This is pulled from a thread in which I self-exiled myself. There is some indication being made there that St. Augustine was somehow anti-women. I can't stand to see this Doctor of the Church and great (ex-)Neo-Platonist dragged through the mud without a proper defense, so I'm going to defend him here.
The comment was made that he said "That women are not in God's image." and that by this it is implied he was a misogynist or at least disparaging women.
Three problems:
1) The real "blame" is with that "notorious misogynist" St. Paul
2) That is not what he said.
3) He said something, but it was in a specific context and for a specific reason, and that cannot be ignored.
Here is what he said exactly:
Chapter 7.— How Man is the Image of God. Whether the Woman is Not Also the Image of God. How the Saying of the Apostle, that the Man is the Image of God, But the Woman is the Glory of the Man, is to Be Understood Figuratively and Mystically.
9. 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 he is forbidden to do because he is the image of God.
10. But we must notice how that which the apostle says, that not the woman but the man is the image of God, is not contrary to that which is written in Genesis, God created man: in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them: and He blessed them. For this text says that human nature itself, which is complete [only] in both sexes, was made in the image of God; and it does not separate the woman from the image of God which it signifies. For after saying that God made man in the image of God, He created him, it says, male and female: or at any rate, punctuating the words otherwise, male and female created He them. How then did the apostle tell us that the man is the image of God, and therefore he is forbidden to cover his head; but that the woman is not so, and therefore is commanded to cover hers? Unless, forsooth, according to that which I have said already, when I was treating of the nature of the human mind, that the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one. As we said of the nature of the human mind, that both in the case when as a whole it contemplates the truth it is the image of God; and in the case when anything is divided from it, and diverted in order to the cognition of temporal things; nevertheless on that side on which it beholds and consults truth, here also it is the image of God, but on that side whereby it is directed to the cognition of the lower things, it is not the image of God. And since it is so much the more formed after the image of God, the more it has extended itself to that which is eternal, and is on that account not to be restrained, so as to withhold and refrain itself from thence; therefore the man ought not to cover his head. 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.
11. For that the Apostle Paul, when speaking outwardly of the sex of male and female, figured the mystery of some more hidden truth, may be understood from this, that when he says in another place that she is a widow indeed who is desolate, without children and nephews, and yet that she ought to trust in God, and to continue in prayers night and day, he here indicates, that the woman having been brought into the transgression by being deceived, is brought to salvation by child-bearing; and then he has added, If they continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, with sobriety. As if it could possibly hurt a good widow, if either she had not sons, or if those whom she had did not choose to continue in good works. But because those things which are called good works are, as it were, the sons of our life, according to that sense of life in which it answers to the question, What is a man's life? That is, How does he act in these temporal things? Which life the Greeks do not call ξωή but βίος; and because these good works are chiefly performed in the way of offices of mercy, while works of mercy are of no profit, either to Pagans, or to Jews who do not believe in Christ, or to any heretics or schismstics whatsoever in whom faith and charity and sober holiness are not found: what the apostle meant to signify is plain, and in so far figuratively and mystically, because he was speaking of covering the head of the woman, which will remain mere empty words, unless referred to some hidden sacrament.
12. For, as not only most true reason but also the authority of the apostle himself declares, man was not made in the image of God according to the shape of his body, but according to his rational mind. For the thought is a debased and empty one, which holds God to be circumscribed and limited by the lineaments of bodily members. But further, does not the same blessed apostle say, Be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new man, which is created after God; and in another place more clearly, Putting off the old man, he says, with his deeds; put on the new man, which is renewed to the knowledge of God after the image of Him that created him? If, then, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and he is the new man who is renewed to the knowledge of God after the image of Him that created him; no one can doubt, that man was made after the image of Him that created him, not according to the body, nor indiscriminately according to any part of the mind, but according to the rational mind, wherein the knowledge of God can exist. And it is according to this renewal, also, that we are made sons of God by the baptism of Christ; and putting on the new man, certainly put on Christ through faith. Who is there, then, who will hold women to be alien from this fellowship, whereas they are fellow-heirs of grace with us; and whereas in another place the same apostle says, For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ: there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus? Pray, have faithful women then lost their bodily sex? But because they are there renewed after the image of God, where there is no sex; man is there made after the image of God, where there is no sex, that is, in the spirit of his mind. Why, then, is the man on that account not bound to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, while the woman is bound to do so, because she is the glory of the man; as though the woman were not renewed in the spirit of her mind, which spirit is renewed to the knowledge of God after the image of Him who created him? But because she differs from the man in bodily sex, it was possible rightly to represent under her bodily covering that part of the reason which is diverted to the government of temporal things; so that the image of God may remain on that side of the mind of man on which it cleaves to the beholding or the consulting of the eternal reasons of things; and this, it is clear, not men only, but also women have.
1) The real blame is with that "notorious misogynist" St. Paul"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." That is St. Paul. The beef is with him, not St. Augustine. If anyone is a woman-hater denying the image of God in woman, it is St. Paul. St. Augustine is trying to find a philosophical and theological explanation for St. Paul's statement and reconcile the apparent contradiction with Genesis.
The same statement, btw, that appeared in Canon Law and Tradition for centuries - the one that goes to veiling.
2) That is not what he saidWhat he said about woman's image is this:
"Unless, forsooth, according to that which I have said already, when I was treating of the nature of the human mind, that the woman together with her own husband is the image of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; but when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one."
Let's examine exactly what he is saying here.
1) The woman with her husband is the image of God. That means male and female together "in one flesh" is the image of God.
Man and female together is the true image of God.
2) when she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then she is not the image of God
She is not the image of God in a particular sense. When? When she is
referred to as the helper. This makes perfect philosophical sense. God is never a helper. Referring this attribute to the image of God would be nonsensical. So, when woman is referred to as a helpmate, that quality of her is not of the image of God.
3) but as regards the man alone, he is the image of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joined with him in one."
Unlike woman, man is never referred to as a helpmate, so taken alone in his qualities, he is as much the image of God as
man and woman joined which is the true image of God.
Summary: There is no quality in man which is not in the image of God. In woman, there is a single quality, that of helpmate, which when referred to separately in that quality, she is not being referred to in the image of God.
3) He said something, but it was in a specific context and for a specific reason, and that cannot be ignored.He said these things to explain the apparent discrepancy between what appears in St. Paul and what appears in Genesis. He does it to explain there is no discrepancy, not to take a pot shot at women. His reasoning is sound given what he is examining. That does not mean he is correct - it means he is saying something for a valid reason.
As we said of the nature of the human mind, that both in the case when as a whole it contemplates the truth it is the image of God; and in the case when anything is divided from it, and diverted in order to the cognition of temporal things; nevertheless on that side on which it beholds and consults truth, here also it is the image of God, but on that side whereby it is directed to the cognition of the lower things, it is not the image of God. And since it is so much the more formed after the image of God, the more it has extended itself to that which is eternal, and is on that account not to be restrained, so as to withhold and refrain itself from thence; therefore the man ought not to cover his head. 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.
The nature of the human mind in Neo-Platonism can by extension be considered the nature of the person himself. With that in mind:
"on that side on which it beholds and consults truth, here also it is the image of God, but on that side whereby it is directed to the cognition of the lower things, it is not the image of God."
St. Augustine is saying that the nature of a human has two purposes: divine and temporal. That which contemplates divine things is of the image of God, that which contemplates lower (i.e., temporal) things is not of the image of God. I hope that makes sense, because if it does, the next part comes easy.
A "helpmate" is directed towards the lower things. This is common sense. A helper, by definition, helps. They do not direct. They are given different tasks, usually the "lower" things. When the quality of helpmate of a woman is looked at, it is not of the image of God precisely because that quality is directed to cognition of temporal things.
"And since it is so much the more formed after the image of God, the more it has extended itself to that which is eternal, and is on that account not to be restrained, so as to withhold and refrain itself from thence; therefore the man ought not to cover his head. 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. "
With that he explains the symbology of veiling. Since the male is never a helpmate, that quality of him as male is directed towards the divine rather than the temporal and should remain uncovered. But because the female has the quality of helpmate, that quality of her ought to be under authority (by definition of a helpmate) and that is what the veil signifies.
And lest some women be offended by this, having ignored the fact that he is writing this to explain St. Paul and not demean women, and ignoring the fact that he opened with: " the woman together with her own husband is the image of God,
so that that whole substance may be one image" he clearly takes time to explain that this does not make one inferior to the other spiritually.
If, then, we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and he is the new man who is renewed to the knowledge of God after the image of Him that created him; no one can doubt, that man was made after the image of Him that created him, not according to the body, nor indiscriminately according to any part of the mind, but according to the rational mind, wherein the knowledge of God can exist. And it is according to this renewal, also, that we are made sons of God by the baptism of Christ; and putting on the new man, certainly put on Christ through faith. Who is there, then, who will hold women to be alien from this fellowship, whereas they are fellow-heirs of grace with us; and whereas in another place the same apostle says, For you are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ: there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus?
We may ask, well if we are equal in the grace of God, why the veil? Of course, he answers this in the next passage:
Why, then, is the man on that account not bound to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, while the woman is bound to do so, because she is the glory of the man; as though the woman were not renewed in the spirit of her mind, which spirit is renewed to the knowledge of God after the image of Him who created him? But because she differs from the man in bodily sex, it was possible rightly to represent under her bodily covering that part of the reason which is diverted to the government of temporal things; so that the image of God may remain on that side of the mind of man on which it cleaves to the beholding or the consulting of the eternal reasons of things; and this, it is clear, not men only, but also women have.
The feminists love,
love,
LOVE to ignore that last sentence because he explicitly clarifies that, yes, women too, have the image of God.
What St. Augustine is saying, IMO, is this:
There is a single quality of woman, helpmate, that is not the image of God. Since man does not have this quality, he is completely still in the image of God even though the true image of God is man and woman in one substance.
That is the reason for the veiling, and because the difference appears externally in the physical differences between male and female, it is appropriate that the acknowledgement of this difference (helpmate vs. non-helpmate) takes an external form - namely the veil.
But when all is said and done, it is irrelevant because women are fellow heirs of grace; in Christ there is neither male nor female. And while the quality of helpmate is only found in women, it is clear that both men and women cleave to the beholding and consulting of the eternal reasons of things. In other words, both ARE created in the image of God except for woman
as helpmate.
It is blatantly unfair that some feminist theologians ignore the reality of what he is saying and/or read it in the worst possible light.
It is also a huge problem that many of them have no understanding of traditional Philosophy such as Platonism and Neo-Platonism, from which St. Augustine was writing where his conclusions both make perfect sense are are completely not disparaging of women (don't forget, Plato was the first pro-equality writer in a very real sense). They make no distinction from a
quality a sex might have from the
essence of the sex. Helpmate is a quality of woman, and that quality, inherently attached to all women, is not in the image of God. It is not a statement about woman qua woman, but about woman qua helpmate.
On top of all that, you have to realize St. Augustine was a huge defender of women in the historical period he lived. The Romans were still putting their daughters out to die because they "had no worth" and named them with numbers instead of names. It was Christianity (of which St. Augustine played no small role) that saw an intrinsic value in women and men, that same intrinsic value. As St. Augustine points out: not men only, but also women have. He pointed that out while Julius down the road was putting Julia #3 in the woods to die of exposure because she was a "worthless girl" who just cost him dowry and wasn't really good for anything.
Of course in the feminist mindset that becomes "an excuse for the man to hold womyn down" when in reality it is a serious and important philosophical and theological consideration and most certainly not an excuse for anything.
We do a grave disservice to the Church and our patrimony by believing a feminist rewriting of history and their attempt to attack the Church as misogynist. Discard the secular academic feminist intelligentsia glasses and put the Catholic spectacles on, and most importantly, read what these people themselves said, and read it until it is understood. Doctors of the Church deserve a fair shake; we should assume them to be correct and of good will rather than assuming what they write is anti-woman, anti-Jew, anti- anything.
The Church is not an idiot. She makes people Saints and Doctors for a reason (well, at least up until the dumbing down of Canonization).
