1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

In the previous issue of CFN, we discussed the causes for the disuse of head coverings. We looked specifically at the statements of Annibale Bugnini who in the 1960s was the secretary of the New Congregation for Divine Worship and Vatican envoy. He stated in unequivocal terms: “The rule has not been changed. It is a matter of general discipline.” We also analyzed Paul VI’s statements in the letter Inter Insignores and discovered there was no abrogation of the law on head coverings. In fact, although I failed to mention it last time, another reason Paul VI did not rescind the requirement for head coverings is that Inter Insignores was written in 1975 when the 1917 code of canon law (which mandated head coverings) was still in effect.

We left off citing Galatians 3:28, a passage which has become the sine qua non of the neo-modernist movement. It is probably the most quoted verse in neo-modernist literature in their relentless pursuit to overturn traditional Catholic doctrine and practice. That being the case, we are going to examine Galatians 3:28 in detail. We will discover that the neo-modernists don’t have a leg to stand upon.

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 no 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, the neo-modernist asserts that, because St. Paul says “there is no male and female,” he means that the historic distinctions between the sexes have been eliminated in the areas of family, culture, church and government. No longer, they claim, are societal and ecclesiastical functions and positions to be based on gender. As we all know, the neo-modernist’s ultimate quest is to get women into the Catholic priesthood. The neo-conservative will not go quite that far, but nevertheless, he views Galatians 3:28 as opening up a whole host of prerogatives that women did not possess previously.

In a recent letter exchange I had with EWTN’s Vice President of Theology, he asserted that Galatians 3:28 is so powerful a verse that is has spawned the “liturgical renewal and...theological and anthropological personalism of the Second Vatican Council.” Although as an EWTN spokeman he does not advocate the interpretation that women can be priests, nevertheless, he believes Galatians 3:28 allows women to participate in other priest-like activities such as, being present on the altar during the consecration; distributing the Eucharist; serving as altar girls; giving “reflections” from the pulpit during the homily, having authoritative roles in religions education, the chancery, universities and seminaries, and other authoritative or ecclesiastical functions.

The problem with his view is that it has absolutely nothing to do with Galatians 3:28.

First, let’s pose this simple question: If Galatians 3:28 is the watershed verse the EWTN spokeman asserts it to be, why don’t we read of St. Paul elevating it to the same status? Is there any place in his epistles St. Paul introduces a new or significant ecclesiastical role for women, or even claims to do so based on the teaching of Galatians 3:28? The answer, I can assure you, is a resounding no. Galatians was one of St. Paul’s earliest epistles, superceded only by 1 Thessalonians. Hence, if St. Paul, in some subtle way, was teaching that there should be a new functionary role for women in Galatians 3:28, why did he then reverse this teaching in his latter letters, such as 1 Corinthians? Remember, in 1 Cor 1:3-16 St. Paul says that women must have their head covered to show they are under the authority of men. This is the same St. Paul who in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 told women to keep quiet at Mass, so much so that if they wanted to ask a question they should they should wait to ask their husbands at home, adding that this is not his mandate but exists both in “the law” and was a direct “command of the Lord.” It is the same St. Paul who, years later while he was a prisoner in Rome, wrote 1 Tim. 2:11-15, which told women to be in submission to the man because Adam was “formed first” and “Eve, being deceived was in the transgression.” Moreover, although Paul and Peter certainly had their skirmishes (cf., Galatians 2:10f), they had no disagreement on the role of women, since we find St. Peter in 1 Pet. 3:1-5 telling women to obey their husbands, modeling themselves after Sarah who lived 4000 years ago and obeyed her husband calling him “lord.”

So how does EWTN see a whole new vista of female prerogatives in ecclesiastical, familial and governmental roles for women based on Galatians 3:28? In addition to avoiding St. Paul’s other writings, in short, EWTN has committed one of the most common, but serious blunders in scriptural exegesis - they have wrenched Galatians 3:28 out of its context. Galatians 3 is not concerned at all about roles for men and women. Galatians 3 is concerned about one thing, and one thing only - salvation. As Galatians 3:10-25 clearly shows, since Christ has come, all men have the prerogative to be free from the law which had bound them in sin. Because faith replaced the law, we, the whole human race, can now be free of the law’s condemnation. Baptism makes all of us sons and daughters of God and we leave behind our status as orphans cursed under the law (Gal. 3:26-27). It is in this very context - a context dealing only with the antithesis of grace versus law - that St. 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.”

Interpreted in light of its context, Galatians 3:28 is teaching the same thing that St. Paul taught in Romans 2:9-11, that is, “whether Jew or Greek, God is no respecter of persons,” since he offers salvation to all people. Jew, Greek, slave, freeman, male or female, all have the opportunity to be saved and become united in Christ, for the law which separated us from Christ has been set aside (cf., Hebrews 7:18; 8:13; 10:9). Galatians 3:28 is simply not making any statements, whatsoever, about particular functions of women in the society. This is confirmed by the fact that, as St. Paul advances his discussion in the following chapter, he continues precisely with the same “grace versus law” theme with which he started the context as far back as Galatians 2:1. In fact, Paul does not say one more word about women in the entire epistle, except for an allegorical allusion to Sarah and Hagar, since they represent the very categories under discussion, that is, grace versus law.

Why do neo-modernists, then, try to use Galatians 3:28 to promote their cause? Considering all the other Pauline passages that destroy their agenda, Galatians 3:28 is the only verse they can twist well enough to give them at least a shot at deceiving the uneducated. They are well aware of the fact that every other statement St. Paul wrote in the New Testament concerning women makes a concerted effort to limit, not enhance, their functionary role in the Church. That is why you never see liberals quoting from the passages I cited above, unless, of course, they are trying to argue that those verses “cannot be applied to women today because they are culturally biased.” Galatians 3:28 is their only hope, since, a cursory reading by people who don’t know how to exegete Scripture will, with a little persuasion, produce the conclusion that St. Paul was exalting women to heights never before seen in the Church. Of course, they will also have to convince them that the Church of 1900+ years must have been asleep at the switch not to see these wonderful new “truths” that liberal exegetes have been able to glean so easily from Scripture. Thus we have the neo-modern Catholic Church - a labyrinth of faulty Scripture exegesis, combined with a virtual disdain for tradition, and hierarchs that propagate opinions disguised as official teaching to disseminate their erroneous ideas.

Be that as it may, let’s get back to the idea promoted by the EWTN spokesman, i.e., that the rise of women in ecclesiastical roles today is supported by the “the liturgical renewal and the theological and anthropological personalism of the Second Vatican Council.” If that is their assertion, then perhaps EWTN might want to investigate Vatican II a little closer. Allow me to help speed the process along. Not only does Vatican II not explicitly subscribe to EWTN’s innovative exegesis of Galatians 3:28, it only mentions the verse once in its entire sixteen documents! This is in the face of the fact that the book of Galatians is mentioned 17 times (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 of these references quote from or even address Galatians 3:28.

The only place Vatican II cites Galatians 3:28 is Lumen Gentium 32, but the context of the paragraph agrees with our traditional interpretation (i.e., it refers to salvation, not functionary roles in the Church), not EWTN’s. It reads:

“Therefore...sharing a common dignity as members from their regeneration in Christ, having the same filial grace and the same vocation to perfection; possessing in common one salvation, one hope and one undivided charity. There is, therefore, in Christ and in the Church no inequality on the basis of race or nationality, social condition or sex, because ‘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.’”

Not exactly an explicit recipe for “liturgical renewal,” is it?

EWTN might also be surprised to find out that Vatican II mentions nothing about changing the role of women in the Church. For example, it mentions nothing about female “Eucharistic ministers” or altar girls or any of the dozens of other ecclesiastical and authoritative roles that neo-modernists have virtually forced upon unsuspecting women and young girls today based on the erroneous idea that Galatians 3:28 promotes such advancement.

And while we are on the subject of Galatians 3:28, it must be noted that EWTN now interprets this passage in the same manner as do militant feminists.

Advocates of the pro-abortion Women Church consistently interpret Galations 3:28 to mean that men and women should have equal roles in priestly actions in the sanctuary - actions that immemorial Tradition have reserved to men alone.

Rabid feminists such as Rosemary Radford Ruether, Emily C. Hewitt, and others constantly misuse Galatians 3:28 to justify women lectors, altar girls and their push for women’s ordination.

It is also of great interest that EWTN would now see Galatians 3:28 as a justification for altar girls, since even Mother Angelica found the practice of altar girls abhorrent. Mother Angelica was so scandalized by the Vatican’s “permission” for altar girls, she went so far as to suggest that the document was signed without the Pope’s knowledge or approval.

Donna Steichen, in her superb book Ungodly Rage, reports that the push for altar girls comes from the result of feminist influence in the Church. The notorious liberal theologians Sister Jean Chittister and Sister Mary Kolbenschlag lobbied for altar girls as favoring the feminist agenda. Steichen reported on the 1986 “Woman in the Church” Congress that included a host of feminist speakers, and housed display-booths from organizations such as Crazy Ladies Bookshop, National Organization for Women, Pax Christi, and Bear Tribe Medicine Society. The conference contained petitions for Pope John Paul II to “speak out” for Women’s Ordination and altar girls.

Donna Steichen also wrote that the Feminist Network of organizations such as the Women’s Ordination Conference, New Ways Ministry, Women-Church Convergence, Catholics for a Free Choice, and others all encouraged Catholics to disobey the existing laws so that the Church will be “forced to legitimize altar girls, inclusive language” and other abuses.

Thus the approval of altar girls is nothing less than a feminist victory. It also defies the forceful condemnation by Pope Benedict XIV. On the absolute prohibition of altar girls, the Holy Father wrote:

"Pope Gelasius in his 9th Letter (chap. 26) to the Bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: 'Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.' We too have forbidden this practice in the same words ...." (Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Al latae Sunt, July 26, 1755, sec. 29).

How can EWTN, which is supposed to be a Catholic organization, justify altar girls, or remain silent in the face of this “approved” abuse? The sad fact is that EWTN laid down its arms in the fight against altar girls and women in the sanctuary, and now favors a Scriptural exegesis of Galatians 3:28 that conforms more to the wiles of WomanChurch than fidelity to the Catholic Church of all time.

Nevertheless, if EWTN wants to justify present-day abuses by making Vatican II its sole authority, then, for the sake of argument, to Vatican II we will go. There is, in effect, only one place where the role of women is even addressed, and it is in Gaudiem et Spes:

“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).

This text cannot be appealed to honestly within our present discussion since the context of this section of Gaudium et spes is not liturgical, but cultural. Neither can this text be legitimately employed to justify the innovations we see in today’s neo-modernist church - innovations that would have horrified most of the Council Fathers who signed Gaudium et spes. Besides, when Cardinal Ratzinger admits that the writings of the modernist Teilhard de Chardin exerted a wide influence on the documents of Vatican II, and particularly, he said, on the document Gaudium et spes, then we should exercise great prudence and reserve when faced with any post-Conciliar interpretation of this document that breaks with our received Tradition. But by EWTN’s interpretation of Galatians 3:28 and Vatican II one might think that the role of women was being revolutionized by St. Paul.

EWTN’s defense of its position then transitions into an appeal to philosophy and other esoteric foundations. The Vice President of theology wrote the following words to me:

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."

This is just another ploy of the neo-modernist mindset - to make it appear as if the traditional Church was not “personal” or did not give “equal dignity of human individuals.” EWTN makes it sound as if the Church in our day has just discovered these marvelous truths and, for the first time in history, she has begun to teach the real essence of what it is to be human; and that the Church of yesteryear was impersonal and looked upon people as objects. This is a serious indictment against our Catholic heritage.

Fortunately, EWTN’s thesis is totally baseless. By the mere citation of “Pope Pius XI and XII” they are admitting that such “personalism” already existed prior to Vatican II. Even Vatican II’s footnotes contain references traditional Church teaching on the human person, citations which cover the whole history of the Church, stemming from the early Fathers through the Council of Trent and beyond.

Similarly, EWTN’s citation of St. Thomas’ distinction between the “person” and the “nature” also proves that the Church knew of “personalism” long before John Paul II. Wasn’t it St. Thomas who was the principle architect of medieval theology long before Vatican II came along? Moreover, we will find the same demarcation between “person” and “nature” in the early Fathers. Were they not the ones who made those very distinctions in understanding the Trinity, and which they then permeated throughout Catholic life and teaching? Wasn’t it St. Augustine who wrote the “Confessions” - one of the most personable books of all time - and was he not the principle influence of the early and medieval Church? All the post-conciliar talk of “personalism” and “anthropology” has all been said before - and better - by many people in many places. Consequently, EWTN’s appeal to something “new” in Catholic teaching is nothing but a great façade.

Continuing with their new theology, the EWTN spokesman states:

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"... 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....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...This is undoubtedly more difficult to live than the natural reality, which has reigned throughout human history... 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.

You probably already figured it out, but the clause “drop the sign of subordination” refers to the disuse of head coverings for women. It is fortuitous that he made this reference, for now we see just what is behind the shelving of the hats that started back in the 1960s. The removal of the head covering is the ultimate symbol of the new regime. In advancing this position, EWTN is trying to make it sound as if the Church immediately after St. Paul and up until 1983 (when the new code of canon law was published) was clueless about what Scripture taught on the true nature of authority. To EWTN, 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 passages. (Why this crucial understanding of the text took almost 2,000 years to be revealed EWTN doesn’t explain). In fact, even Vatican II will not escape EWTN’s wrath, since, being written eighteen years before 1983, Vatican II must quote from the 1917 code of canon law that contained Canon 1262 - the canon requiring women to wear head coverings. Since Vatican II didn’t “drop the sign of subordination,” apparently EWTN thinks the Church of 1965 had a little more learning to do. Thanks to the neo-modernists in today’s Catholic Church we have finally arrived at the truth after waiting so long! What would we do without them?!

EWTN is falling into the typical “mommy” theology prevalent in the neo-modernist Church. It is one of the very reasons we see a steep rise in homosexuality, since by the redefining of the sexual roles, many men have had their masculinity emasculated and are turning into androgynous robots. Notice EWTN’s definition of authority: “The authority of the husband should be service, love and reverence, not power.” By injecting the word “power” into the explanation he is trying to win the argument by demagoguery, since his purpose is to portray husbands who take command of their wives and children as power-hungry bullies. In fact, not only has this EWTN spokesman distorted the husband’s role, he has more or less reversed the roles of husband and wife. No wonder he doesn’t think the traditional Church had the truth. If the Church of yesteryear didn’t teach that the husband’s authority was merely “service, love and reverence,” obviously EWTN is not going to find it in the Church’s traditional teaching. According to EWTN, it only appeared when the neo-modernist made the decision to “drop the sign of subordination.” In other words, EWTN’s version of a husband is one who has voluntarily relinquished his sole headship of the house. He becomes merely a waiter to service his wife’s needs, reverencing her while he is doing so. Unfortunately, this Milquetoast image is precisely the problem with modern man today.

You will notice that EWTN’s appeal to this new theology is based on “...St. Paul's discourse on marriage, ‘defer to one another out of reverence for Christ.’” The quote comes from Ephesians 5:21. Similar to what the neo-modernist does in distorting Galatians 3:28, St. Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 5:21 is one of the most abused and misunderstood passages in all of Scripture. The neo-modernist tries to overturn all of St. Paul’s teaching that wives are to be subject to their husband’s authority based on the sole verse of Ephesians 5:21. It is the source for all the talk about “mutual submission” we hear so much of today in liberal theology. I can assure you that, based on a thorough study of Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium’s dogmatic teaching, EWTN’s appeal to Ephesians 5:21 can easily be shown to be nothing but a theological farce. But that is a big subject, and we’ll have to cover that next time. Until then, ladies, hold on to your hats!

End for CFN 10-10-04

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8