Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D.
“Every
woman who prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head:
“(Cor. 11:5).
“There is neither male or female, for ye are
one in Christ” (Gal. 3:28)
There is considerable
resistance, even among so-called traditional Catholics, to women covering their
heads in Church, or to use the more common phrase, to women wearing veils. Now,
the veiling of woman is an Apostolic command (I Cor, XI:4-16), and hence
the attitude of a faithful Catholic is one which accepts Apostolic injunctions
without question.
Let it be clear from the start that the idea that Paul was only accommodating himself to Jewish or middle eastern practice and that therefore such restrictions no longer apply, is a totally modernist concept. Tertullian specifically states that this command applies “everywhere and always.”
St. Paul provides us with two
reasons for this practice. The first is that “the head of every man is Christ;
and the head of the woman is the man… the man indeed ought not to cover his
head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of
the man, for the man is not of the woman but the woman of the man.” The second
reason, perhaps less explicit, is that a woman should have a cover over her
head (‘power’ being an alternate word for ‘cover’) “because of the angels.”
The first reason seemingly
speaks to the subordinate role of women. Paul however is not concerned with the
sexes as such, but rather with higher realities of which men and women are
reflections. As Claude Chavasse explains: “the sexes signify eternal varities,
and for that reason they must illustrate the qualities of direction and
submission. It is not because Paul is a ‘typical oriental’ that he says ‘the
head of the woman is the man,’ but because she is the type of the Church and he
of Christ. …just as the Church should have no Head but Christ, so the woman
should have no head but her husband.”[1] The church fathers in discussing this issue
make it clear that this “subordination” in no way implies that women are
inferior to men or in any way limited in their relationship to God. Paul
himself says that “in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.” However,
within the social relationship, reflecting the relationship of the Church to
Christ, she does have a subordinate position. As Ambrosiaster says “Although man and woman are of the same
substance, the man has relational priority because he is the head of the woman.
He is greater than she is by cause and order, but not by substance. Woman is
the glory of man, but there is an enormous distance between that and being the
glory of God.” Severian of Gabala, another early father is even more explicit:
“what we are talking about here is not nature but a relationship.”
Under normal conditions the
majority of women live within the married state.[2]
The family is in fact the building block of any healthy society. Those imbued
with socialist ideation – conscious or unconscious – no longer consider the
family as a norm and whatever loyalties they have are more oriented towards the
government, which encourages single parent “families,” same sex “marriages,”
homosexuality and a host of parallel agendas. But for the Catholic, the family
unit remains the norm, and to understand the proper status of women in the
married state we should turn once again to St. Paul, who speaks to this in
Chapter 5 of his letter to the Ephesians:
“For the Church is subject to
Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all thing. Husbands love
your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:
that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of
life. …so ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his
wife, loveth himself… This is a great sacrament.” I am fully aware that
feminists dislike this passage because it speaks of obedience. Yet, under
normal circumstances the father is head of the family. In this he reflects the
priest who is “father” to the community, and both in turn reflect God who is
“our Father in Heaven.” The father of the family is spiritually responsible for
those under his care, and following the teaching of Our Lord, he can say: “if you
love me you will obey my commandments.” He is of course himself under the
obligation of obedience to Christ. He rules the family by “divine right,” –
“right” being an older word for “law.”
If he rules by other than divine right, that is, if he institutes his
own private rules for those of God, he becomes a tyrant. If indeed the head of
the family is to pattern his behavior after Christ, the woman should have
little trouble in giving him obedience.[3]
The end result of such a relationship is that the family itself becomes a
mini-Church, or a Nazareth in which the children can grow up “subject” to their
parents as Jesus was to Mary and Joseph. St. Paul tells us in the next sentence
that children are obliged to obey their parents. It will be argued that this is
a rather “idealized” picture, but if the normal has become only an idealized
picture in our age, this is indeed a tragedy, the fruits of which we see all
around us.[4]
The feminist agenda holds that women and men are equal.[5] It is the subordinate role that rankers the modernist woman. Now clearly justice requires that working women should have equality in the workplace. There is no justification for paying women less or making them work longer hours for the same pay as men. But this in no way militates against the Pauline precept. The feminist attitude is not entirely modern. St. Chrysostom commented in the fourth century that “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 the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, 25.4). He likens the situation to a governor approaching a king without the symbols of his office, and holds that a woman in covering her head in church is approaching God with the symbol of her office. For those in religion, the same subordinate role requires their obedience both to the rule and to the superior who is spiritually speaking, Christ. If there is “rebellion” in the family, there is even greater rebellion in the orders, and this very often starting with the superiors who are themselves refusing obedience to Christ.[6]
All this does not deny that
women are of the same substance as man, but rather gives expression to a
relationship between them. As Ambrosiaster says, “man is the head of the woman.
He is greater than she is by cause and order, but not by substance. Woman is
the glory of man, but there is an enormous distance between that and being the
glory of God.” (Commentary on Paul’s Epistles). Augustine further
comments that “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” (Against the
Manicheans 3.26.40).
The idea of obedience is of
course not without its difficulties. Paul stresses this with regard to
marriage. It is oft forgot that if obedience is incumbent upon the wife, it is
also incumbent upon the husband to be Christ-like. Like a king who rules by
divine right - that is by God’s laws, so also the husband must rule as an alter
Christus. If he were to rule by his own law, he would in fact be a despot.
If then the husband is truly Christ-like, than obedience becomes a blessing.[7]
What is frequently not
realized is that it is far better, as St. Bernard says, to live under obedience
than to be placed in command. Of course we are all under obedience to Christ,
but as is true in any organization, Obedience flows from the “top,” through a
hierarchy of authorities to those below. Obedience is not blind and can never
be used to command what is sinful. One must always understand what one is
obeying.
Feminists like to
proclaim that God is a woman. In this claim they point to an important fact,
namely that the male–female polarity has its origin in God and not in man. Why it is that God, who in his Absoluteness
is without gender, is nevertheless rendered in creation as masculine, while
Nature - that is Natura Naturans Creatrix is referred to as feminine.
Let us consider the act of creation. In God Essence and Nature are united. In
creation there is a division between Essence and Nature, Heaven from Earth, and
subject from object. Nature then “recedes from likeness to God, yet even
insofar as it has being in this wise, it retains a certain likeness to the
divine being” (Summa Theol 1.14.11 ad 3). Henceforth Essence is the
Creator and active power, Nature, the means of creation and passive recipient
of form. “Nature as being that by which the generator generates” (Damascene, De
fide orthodoxa 1.18). The relationship between man to woman is a
likeness to the relationship between Essence and Nature, and marriage is a
symbol and reflection of the identification of Essence and Nature in divinis.
This same relationship is repeated in the course of our everyday
functioning.
God then, who in His
essence is neither male nor female, contains within His essence the archetypes
of Absoluteness and Infinititude. In manifestation these archetypes separate.
(In Taoist terms into Yin and Yang )[8]
His absoluteness becomes the masculine or “active” pole and His infinitude the
feminine or “passive” pole. Thus in Genesis we read that “the Spirit moved upon
the face of the waters” – the waters symbolizing the “all possibility” of
creation, and metaphysically understood as representing the Blessed Mother of
whom it is said “I was set up from eternity and of old before the earth was
made.”[9]
Hence, as an Eastern text puts it, “all creation is feminine relative to
God.” The masculine reflects the
absolute nature of God and hence justice, rigor and majesty. The feminine
reflects the infinite nature of God
which is seen as reflected in the qualities of mercy, generosity and
beauty, in indeed in the infinitude of all creation. It is precisely this
quality of infinitude that manifests itself in mercy and generosity that makes
the women’s function of giving birth and nurturing so central to her
fulfillment. Those who deny this would do well to consider the struggles many
single women face as they approach the menopause – a sort of recognition that
they have let one of the most important aspects of their womanly nature slip by
unfulfilled. So many have succumbed to the idea of a “career” without in fact
recognizing that the majority of careers open to them are little more than
becoming factory workers or secretaries – hardly vocations such as truly
utilize all their creative faculties. (Of course, men are also limited in
attaining truly vocational forms of employment.)
There is yet another level
that reflects this relationship – in every human being, be he biologically male
or female. Every individual is constructed, as it were, of three components –
Spirit, psyche (which includes our thinking processes and opinions) and body.
Now the Spirit is considered masculine and the psyche and body (often
considered as the “psycho-physical”) is considered female. The later of course is meant to be
subordinate to the higher, which is to say the Spirit of God that dwells within
every individual. Such is incorporated in the myths of every nation. St. George
was only able to free the princess or psyche after he had slain the dragon. And
it was the kiss of the golden prince that released Snow white from her
somnolent state – the result of her partaking of the poisoned apple.[10]
Hero and Heroine are two selves - duo sunt in homine - immanent Spirit (ASoul of the soul,@ Athis self=
immortal Self@) and individual soul or self: Eros and Psyche, or
metaphysically speaking, Male and Female. These two, cohabitant Inner and Outer
Man are at war with one another, and there can be no peace between them until
the victory has been won and the soul, or self, this AI,@ submits. It is not without reason that the Heroine is
so often described as haughty, disdainful, and “orgelleuse.” Philo and Rumi
repeatedly equate this soul, our lesser self, with the Dragon, and it is this
soul that we are told to Ahate@ if we would be disciples of the Sun of Men. The myth
of the Loathly Bride survives in St. Bonaventura=s
prediction of Christ=s Marriage to the Church: AChrist will present his Bride, whom he loved in her
baseness and all her foulness, glorious with his own glory, without spot or
wrinkle.@
Eckhart places the following
admonition in the mouth of his spiritual daughter “I know very well that women
can never come into heaven; they have to become men first. It is to be
understood like this. They must perform manly deeds and must have manly hearts
with full strength so that they may resist themselves in all sinful things[11]
According to Matthias
Scheeben, Marriage ranks as a Sacrament because it is a figure of the union
between God and the Church, and as a consequence, of the union also between God
and the soul.[12] The
importance of this relationship is explained by Scotus Erigina:
"The
woman is the rational soul [anima], whose husband [literally vir
or 'man' (with the connotation of 'active power') not maritus or conjunx]
is understood to be the animus, which is variously named now intellect [intellectus],
now mind [mens], now animus and often even spirit [spiritus]. This is
the husband of whom the Apostle speaks "the head of the woman is the man,
the head of the man is Christ, the head of Christ is God." I other words,
the head of the anima is the intellectus, and the head of
the intellectus is Christ. Such is the natural order of the human
creature. The soul must be submitted to the rule of the mind, the mind to
Christ, and thereby the whole being is submitted through Christ to God the
Father... Spirit revolves perpetually about God and is therefore well named the
husband and guide of the other parts of the soul, since between it and its
creator no creature is interposed. Reason in turn revolves around the knowledge
and causes of created things, and whatever spirit receives through eternal
contemplation it transmits to reason and reason commends to memory. The third
part of the soul is interior sense, which is subordinate to reason as the
faculty which is superior to it, and by means of reason is also subordinate to
spirit. Finally, below the interior sense in the natural order is the exterior
sense, through which the whole soul nourishes and rules the fivefold bodily
senses and animates the whole body. Since, therefore, reason can receive
nothing of the gifts from on high unless through her husband, the spirit, which
holds the chief place of all nature, the woman or anima is rightly ordered to
call her husband or intellectus with whom and by whom she may drink
spiritual gifts and without whom she may in no wise participate in gifts from
on high. For this reason Jesus says to her, 'Call your husband, come hither.'
Do not have the presumption to come to me without your husband. For, if the
intellect is absent, one may not ascend to the heights of theology, nor participate
in spiritual gifts."[13]”
Similarly, Meister Eckhart
teaches in his commentary on the Scriptural passage “Happy is the man that
dwells in wisdom”:
“I have
often said there are two powers in the soul: One is the man and one is the
woman. The power in the soul that one calls the man is the highest power of the
soul in which God shines bare; for into this power nothing enters but God, and
this power is continually in God. And so if a person were to take all things in
this power he would take them not as they are things, but as they are in God.
Therefore a person should dwell continually in this power because all things
are alike in this power. This is why that person is happy who dwells
continually in this power; he dwells continuously in God. That we may dwell
continually in God, may we receive the help of our dear Lord Jesus Christ,
Amen.”[14]
There is yet another reason
why women are veiled, and that is that every soul is, at least potentially, the
bride of Christ. "To love God, " says St. Bernard, "is to be
married to Him. Happy the soul who rejoices in this chaste and blessed embrace
which is naught else than pure and holy love.”[15]
While this is as true for man as for woman, in the relationship that exists
between them, it is the woman who most clearly gives witness to this
potentiality. And as such, like a bride, she should be veiled
Again, beauty, a quality that women manifest, is of a
mysterious nature, for it is itself a reflection of that super-essential quality
most clearly seen in the Blessed Virgin and ultimately having its origin in
God. But Beauty is appropriately veiled, for its real nature is hidden and we
see but its remote reflection in the female form. The veiling of women then is
not a denigrating imposition placed on them by men, but rather reflects their
own intrinsic glory as mothers, daughters and brides of Christ.
The model then is nothing less than the Blessed Virgin for she manifests all these varied levels and qualities to the fullest possible degree. While she was highly educated (having studied in the Temple from the ages of 3 to 12), and while she often functioned outside the confines of her home, she in many ways remained “hidden.” She only spoke seven times in Scripture and always in an attitude that bespoke humility and submission to her role. In this there is a mysterious quality that in fact, every woman has – a quality that requires veiling that both protects and hides. This is why in traditional iconography she is always portrayed with her head covered. Just as the Blessed Mother is the mother, daughter and bride of Christ, so also every woman is potentially the same. And brides are to be veiled in public.[16] In traditional representation of Our Lady she is almost always depicted as veiled. Women who accept the practice of veiling then are assuming to themselves the virtues of the Blessed Virgin, who of course is both the daughter, wife and mother of Our Lord. To reject the veil is to state, consciously or unconsciously that one has no desire to follow the pattern established by Our Lady.[17]
The second reason Paul gives is “because of the
angels.” Cornelius Lapide comments: “the literal sense is that women ought to
have a covering on the head out of reverence to the angels; not because angels
have a body, and can be provoked to lust, as Justin, Clement, and Tertullian
thought – this is an error – but because angels are witnesses of the honest
modesty or the immodesty of women, as also of their obedience or disobediences.
Dennis the Carthusian further points out that in church, especially during Mass,
angels are present, and just as veiling reflects the proper attitude of women
before God, for they are potentially brides of Christ, so also they should be
veiled before His angels, (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Theodoret), Sts. Thomas,
Anselm, and Clement understand by “angels” good and holy men. Ambrose, Anselm
and St. Thomas take it to mean priests and Bishops who in Rev. ii are
called angels, and who might be provoked to lust by the beauty of women with
uncovered heads.”
At this point, let us
consider the exact words of Paul: “Any
man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but any
woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled dishonors her head - it is
the same as if her head were shaven. For if a woman will not veil herself,
then, she should cut of her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to be
shorn or shaven, let her wear a veil. For a man ought not to cover his head,
since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man (For man
was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman,
but woman for man.) That is why a woman ought to have a veil on her head,
because of the angels. (Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of
man, nor man of woman; for a woman was made from man, so man is now born of
woman. And all things are from God. Judge for yourselves; is it proper for
woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does nature itself teach you that
for a man to wear long hair is degrading to him. But if a woman has long
hair, it is her pride. For her hair is given to her for covering. If any one is
disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches
of God.” (I Cor. XI: 4-16}[18]
The commentary on this
passage provided by the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture is of
great help: “The difference between men and women lies not in their nature, but
in their relationship (Chrysostom, Severian of Gabala). Woman is the glory of
man, but there is an enormous distance between that and the glory of God
(Ambrosiaster). A man who approaches the throne of God should wear the symbols
of his office, which in this case is represented by having his head uncovered
(Chrysostom). Just as God has nobody over him in all creation, so man has no
one over him in the natural world. But woman lives under the protection of man
(Saverian). The relation of man and woman to God makes all the difference in
understanding their relation to each other (Ambrosiaster, Chrysostom). Being
covered is a mark of voluntary subjection (Ambrosiaster), calling the woman to
be humble and preserve her virtue (Tertullian, Chrysostom). Since woman is the
glory of man, it is shameful for a woman to desire to be like a man (Chrysostom).
In the Genesis narrative man precedes woman in the order of their creation
(Epiphanius, Theodoret of Cyr). The woman was created with gifts of serving,
the man with gifts of ordering (Theodoret of Cyr). Paul appears to be not
confining his instruction about hair to a particular plae and time
(Tertullian). He appealed to church tradition (Chrysostom), to nature
(Ambrosiaster, Ambrose) and to the argument from general consent of reasonable
people in these matters (Chrysostom). Since hair is potentially erotic, it can
play into temptation (Pelagius). Natural hair is preferred to deceptive wigs
(Clement of Alexandria)”[19].
To avoid the confusion raised
by the term “prophesizing” it should be noted that this term is used in several
places in Scripture (Chron 30:1; Sam. 10:10) to denote “giving
praise to God.” St. Paul forbids women to speak or take a public role in the
assembly, so in what way can she “prophesy”? The fathers interpret this as
directing women to sing those parts of the service in which everyone sings.
Similarly, where woman are said to require veils because of the Angels, most of
the Fathers interpret Angels as priests and bishops.
Some of the Fathers point to
the fact that man has priority in creation: Indeed, “woman was created after
man and for man, to be his helpmate, to
serve him and not vice versa” (Theodoret of Cyr). Cornrelius Lapide further
comments on the statement that “woman
is the glory of the man “ ”Women was made of man to his glory, as his
workmanship and image; therefore she is subject to him, and should be veiled as
a token of subordination. The woman, like the man, is endowed with a rational
soul, with intellect, will, memory, liberty, and is equally with the man,
capable of every degree of wisdom, grace, and glory. The woman, therefore, is
the image of the man, but only improperly; for the woman as regards the
rational soul, is man’s equal, and both man and woman have been made in the
image of God, but the woman was made from the man, after him, and is inferior
to him. Hence the Apostle does not say that “the woman is the image of the
man,” but only “the woman is the glory of the man.”(Commentary on
Corinthians).
It was and still is the Jewish custom for men
to cover their heads when praying and clearly Paul is in no way accommodating
himself to such practice. The Church father explain the reason that man’s head
is uncovered by teaching that during the Old Dispensation, Christ was hidden,
but now He is clearly visible. Others point to the crown of thorns that Christ
bore to the Cross without any other head covering. “For a man indeed ought
not to cover his head, inasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.” Man, being the image of the glory of God, or
the glorious image of God, in whom the majesty and power of God shines forth
most clearly. He is placed on the topmost step in nature, and is as it were
God’s vice-regent, ruling everything. which of course includes members of his family.
Thus it is that Tertullian calls the veil “the burden of their humility,” and
St. Chrysostom “the sign of submission.” Clearly then, the veil may be a sign
of humility and subjection, but it is
also a badge of honor.
In conclusion, it is worth noting that in the majority
of traditional societies, while women are instructed to take efforts to please
their husbands, efforts to be attractive to others is frowned upon. Head
covering is therefore seen as an important aspect of modesty and Christ Himself
said “let your modesty appear before men“ (Phil. 4:5). It is only in the
privacy of the home, in the presence of the family and close friends, that the
head is uncovered. Long before the coming of Christ head coverings were used by
women in Judea, Troy, Rome, Arabia and Sparta. Valarius Maximus relates the
sever punishment inflected by C. Sulpicius on his wife: he divorced her because
he had found her out of doors with uncovered head. Tertullian tells us that
“the gentile women of Arabia will rise up and judge us, for they cover not only
the head, but also the whole face.” Similarly, “among Jewish women, so
customary is it to wear a head-covering that they may be known by it.” (de
Vel Virg.) The practice of covering the head in Islamic society is also
based on the injunction to be modest. Not all Islamic lands demand the burka,
and many use the hijab or simple head covering so often seen in the
West. Finally, within Christiandom we see this same principle in the marriage
ceremony where the bride to be is veiled until the priest declares her status
as a married women. Only then is the veil lifted before the husband. The
mystery of the woman’s beauty is reserved for the husband and the home.
A remnant of this attitude
prevailed in the west for many years, and up until about 40 years ago women
rarely were seen outside the home without a hat – and indeed with hats to which
were attached short veils. Currently, modesty in dress, especially among the
younger generation, seems to be a relic of the past and many it would seem have
the same attitude about covering of their heads in church.
Ó Rama P. Coomaraswamy,
2002
[1] Claude Chavasse, The Bride of Christ, Faber and Faber, London, 1939
[2] The use of the term “normal” relates to the practice of most of mankind from earliest times. What is considered as normal today however is quite another matter.
[3] Chrysostom: “having talked about the glory of man, Paul now reestablishes the balance so as not to exalt the man beyond what is his due nor to oppress the women. In the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of women… Each one of the two is the cause of the other, God being the cause of all.” (Homilies on Corinthians)
[4] This is sometimes misinterpreted in such a way that women are literally prisoners in their own home. In a nuclear family where the husband is working long hours, it can happen that women have no contact with anyone but their children seven days a week. Or again, women are criticized when circumstances make it necessary for them to work. What is important is that their lives be centered in the home. At the same time it is important that they have interests or obligations that allow for outside interests.
[5] Unfortunately college courses have made Simone de Beauvoir’s book The Second Sex required reading. It is her position that women will never be happy until they are liberated from the shackles of the social structures in which they have been imprisoned: marriage, maternity and the family. She insists women enter the work force to be free.
[6] Tertullian says of the religious “You do well in falsely assuming the married character if you veil you head; nay, you do not assume it falsely, for you are wedded to Christ: to him you have surrendered your flesh; act as becomes a Husband’s discipline. If he bids the brides of others be veiled, his own, of course much more.” De Orat. Cha xxii).
[7] “The soul’s salvation depends upon her submission, her willing surrender; it is prevented for so long as she resists. It is her pride, self-opinion, overweening, the Satanic conviction of her independence, her evil rather than herself ,that must be killed; this pride she calls her “self-respect,” and would “rather die” than be divested of it. But the death that she at last, despite herself, desires is no destruction but a transformation. Marriage is an initiatory death and integration.” Ananda Coomaraswamy, Who is Satan and Where is Hell, Selected Papers, Ed. Roger Lipsey, Vol II, Princeton, N.Y., 1977
[8] or as the Qoran puts it, the pen and the tablet.
[9] The Lesson read on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.
[10] As St. Thomas Aquinas explains in discussing the statement “We shall all meet unto a perfect man,” this refers not to the male sex but to the strength of soul which will be in all, both men and women.(Q81, Art 3, reply 1). Thus Hermes in his fist vision is instructed to “behave like a man.” .St. Theresa of Avila told her nuns “I would not want you daughters to be womanish in anything, nor would I want you to be like woman, but like strong men.(Chapter 7, The way of perfection). Again, Mother Sarah used to say to he brethren, >It is I who am a man, and ye who are women.= (Wit and Wisdom of the Holy Fathers).
[11] Meister Eckhart This is about the Confessor’s daughter, Teacher and Preacher. Paulest Press, N.Y., 1986 p. 351.
[12] Mathias Scheeben, The mysteries of Christianity, B. Herder, N.Y.1054.
[13] Translation of Christopher Bamford in The Voice of the Eagle, Lindisfarne Press, 1992. This is no novel teaching. Consider Origin: Let us see also allegorically how man, made in the image of god, is male and female. Our inner man consists of spirit and soul. The spirit is said to be male; the soul can be called female. If these have concord and agreement among themselves, they increase and multiply by the very accord among themselves and they produce sons, good inclinations and understandings... The soul united with the spirit and, so to speak, joined in wedlock...."';
[14] Meister Eckhart, Teacher and Preacher, Classics of Western Spirituality, Paulist Press, 1986, p. 302.
[15] Sermon 84 on the Canticle of Canticles, par. 5-6)
[16] George Gil puts it well: “Liberals in the Church have done more harm to our women than all the rapists, woman haters and male-chuauvinists put together. They have stripped them of their femininity. Femininity is the gift God gave women that most enables them to be happy. It is something that must be guarded at all costs, for if the women loses her femininity, she loses her very self.”
[17] One is forced to protest against some of the recent pictures of Our Lady which present her as the girl next door, with her cute curls peeking out beneath a rather brief head covering. Traditional iconography East and West, never allowed for this.
[18] Translation from Revised Standard Translation of the Bible.
[19].Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Ed. Gerald Bray, Intervarsity Press, 1999