Well, I know a couple of evangelical husbands who insist on this Pauline teaching, with very mixed results. In one case, the wife is apparently very unhappy, and I'm not optimistic about their future together.
I've found, after 27 years with the same woman, that giving her the same consideration you expect her to give you usually works out well, in the long run.
Not everything has to go my way, especially if it's no big deal in the first place.
"Well, I know a couple of evangelical husbands who insist on this Pauline teaching, with very mixed results. In one case, the wife is apparently very unhappy, and I'm not optimistic about their future together."
Well, that's just dandy. I know a case where this teaching was most definitely not insisted on, and they are "divorced" because the wife was sleeping around. This proves nothing.
"I've found, after 27 years with the same woman, that giving her the same consideration you expect her to give you usually works out well, in the long run."
I'm not saying her opinions shouldn't be given consideration. I'm saying that when the votes are tallied (both of them) and the cases are set forth, the decision is still yours, as you are the head of the household. You may submit in consideration for her; but her submission, though still given out of love, is obligatory.
Also, personal experience is really not the issue. The issue is whether or not "mutual submission" is in line with the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church. It isn't. One must admit then, sinkspur, that on this issue JPII has clearly broken with the constant teaching of the Church.
This gets us back to the original post on Papalotry. To question or disregard JPII's teaching on this issue (and others like it) is not to become schismatic, or heretical, or any of the other names you toss out for anyone who doesn't agree with his every word and act. It is actually holding fast to the Catholic faith, not rejecting it.