandates. Of course, they give the same arguments that Mr. Donovan gives for not wearing head coverings – we are denying them “equality” with men and are not treating them as “persons.”
Mr. Donovan: This brings me to my third reason, which explains why these signs could lead to only a partial understanding of Church teaching in our day. The dropping of this obligation, I suspect, comes from a deliberate desire to promote the values of the liturgical renewal and the theological and anthropological personalism of the Second Vatican Council. The liturgical renewal sought to give to the laity their rightful place as "royal priests," sacramental signs of their membership in the Body of Christ through baptism - the ministerial priest being the sacramental sign of Christ the Head. By the active participation of the laity a liturgical, as opposed to a purely personal, piety is fostered, in which the Mystical Christ, Head and members, publicly worship the Father as one. This serves as a sign to the world of Christ's salvific work and continuing presence in the world, both in the Eucharist and in the Church. Within that liturgical, sacramental perspective, the distinction between male in female does not apply, since in baptism "there is no longer male or female" (Gal. 3:28). The distinction to be emphasized in the liturgy is not the distinction between men and women, husbands and wives, but the distinction between the Head and the members of Christ's Body, that is, the supernatural ordering of the Mystical Body which comes about through Holy Orders and Baptism. In a similar way, in all areas of the Church's life not requiring Holy Orders, men and women today participate equally as baptized persons. The sole exception is installation in ministry, what used to be called minor orders (lector and acolyte), which being closely associated to Major Orders is also reserved to men.
R. Sungenis: Since, by Mr. Donovan’s own admission, the above paragraph is his own opinion (since he is not citing an official statement from the Church), then we can use it to see where his mind is in regards to the Church of today. This is important, since Mr. Donovan is Vice-President of Theology at EWTN, and is the person assigned by EWTN to judge the teaching of all those who teach for EWTN. If Mr. Donovan believes a certain person is not teaching something correctly, it is he who warns the person and who recommends dismissal if the person does not capitulate. Obviously, his opinions have a great effect on how he judges important issues. That being the case, if the above is any indication of how Mr. Donovan thinks out this issues, then EWTN has certainly seen better days. It is no wonder that we have seen certain questionable teachings on EWTN, especially since Mother Angelica has left.
First, let me deal with Mr. Donovan’s appeal to Galatians 3:28, which he uses as the basis for his opinions on what he envisions as the “new priesthood” of the post-conciliar era. If you are not familiar with the literature in liberal circles on this topic, allow me to inform you that Galatians 3:28 is one of their favorite verses in seeking to advance the cause of women priests, eucharistic ministers, altar girls, chancellors at chanceries, heads of parish councils, and many other modern ecclesiastical inventions. Suffice it to say, Galatians 3:28 is one of the most abused and misunderstood passages in all of Scripture. Those who apply it to ecclesiastical roles and issues are simply misconstruing the verse. Galatians 3:28 was never used in Church history the way it is being used today by the modernists in the post-conciliar era. 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 not 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, Mr. Donovan is arguing that, because St. Paul says “there is not male and female,” this means the distinctions between the sexes have been broken down in areas of social, cultural and ecclesiastical context. The reasoning is, if there is little or no distinction between the sexes, then we cannot base functionary roles on sex (at least to some degree, since Mr. Donovan admits above that women, because they are female, still cannot be ordained priests). But apparently Mr. Donovan sees enough distinction between the sexes in Galatians 3:28 in order to use it as a basis for advancing opportunities for women that they did not have previously. For example, Mr. Donovan sees Galatians 3:28 as spawning a “liturgical renewal and...theological and anthropological personalism of the Second Vatican Council,” that is, women, even though they cannot be priests and confect the Eucharist, can now participate in “priestly activities,” and I’m sure Mr. Donovan would fill in the latter category with things such as female eucharistic ministers, altar girls and altar women, authoritative roles in the chancery, university and seminary, and a whole host of authoritative/ecclesiastical functions that women in the Catholic Church never had.
The problem with Mr. Donovan’s view of Galatians 3:28 is that it doesn’t support any of the things he is advocating. First, if Galatians 3:28 is the watershed verse Mr. Donovan claims it to be, why didn’t St. Paul give it the same interpretation Mr. Donovan is giving it? For that matter, why didn’t the Church for over 1900+ years give it Mr. Donovan’s interpretation? Galatians was one of St. Paul’s first epistles, coming even before 1 Corinthians (the passage at issue). Mr. Donovan would have us believe that St. Paul writes about the freedom of women in Galatians 3:28, yet is this not the same Paul who writes that women should have their head covered to show they are under the authority of men, and because of the angels (1 Cor 11:3-16)? Is this not the same Paul who told women to keep quiet at Mass, and if they had any questions, they should ask their husbands at home, and stated that this was a “command of the Lord” (1 Cor 14:34-35)? Is this not the same Paul who, in a later epistle, told women to be in submission to the man because Adam was “formed first” and “Eve was in the transgression” (1 Tim 2:11-14)? So where does Mr. Donovan come off in seeing a whole new vista of female prerogatives in liturgy and ecclesiastics based on Galatians 3:28?
But not only that, Mr. Donovan has misinterpreted Galatians 3:28 itself. He has taken the passage out of context and consequently made wrong conclusions. The context of Galatians 3 is concerned about one thing – salvation. As the context shows, since Christ has come, all men have the ability to be free from the law which bound them in sin (Gal. 3:10-25). Because faith replaced law, we, the whole human race, can be free of the law’s condemnation, since baptism makes all of us sons of God rather than cursed orphans (Gal. 3:26-27). Thus, in that salvation context, a context dealing with grace versus law (which is a context that permeates St. Paul’s teaching in the NT), 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.” In other words, as far as salvation is concerned, God is no respecter of persons (cf., Romans 2:9-10). Whether you are a Jew, Greek, slave, freeman, male or female, you all have the opportunity to be saved and become one in Christ, for the law which separated you has been vanquished. Paul is not making any grandiose and extrapolated conclusions about the ecclesiastical function of women in Future Church. Instead, when he continues his discussion in Galatians 4, he goes right back to the “grace versus law” theme with which he started the context as far back as Galatians 2:1.
Why do liberals, then, try to use Galatians 3:28 to promote their cause? Because it is the only verse in the New Testament that even remotely gives them a shot at convincing the unlearned of their liberal agenda for women. Every other statement Paul writes in the NT concerning women makes a concerted effort to limit their functionary role in the Church. That is why you never see liberals quoting from 1 Cor 11, 14, 1Tim 2, Tit 2, 1 Peter 5, unless, of course, they are trying to argue that those verses “cannot be applied to women today because they are too strict.” But Galatians 3:28 is their baby, since, a cursory reading by people who don’t know how to exegete Scripture will invariably produce the conclusion that St. Paul was exalting women to heights never before seen in the Church. They will also convince them that the Church of 1900+ years ago must have been asleep at the switch not to see these wonderful new truths that liberal exegetes have been able to glean from Scripture.
Conversely, Mr. Donovan assures his readers that his opinions of women in ministry today are supported by the “the liturgical renewal and the theological and anthropological personalism of the Second Vatican Council.” If so, then I suggest Mr. Donovan show us where Vatican II exegeted Galatians 3:28 in the way he is proposing above. Allow me to help speed the process along. Not only does Vatican II not subscribe to Mr. Donovan’s innovative exegesis of Galatians 3:28, it doesn’t even mention the verse once in its entire sixteen documents, even in the footnotes. The book of Galatians is mentioned 17 times in Vatican II’s documents (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 are quoting or concerning Galatians 3:28. In fact, the very document that we might expect to see Galatians 3:28 is Guadium et Spes, since it has sections with such titles as “The Dignity of the Human Person” and “The Role of the Church in the Modern World.”
Mr. Donovan might also be surprised to find out that Vatican II mentions nothing about changing the functionary role of women in the Church. It mentions nothing about female eucharistic ministers or altar girls or altar women or any of the dozens of ecclesiastical and authoritative roles that liberals have seen fit to give women today based on the idea that Galatians 3:28 promotes such advancement. There are, in effect, only two places where the role of women is even addressed in Vatican II documents. One appears in Sacramentali Communione regarding rules of the Sacred Liturgy. It states that: “The traditional liturgical norms of the Church prohibit women (young girls, married women, religious) from serving the priest at the altar, even in women’s chapels, houses, convents, schools and institutes.” As we see, the only thing they are allowed to do is “proclaim the Scripture readings,” “offer the intentions for prayer,” “lead the congregation singing; play the organ,” “give explanatory comments,” “receiving the faithful at the door.” That’s it. There is no watershed of “liturgical renewal and the theological and anthropological personalism” that Mr. Donovan sees in Galatians 3:28. Yet we find women today acting like priests distributing communion, parading on the altar, and a host of other such activities in direct defiance of Vatican II.
The other mention of women in Vatican II appears in Gaudium et Spes in the sentence: “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). Of course, no one is against having women “play their part fully according to their own particular nature.” That is precisely what we are arguing in this critique. But since Mr. Donovan interprets Galatians 3:28 in his own particular way, he obviously has a different idea of what women’s “own particular nature” is. Unfortunately, Vatican II, which was often ambiguous in its statements, is likewise ambiguous here, for it doesn’t go any further than the two sentences it gives in Gaudium et Spes. This, of course, is fodder for the liberals, since they have been twisting Vatican II’s words for the last 40 years – making it say things that the Holy Spirit never said or intended.
Mr. Donovan: 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".
R. Sungenis: This is another ploy of the liberal mindset – to make it appear as if the traditional Church was not “personal” or did not give “equal dignity of human individuals.”Mr. Donovan makes it sound as if the Church in our day has just discovered these marvelous truths and, for the first time in history, has begun to teach the real essence of what it is to be human; and that the Church of yesteryear was impersonal and looked at people as objects. Again, this is a serious indictment against the Church, but fortunately, Donovan’s thesis is totally baseless.
Pius XI, XII, Vatican II, Paul VI and John Paul II are only building on the “personalism” that was already in Catholic dogma and practice. If you don’t think so, take a look at the voluminous footnotes referring to traditional Church teaching on the human person in Vatican II’s documents, stemming from the early Fathers through the Council of Trent. They are drenched in traditional teaching. Donovan even helps prove the case by citing St. Thomas’ distinction between the “person” and the “nature.” But wasn’t it St. Thomas who highly influenced medieval theology and practice long before Vatican II came along? Moreover, we will find the same distinction between “person” and “nature” in the early Fathers. Were they not the ones who made those very distinctions in understanding the Trinity itself, and which they then permeated throughout Catholic life and teaching? Wasn’t it St. Augustine who wrote the “Confessions” – one of the most personal books of all time – and was he not the principle influence of the early and medieval Church? Mr. Donovan’s talk of “personalism” and “anthropology” has all been said before, by many people in many places. Consequently, his appeal to something new in Catholic teaching is merely an attempt to buttress the liberal interpretation of papal and conciliar teaching from Pius XI onward.
Mr. Donovan: 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". A marriage in which both spouses are baptized is a sacrament of the union of Christ and His Bride the Church. 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. The Father, Christ, the husband, is the active lover; the Son, the Church, the wife, is the receptive lover. 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. The model is the Cross. This is undoubtedly more difficult to live than the natural reality, which has reigned throughout human history. What the Trinity does effortlessly is for fallen human nature a struggle. 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.
R. Sungenis: Again, notice what Mr. Donovan is trying to do. He is trying to make it sound as if the Church after St. Paul, and up until 1983, was clueless about what St. Paul taught on the true nature of authority. To Mr. Donovan, 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 areas. Even Vatican II might not escape Mr. Donovan’s censure in this case, since it quotes heavily from the 1917 Code of Canon Law which contained the infamous Canon 1262 requiring women to wear head coverings. If Vatican II didn’t “drop the sign of subordination” perhaps Mr. Donovan thinks the 1965 Church had a little more learning to do. According to Mr. Donovan’s above paragraph, the Church has finally arrived at the truth as of 1983.
But not only is he wrong about that, he is also wrong in his interpretation of authority. Mr. Donovan is giving the typical “mommy” theology of many of today’s liberals. Notice his definition of authority: “The authority of the husband should be service, love and reverence, not power.” Both by the fact that Mr. Donovan makes no effort to correctly define the command a husband possesses as leader of his household, and by his use of the word “power” to fill in the gap, Mr Donovan is engaging in exegetical demagoguery, trying to make it appear as if husbands who take control of their wives and families are power-hungry bullies. Mr. Donovan has not only distorted the husband’s authoritative role, but he has, to a large degree, reversed the roles of husband and wife. No wonder he doesn’t think the Church of yesteryear had the truth. If the Church didn’t teach that the husband’s authority was merely “service, love and reverence,” no wonder Mr. Donovan can’t find it from the time of St. Paul until the Church made “the decision to drop the sign of subordination.”
Fortunately for us, the Church of yesteryear, beginning with the early Fathers, used the biblical model of authority, which states quite plainly that the wife is to “submit” herself to her husband’s authority (Col 3:18; Eph 5:22-33; Titus 2:5; 1 Cor 14:34-35; 1 Cor 11:3-5; 1 Tim 2:11-12; 1 Peter 5:1-5), which means that he is the leader of the family, the one who makes the final decisions, the one to whom all the members give reverence. St. Paul makes this distinction quite clear in Eph 5:33 when, after he tells the wife to be subject to her husband, he tells the husband to love his wife and for the wife to “reverence” her husband. She gives him reverence because he is in authority over her, and is responsible to God for her well-being and spiritual growth, as he is for his children. Mr. Donovan’s version of a husband is one who has forgotten he is the leader of the house with the authority to make the tough calls, and is just there to service his wife’s needs and reverence her while he is doing so. Unfortunately, this is precisely the problem with modern man today, and Mr. Donovan is just perpetuating this milquetoast image of manhood. You won’t find a word about the wife’s requirement to be subject to her husband's authority from Mr. Donovan’s above paragraphs. That is because such teaching is frowned upon by today’s liberal Catholics.
This is not just me saying so, this is part-and-parcel with our Catholic tradition. Look at these quotes from the Fathers and medievals, the very ones that Vatican II cites in its voluminous footnotes, regarding the roles of husbands and wives:
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).
Pope Pius XI: "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).
"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).
Pope Leo XIII: "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.”"
While we are on the subject of the wife’s submission to her husband, let’s look at what the Fathers had to say about head coverings. Of the half-dozen or so Fathers that wrote on the subject, they are unanimous that head coverings should be worn out of the moral obligation of having a sign of authority upon her.
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.”
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, CSEL 81:122).
“This was the church’s tradition, but since the Corinthians were ignoring it, Paul made his appeal to nature.” (Ibid., CSEL 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, NPNF 1, 12, 153).
“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).
[On 1 Cor 11:14-16] “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.” (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, NPNF: VI, 292).
Tertullian: “To her, then, to whom it is equally unbecoming to be shaven or shorn, it is equally becoming to be covered.” (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).
“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).
Mr. Donovan: Personal Piety: While it is absolutely clear that there is no canonical or moral obligation for women to wear a head-covering in Church, women are certainly free to do so as a matter of personal devotion. They should, however, see it as a sign of subordination to God, as that better suits the liturgical context. Those who wear a covering or veil, and those who don't, should not judge the motives of the other, but leave each woman free in a matter that is clearly not of obligation. Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
R. Sungenis: As we have seen, it is not the case that “it is absolutely clear that there is no canonical or moral obligation for women to wear a head-covering in Church.” Second, Mr. Donovan seems to want to rewrite Scripture and revise Tradition, for neither of them teach that head coverings are: (1) for “personal devotion,” and (2) are only a sign of subordination to God. Scripture and Tradition are very clear that a head covering is a sign that the woman is under the authority of the man – a principle of Scripture and a teaching of the Church that Mr. Donovan has done his best to avoid in his entire answer. According to Mr. Donovan, it is the “liturgical context” (whatever that means) which is the criterion by which we judge such matters. I think what Mr. Donovan is really trying to say is the same thing the liberals have been trying to tell us for the last 40 years – that they want things changed from the way they are presently.
Robert A. Sungenis, M. A.
Catholic Apologetics International
April 22, 2004
Catholic Apologetics International