Mutual Submission of Spouses?

In the August 28 issue of The Wanderer, editor of “Catholic Replies,” James J. Drummey received a question from a reader regarding the biblical passages which state that a woman is to be subject to her husband. The reader referred to 1 Peter 3:1 and Ephesians 5:22 and asked: “Please explain how the Catholic Church interprets these statements.”

Mr. Drummey then wrote three paragraphs of explanation, all of which made reference to the teaching of John Paul II in the 1988 encyclical Mulieris Dignitatem (“On the Dignity of Women”). Before I comment on that encyclical, I want to emphasize the fact that the reader asked “how the Catholic Church interprets these statements,” but Mr. Drummey quoted only from John Paul II. Whether intentionally or not, this certainly gives the impression that only John Paul II’s writings are representative of the “Catholic Church,” at least in regard to this particular question. Unfortunately, the reader was deprived of the entire tradition of the Church which holds a wealth of knowledge on this very question. Perhaps the reason Mr. Drummey didn’t mention them is he knows they teach something different than what John Paul II teaches in Mulieris Dignitatem. Let’s investigate.

In his opening sentence, Mr. Drummey gives a synopsis of John Paul’s teaching regarding wives submitting to their husbands. He writes: “Pope John Paul has explained that these passages are to be understood as a mutual submission of both spouses since Eph 5:21 says: ‘Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.’”

Notice Mr. Drummey’s answer contains not a word said about the wife submitting to the husband. That historic truth is apparently neutralized by John Paul’s interpretation of Eph 5:21. Even though Eph 5:22 says “Wives should be subordinate to your husbands,” whereas no verse, either in this context or the rest of the New Testament, says “husbands be subordinate to your wives,” Drummey, inter alia John Paul II, insists that St. Paul is teaching a mutual submission between spouses.

Is this a correct understanding of Eph 5:21-22? A through examination of Catholic tradition, Scripture, and statements by other popes, will show that John Paul’s teaching on Eph 5:21-22 is at best confusing, and at worst an utter novelty in the annals of Catholic teaching. Let’s start by asking a few obvious questions: (1) If St. Paul is teaching that spouses are to submit to one another, then why did he add the sentence: “Wives should be subordinate to your husbands” if that truth was already covered in Eph 5:21's statement “Be subordinate to one another”? Would it not be superfluous and confusing to specify one of the spouses as having to be in subjection to the other in the very next verse? (2) Also, if St. Paul intended to teach that “husbands are to be submissive to their wives,” shouldn’t we expect to see at least some specific statement to this effect somewhere in his writings?

Mr. Drummey then provides us with a quote from Mulieris Dignitatem which confirms his understanding of the pope’s teaching:

However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual (n. 24).

Although implicit in his statement, nevertheless, John Paul recognizes that the Church’s subjection to Christ, since it is not reciprocal, is a mandatory subjection. That is to say, it is not a subjection in which one places himself in the service of another solely by choice. If, for example, Jesus ever “submitted” himself to the Church, it would not be because He was on an equal level with the Church, but, as happened when he washed the disciples feet, His submission was completely voluntary. He was not required to wash their feet. He did it purely out of love and care for them. This is not so with the Church’s relationship to Christ, at least not completely. Although the Church certainly hopes to perform her act of submission to Christ out of love, nevertheless, she is obliged to subject herself to Him. She has no choice. If she doesn’t, Christ will judge her (cf., Apoc 2-3).

As we see in n. 24, however, John Paul says that spouses have a different relationship with regards to submission than Christ has with the Church. Even though the remaining context of Ephesians 5:23-33 compares the church’s subjection to Christ with the wife’s subjection to her husband, and Christ’s love for the Church with the husband’s love for his wife, John Paul insists that the husband must be in subjection to the wife due to the clause in Ephesians 5:21 “be in subjection to one another.” Not only that, but by calling it a “mutual submission,” he is saying that whatever is true for the wife’s subjection to the husband, must be true for the husband’s subjection to the wife, for that is what the word “mutual” means. Hence, with regards to the distinction we noted above between voluntary subjection (as in washing someone’s feet), as opposed to mandatory subjection (as when one submits to a higher authority), John Paul would have it understood by the word “mutual” that the husband is legally bound to submit to the wife as the wife is legally bound to submit to the husband. There is no distinction, for John Paul gives us none with which to qualify his statement.1

Scripture, the Fathers, and St. Thomas Aquinas Regarding the Wife’s Submission to Her Husband:

As noted above, regardless whether the wife’s submits to her husband out of love for him, still, her subjection is mandatory due to her God-given role as a wife. Scripture and Tradition are quite clear on this. There are over a half-dozen passages in the New Testament that require the wife’s submission to her husband, some under pain of discipline if she refuses, but there no command in all of Scripture stating that a husband is to be in subjection to his wife.

But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.

The first and most obvious question a good Catholic would want to know about this passage is: What was the Church’s traditional understanding of this passage? We don’t need to go far to establish it. Augustine writes on 1 Cor 11:3: “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). Not surprisingly, Augustine gives no qualification to his teaching regarding “mutual submission.” He gives the same teaching in other works:

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)

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 Saviour 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 loveth his wife loveth 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).

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 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).

Another clear passage demanding the wife’s submission to her husband is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

We notice here that St. Paul uses “the law” as his precedent and authority. This means that the submission of the wife is not a new teaching being forced upon the churches, but one that has come directly from the precepts of the Old Testament, and which apparently is still in force. In addition, in verse 37, St. Paul goes on to say: “the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.” Thus St. Paul gives two witnesses to his testimony about a woman’s submission to her husband, as he often requires of himself (cf., 2 Cor. 13:1).

The Church Fathers had no qualms about this either. In fact, so forceful was their interpretation that they insisted on prohibiting woman from speaking in Church. As representative of their teaching, we will cite Origen on 1 Cor 14:34:

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 what 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).

But, as it becometh women professing godliness, with good works. 11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. 13 Adam was first formed; then Eve. 14 And Adam was not seduced; but the woman, being seduced, was in the transgression. 15 Yet she shall be saved through child bearing; if she continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

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).

All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. 18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter towards them.

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).

Chrysostom says there is great harmony if the husband loves his wife and the wife is submissive to the husband.

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)

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).

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).

1 Peter 3:1, 5-6 gives even more graphic language regarding the wife’s requirement to be submissive to her husband, using Sarah as the example par excellence:

In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands: that, if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives...5 For after this manner heretofore, the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: 6 As Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance.

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 loveth his wife, loveth his own flesh, even as Christ loved the Church. (Tertullian Against Marcion, Ch XVIII).

22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: 23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it:26 That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: 27 That he might present it to himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church:30 Because we are members of him, body, of his flesh and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother: and shall cleave to his wife. And they shall be two in one flesh. 32 This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the church. 33 Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular love for his wife as himself: And let the wife fear her husband.

There is something quite remarkable here. The underlined words that the wife is told to be in subjection/fear to her husband THREE times, while the italicized words show that the husband is never told to be in subjection to his wife, rather, he is told THREE times to love her. Not only is the wife told to be submissive to her husband, but verse 24 adds that it is to be “in all things.”2 Could the teaching be any more emphatic? Not only is the husband never told to be submissive to his wife, but the wife’s submission is specifically accentuated from what was originally stated in Ephesians 5:22!

How did the Tradition of the Church understand Ephesians 5:21-22? The same way as the other verses we have covered. First, many Fathers made a distinction between the context that ended with Ephesians 5:21 (“Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ”), and the context that began with Ephesians 5:22 (“Wives should be subordinate to your husbands”).

For example, Chrysostom ends his Homily XIX at Ephesians 5:21 (“be subject to one another”). He then begins Homily XX at Ephesians 5:22. In this way, he shows that verse 21 is a general statement for the whole church, in a context that began as far back as Ephesians 4:1. Here St. Paul does not address the husband/wife relationship, rather, he speaks to all the relationships that Christians have in and out of the Church (e.g., bishop/priest; pastor/parishioner; master/slave, husband/wife). Ephesians 6:1-9 does the same.

Not only do the Fathers show us the distinction between Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22, but the Greek grammar reinforces it. The words “be subject” in Ephesians 5:21 are from the Greek imperative-present-participle, hupotassomenoi. This is a somewhat unusual form in Greek. Its uniqueness would certainly catch a Greek student’s eye, especially if he saw four other imperative-present-participles preceding the one in question. He would immediately know that the author (St. Paul) was trying to get the reader to see that all the verses employing the imperative-present-participle were directly connected. Such is the case in Ephesians 5:19-21. The first imperative-present-participle is lalountes, appearing in verse 19, which is normally translated as “speaking,” as in “speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” The second imperative-present-participle is adontes, appearing in verse 19, and translated as “singing.” The third instance is psallontes, also appearing in verse 19, and literally translated as “psalming.” The fourth instance is eucharistountes, appearing in verse 20, and is translated as “giving thanks.” The fifth instance, of course, is hupotassomenoi, appearing in verse 21, and literally translated as “being in subjection.” One could safely conclude from this grammatical sign post that verse 21 is directly related to verses 19-20, and only remotely related to verses 22-33.3 Interestingly enough, the Greek manuscripts that contain the word “be subject”4 in Ephesians 5:22 (i.e., “wives be subject to your husbands”), show that St. Paul breaks his pattern of using the participle. He switches to the middle voice, hupotassasthe, an obvious indication that he is now on another topic and direction.

Be that as it may, let us address this from another angle. When St. Paul says “being subject to one another” does he mean that all relationships are to have a reciprocal submission, or does he mean that only those who are required to be submissive continue to do so? We will answer the former question momentarily. As for the latter, the emphasis on remaining in subjection to the proper authorities would be an important one for New Testament Christians to acknowledge, since in their newfound liberty they might fall into the mistaken notion that traditional roles of authority have become obsolete.5 A Christian servant, for example, may think that because his master is an unbeliever, he is not required to obey him. Not so, says St. Paul. In Colossians 3:22 he tells servants they have no such liberty, but are to continue being subject to their masters. In 1 Timothy 6:1 he tells servants:

Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honour; lest the name of the Lord and his doctrine be blasphemed. 2 But they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but serve them the rather, because they are faithful and beloved, who are partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort.

Again, in Titus 2:9 St. Paul tells the bishops: “Exhort servants to be obedient to their masters.” St. Peter does the same in 1 Peter 2:18: “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward.”

Identical to husbands, masters are never told to be “subject” to their servants. Rather, they are told to treat their servants with care and respect, knowing that they must ultimately subject themselves to God (cf., Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). In the same way, bishops are never told to subject themselves to presbyters (priests). Scripture is totally bereft of such commands.

We know this is also Chrysostom’s understanding for he tells us quite plainly. We see this as he applies Ephesians 5:21 to masters and slaves, a category of relationship that is not even mentioned among the verses in question (i.e., Ephesians 5:22-33):

‘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).

In Homily 10, Chrysostom again regards Ephesians 5:21 as a general command to all Christians:

For if I charge free men to submit themselves one to another in the fear of God, – as he said above, ‘submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of Christ’; – if I charge moreover the wife to fear and reverence her husband, although she is his equal; much more must I so speak to the servant.”

We must not be submissive to those who command us to act unlawfully. But to those who call us to live with piety, we must be subject to one another. Having laid down this general law of obedience, Paul next advises the Ephesians in detail on their duties to another. (Commentarius in omnes B. Pauli Epistolas, 2:33).

Moreover, we see that Theodoret understands Ephesians 5:21 as applying to those who are already under some kind of mandatory subjection, and thus he encourages them to continue in that subjection. His only condition is that those in such a category are not to be submissive to the point of doing something unlawful.

Hence, we see that none of the Fathers used Ephesians 5:21 as a qualification for interpreting Ephesians 5:22. Not surprisingly, neither does Scripture. We see this in two other passages that speak of wives being in subjection to their husbands. Above we noted earlier, Colossians 3:17-19 states:

All whatsoever you do in word or in work, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to God and the Father by him. Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behoveth in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter towards them.

First, we notice the same formula that appears in Ephesians 5:22-33, that is: wives are to submit, husbands are to love. Second, and more importantly, we notice that the command for the wives to be submit to their husbands is not preceded by a statement saying “be in subjection one to another,” or any hint of a “mutual subjection.” This tells us that the statement “wives be subject to your husbands” can stand alone when it is to be interpreted. It is not dependent on a “mutual subjection” introduction. This is especially true since the clause “be subject to one another” does not appear anywhere else in the New Testament!

The same format is evident in 1 Peter 3:1. The identical command for wives to be subject to their husbands appears once again, but there is no preface regarding “being subject to one another.” Rather, the preceding verse says: “For you were as sheep going astray: but you are now converted to the shepherd and bishop of your souls,” and then Peter goes immediately into telling the wives: “In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands.” Again, there is no recourse to “mutual submission” in order to understand the command concerning the wife’s subjection to her husband. It stands alone, and quite naturally.

Naturally, neither the Fathers of the Church nor the medievals interpreted Ephesians 5:21-22 as teaching a mutual submission between husband and wife. All the exegetes that spoke on the passage interpreted it as referring only to a wife submitting to her husband. There was not one variant voice. Again, let’s look at a representative sample.

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.” (Homily 10 on Ephesians).

Chrysostom again speaks on Ephesians 5:22, this time stating that if the wife refuses to submit to her husband she will incur the wrath of God:

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 the for the Lord’s sake? Yet their duty indeed it is, their bounden duty...For he who resisteth 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 (the writings attributed to Ambrose), concurs with the other Fathers:

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).

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 behoves 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).

Just so that we cover all our bases, would it be possible for someone to interpret Ephesians 5:21 as teaching that Christians, if not in a legal/mandatory sense, are, in some other sense, to be subject to one another? Yes, that is certainly possible, provided the “submission” in view is correctly qualified. As we noted previously, a master may choose to “submit” himself to his servant, but it is not because he is legally required to do so. Rather, he does so, on occasion, by choice, since he desires to show love and respect to his servant, just as Christ showed love and respect to the apostles when he washed their feet, but he was not legally required to do so. Obviously, Christ’s voluntary “submission” to wash feet does not mean that the apostles now have equal legal authority with Him, or that the apostles can call their submissive relationship to Christ “mutual.” It only means that, in order to foster good relations among Christians, Christian leaders will often voluntarily “submit” themselves as servants in an effort to be much more sensitive to their underling’s feelings than the world’s rulers are to theirs (cf., Matthew 20:25-28).

Let bishops hear this, let priests hear, let every rank of learning get this clear: In the church, leaders are servants. Let them imitate the apostle...The difference between secular rulers and Christian leaders is that the former love to boss their subordinates whereas the latter serve them. We are that much greater if we are considered least of all.”(Migne PL 26:530A, C 653-654).

What did popes previous to John Paul II say about this issue? The same as the Fathers and Medievals we have already covered. The most recent pope to speak on this issue was Pius XI. He stated it thus:

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).

The only thing Pius XI did, and rightly so, was explain the conditions and limitations of the husband’s authority over the wife. He writes:

This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. 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).

Prior to Pius XI, Pope Leo XIII gave the same consensus as the Fathers and Medievals. Pius XI refers to his words in Casti Connubii:

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.”

Obviously, we see nothing in either Pius XI or Leo XIII regarding “mutual submission.” Leo XIII speaks only of “mutual relations,’ but in “both in him who rules and in her who obeys.” Unfortunately, this does not seem to be what John Paul II taught in Mulieris Dignitatem.

Let’s analyze some more of Mulieris Dignitatem to round out the picture. I will underline the questionable sentences. John Paul II writes:

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.

John Paul says that St. Paul’s command is a “new way” of understanding husband and wife relations. Is it? Does St. Paul say that he is giving a new command? Does he say that his command to the wife to be submissive to her husband must now be understood only in the sense of “mutual subjection”? It has always been true, of course, that wives were to submit to their husbands and that husbands were to love their wives, but “mutual subjection”?? Where has that ever been taught? We saw earlier that St. Peter, basing his teaching on the principles of the Old Testament, told the Christian wives of his day to “be subject to their husbands...like Sarah who was obedient to Abraham and called him lord” (1 Peter 3:1, 5). If the wife’s submission today is based on a woman who lived 4,000 years ago, there is certainly nothing new about this requirement. Similarly, when in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 St. Paul tells the women to keep silent in the churches, and to ask questions of their husbands at home, he bases his command on “the Law” of the Old Testament and on “the Lord’s commandment” given directly to him. In 1 Cor 11:3f and 1 Timothy 2:11-15, St. Paul bases the commands for woman to be in subjection to the man on the relationship stemming from the time of Adam and Eve when their respective roles were put in place by God. So there is nothing “new” here regarding a woman’s role, and certainly nothing regarding “mutual submission” as the sense in which the wife’s subjection to her husband is to be understood. In fact, there are more passages in the New Testament that directly command the wife to be in submission to her husband than in the Old Testament!

But the challenge presented by the "ethos" of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favor of the "subjection" of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a "mutual subjection" of both "out of reverence for Christ." The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride.

Unless we are misunderstanding him, it seems that John Paul is advocating that the reference to “subjection of woman” must be understood as “mutual subjection,” regardless of where it appears in Scripture. This is in the face of the fact that Ephesians 5:21 is the only place in Scripture where a command to subject oneself to another appears before the command for wives to subject themselves to their husbands. “Mutual subjection,” as we have noted earlier, means that whatever is true for the wife’s subjection to the husband, is true for the husband’s subjection to the wife, for that is what “mutual” means. Hence, if the wife’s subjection is legally mandated, so the man’s subjection is legally mandated. But as we have seen from an analysis of the Fathers, the Medievals, and two other popes, no one has ever taught this kind confusion of the sexes in regards to submission. John Paul, as he does in many other cases, stands alone in the history of the Catholic Church.

If John Paul does not intend to teach what I have described above, it surely is not clear in Mulieris Dignitatem, and he needs to make it clear elsewhere. As for now, since there is no other statement (at least one that I know of) in which John Paul modifies or clarifies his teaching in Mulieris Dignitatem, then we, because words have meaning, are obliged to take him at his word and offer our conscientious and responsible objections.6

If John Paul’s view were the correct one, St. Paul and St. Peter had many opportunities to say so. All they needed to do was add the necessary qualification. But they never did. They told husbands to love their wives, not to be subject to them. There is not one command, or even a suggestion, in the whole Bible, or in the Patristics, or in any papal statement or conciliar decree, that men are to submit to their wives. Rather, all Christians, whether they be popes, bishops, employers, husbands, government officials, etc, should all have an attitude of spiritual “submission” to one another, for we are all in this Christian life together, and we all need the help of the other to make it successful. Unfortunately, unless one distinguishes between the spiritual submission Christians offer to one another over against the legal and mandatory submission required of those under authority, then this will create confusion and distort St. Paul’s teaching. The submission of the wife to the husband, as we have seen in the Tradition of the Church, is not voluntary. She is as much obliged to submit to her husband as a priest to a bishop or a citizen to the government.

The basic question now facing us is: If the Fathers, the medievals, two popes, not to mention Scripture itself, give no indication that Ephesians 5:22 is to be interpreted as a “mutual submission” between husband and wife, then where would such an interpretation originate? We don’t have to go far to find the answer. It has been in the modernist hermeneutic for quite some time. The “mutual submission” interpretation began in the 1930s in liberal Protestant seminaries and pulpits. All one need do to prove this is to read a few Protestant biblical commentaries written in the 1930s and it will be plainly evident that liberals were anxiously reinterpreting the biblical passages concerning the role of women. After the days of Margaret Sanger and the suffrage movement in the 1920s, liberal Protestants had gained a substantial foothold in the universities and seminaries, and soon their liberal theology became worldwide.

When Pius XII gave Catholic scholars the go-ahead to experiment with the methodology of historical-critical exegesis for use in Catholic biblical studies (which originated with Protestant liberals as far back at the early 1800s), the floodgates were opened. Fueled by the ecumenical ties fostered by John XXIII and Paul VI, the main elements of Protestant liberalism seeped far and wide into Catholic scholarship. Using the same historical-critical tools they borrowed from liberal Protestants, Catholic scholars were coming to the same conclusion about the role of women – that Paul’s injunctions against women taking authoritative roles in government, church and family were culturally conditioned, if not culturally biased. It was now time to reinterpret those Pauline passages in light of the advances in modern society regarding the status of women. Not surprisingly, we find Catholic liberal scholarship’s premier biblical exegete stating that the New Testament not only contains errors in matters of history and science, but also in “religious matters,” that is, commands such as those which tell women to be subject to their husbands.7

John Paul II himself suggests that the injunctions against women were the result of a culturally conditioned “ethos,” as he states in Mulieris Dignitatem:

‘Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife’ (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a ‘mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ’ (cf. Eph 5:21)

In other words, the statement “wives be subject to your husband” is so culturally conditioned by the age in which he finds himself that St. Paul must bring forth a new interpretation to an otherwise common maxim. That is, St. Paul uses “wives be subject to your husbands” not as a biblical command to wives, but only as if he were quoting an archaic maxim from the past so that he can reinterpret it and set it aside in the present! As we have seen, the pope says that St. Paul’s new interpretation is one of “mutual subjection” between spouses, without distinction or qualification. Unfortunately, the pope seems unable to see that it is his own interpretation of St. Paul’s statement in Ephesians 5:22 that may be culturally conditioned by the modern women’s liberation movement, since no Father, no medieval, no saint, doctor or previous pope to him ever stated or even suggested that “wives be subject to your husbands” means a “mutual subjection” between spouses.

Are we surprised to see these kinds of statements by this pope? No, not if we’ve been following his pontificate for the last 25 years. As we noted in our last essay for The Remnant, already beginning in 1978, Cardinal Wojtyla quoted favorably from all the top liberal Catholic and Protestant scholars of the day in his book Sign of Contradiction (e.g., Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Henri de Lubac, Walter Kasper, Teilhard de Chardin, L. Feuerbach, Rudolph Otto, Martin Heidegger, Albert Camus, et al. ), the very book that laid much of the groundwork for the Assisi Interreligious Prayer Gatherings occurring in 1986 and 2002, another innovation unprecedented in the annals of Catholic thought and practice.

Another possible reason for the pope’s novel view of the “wives subject yourself to your husband” passages is his interpretation of the “he shall rule over you” clause from Genesis 3:16. It is the pope’s view that the husband’s rule over the wife is a result of Eve’s sin. Thus, since the Gospel is specifically put in place to deal with sin, the pope reasons that a husband’s rule over the wife should be set aside for the more gospel-oriented role of “mutual submission.” He writes in Mulieris Dignitatem:

This statement in (Gen 3:16) is of great significance. It implies a reference to the mutual relationship of man and women in marriage.... But the words of the biblical text directly concern original sin and its lasting consequences in man and woman....The words of the Book of Genesis quoted previously (3:16) show how this threefold concupiscence, the “inclination to sin,” will burden the mutual relationship of man and woman.

Here I think it is implicit that the pope’s use of “mutual relationship” means, or at least leads to, “mutual submission,” and the only reason he did not use the term “mutual submission” is that the section which uses the phrase had not been written until later in the encyclical where it was addressed more thoroughly.

If Mary is described also as the “new Eve,” what [is] the meaning of this analogy? Certainly there are many. Particularly noteworthy is the meaning which sees Mary as the full revelation of all that is included in the biblical word “woman”: a revelation commensurate with the mystery of the Redemption. Mary means, in a sense, a going beyond the limit spoken of in the Book of Genesis (3:16) and a return to that “beginning” in which one finds the “woman” as she was intended to be in creation...

What is the “limit spoken of in the Book of Genesis (3:16) and a return to that ‘beginning’”? I believe it is the pope’s contention that the command “he shall rule over you” is the “limitation,” but this limitation was not intended from the “beginning.” It was a merely a consequence of sin. Accordingly, Mary is the liberator of women since she will reverse the “he shall rule over you” punishment imposed on Eve. That being the case, it is John Paul’s desire that we should be trying to implement this new state of affairs at the present time.

Even if the pope’s contention about Genesis 3:16 is right, does that mean we on this present sin-cursed earth are supposed to be rising above and alleviating that divine injunction? There is no such command in Scripture. As we have noted, the New Testament passages which speak of the wife being subordinate to her husband make no attempt to extricate women from the injunction of Genesis 3:16. Indeed, they base their teaching directly upon Genesis 3:16, an injunction which they see as perpetual.

We saw this basis, for example, in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, which stated that the woman is to be in silence and subjection to the man precisely due to the fact that Eve was the one who sinned. St. Paul gives no indication, either in the context of 1 Timothy 2 or elsewhere, that the silence and subjection is a temporary state of affairs, or one that is waiting for the enlightenment of future theologians (e.g., 20th century historical-critics) to show us the way out of its long tentacles. No, St. Paul is clear that as long as this present sin-cursed earth exists, the roles of man and woman he is outlining will abide.

We saw the same thing in 1 Cor 14:34-35. St. Paul told the women of the congregation to be in silence, so much so that if they had any questions they should ask their husbands at home, not in church. St. Paul contends that these commands to women are not merely his personal opinion, rather, they are from “the law” and the “commandments of the Lord.” Similar to 1 Timothy, he gives no indication that these injunctions are someday going to be relaxed as the Gospel progresses before the return of Christ.

All the above analysis, however, is based on the pope’s contention that Genesis 3:16's clause “he shall rule over you” is a deviation from what was supposed to be practiced by husband and wife from the “beginning.” But we need not view Genesis 3:16 in that light at all. The clause “he shall rule over you” is not the consequence of Eve’s sin, for Adam was already the head of the family when he and Eve were created! St. Paul assures us of this fact as he states that Adam’s authority over Eve is because “Adam was created first” (1 Timothy 2:13).

Rather, the consequence of Eve’s sin is seen in the clause “And your desire shall be toward your husband.” In other words, because of her sin, and the subsequent proclivity to sin (i.e., concupiscence), Eve will desire to rule over Adam, but God will see to it that he continues to rule over her. Prior to sin, Eve’s motives would be untainted by a desire to usurp Adam’s authority, and thus she would naturally assume her designated place as Adam’s helper. Sin, however, would tempt her to see otherwise. We can safely say that whenever we see women assuming authority over men and seeking to supplant them as God’s rulers, this is due to sin. This was exactly the state of affairs in ancient Israel when that nation began to apostasize. As Isaiah laments:

O my people, Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them. O my people. Those who guide you lead you astray, and confuse the direction of your paths. (Isaiah 3:12).

We have sufficient evidence within the context to support the above understanding of Genesis 3:16. The Hebrew word for “desire” (teshuqah) does not refer to an overwhelming affection Eve would have for Adam, rather, it denotes something far more serious. We see a more precise understanding of its meaning in the next and final time this phrase is used in the Old Testament, Genesis 4:7, in regards to Cain's disposition right after he murdered Abel. God says to Cain: “If you do well, is there not acceptance? If you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door and its desire is toward you, but you shall rule over it." Here we see that sin’s desire is to rule over Cain, but God tells Cain to rule over sin, and if he is successful, God will accept him.8 Thus, Genesis 4:7 helps explain the antithesis between “desire” and “ruling” in Genesis 3:16. Again, the consequence of Eve’s sin is not that she would have an uncontrollable desire for Adam. It was just the opposite. Sin would tempt her to desire to rule over Adam, but God would frustrate her desire and see to it that Adam ruled over her.

What are the consequences of “Eve’s” desire to rule over Adam? We see many of them in our society today, just as Israel did in the time of Isaiah. Women leave the home and put their children (if they have any) in the care of paid-providers, while they compete with the man in all the areas of leadership, including government, church and employment. Their children grow up lacking the care and sensitivity known traditionally with motherhood. They turn to drugs, sex (including homosexuality), rock music, peers or anything that will relieve the gaping hole they feel inside. The unwanted children, of course, are aborted, since otherwise they would get in the way of the woman’s pursuits outside the home. When the women are home, they are conditioned to compete with the husband for authority. When decision time comes, their wills clash. If not repaired, divorce ensues. In the wake of “women’s liberation,” the sad fact is that over half of all marriages end in divorce. Over sixty percent of second marriages end in divorce. Because women are now more accessible in the work force, the military and government leadership, the incidence of married women succumbing to adultery is staggering. Unfortunately, many of today’s women find out too late that they are happiest when they respond to their maternal instincts and being subject to their husbands. The typical family today has two or less children per household across America, Europe and Russia. Many countries cannot even replace their dying populations. Husbands, because they have been brainwashed by a media that stereotypes them as weak and cowardly misfits, fail to assert their God-given role of leadership, and the family becomes highly dysfunctional. This malaise begins to perpetuate itself through successive generations until the family and society is so weak it cannot exist any longer. These are just a few of the things that happen when “Eve” is allowed to fulfill her desire to rule over Adam.

Although after a complete reading of Mulieris Dignitatem one can safely conclude that it is John Paul’s heartfelt desire to elevate women past the incidents of barbarism and domination they sustained in past cultures, we can also safely say, based on our above exegesis and historical research, that the way to accomplish this is not by reinterpreting the Scriptural teachings concerning wives being subject to their husbands. Those passages are fixed in stone and their truths will never change. As we have seen, neither Scripture, Tradition nor the Magisterium have ever taught that the husband is to be in subjection to his wife based on some type of “mutual subjection.” Rescuing women from unfair domination can only be accomplished by accentuating the command contained in the second leg of St. Paul’s teaching: “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church.” It is love, not submission, that men so desperately need to be taught. Men know all about submission. Their whole world is governed by the pecking order, and the competition out there is rather fierce. Likewise, men know when someone is trying to usurp their authority under the pretext of establishing equality, and so-called “women liberators” fill that bill precisely. The quickest way to household unrest and eventual divorce is for the wife to threaten the man’s authority over his own household. He will naturally resent it and rightly fight against it. Rather, men need to learn the art of loving. That is why St. Paul tells them so often to love their wives, for they find it hard to do. When husband’s do love their wives, submission to his gentleness is a pleasure for the wife, not a competition to be won by seeking his equal submission to her.

As St. John Chrysostom stated so wisely many years ago, and still remains true today:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Accordingly, “mutual submission” does not mean “mutual love,” or “mutual cooperation” or “mutual respect,” “mutual communication” or “mutual deference,” which represent the various euphemisms employed by those seeking to justify John Paul’s use of “mutual submission” and deny that he is breaking with tradition. None of the aforementioned terms are legal or canonical. “Submission,” on the other hand, has a legal and canonical basis, since it refers to the authority that one person or group has over another, such as the government having authority over its citizens, bishops over priests, employers over employees, and yes, husbands over wives. If one does not submit to these authorities, then he/she suffers the legal or canonical consequences.

2 Greek is “en panti,” which literally means “in all” or “in everything.”

3 To get around this, some assert that “be subject” in Ephesians 5:21 introduces a nominative absolute, so as to mean “while subjecting yourselves to each other, the wives are to be subject to their own husbands.” But clearly, not only does this not solve the problem, it is an unwarranted imposition on the text, since the wives are to subject themselves to their husbands, and not as others subject themselves to the rest. Suffice it to say, no bible translation existing has rendered it as such.

4 There is a Greek textual variant here. Some manuscripts are missing the verb “be subject to” (Papyrus 46, Codex Vaticanus) and thus the words are put in italics in the ASV (1901) and NAS (1995). Most Greek manuscripts contain the verb, however (Aleph, A, I, P, D, F, G, 6, 33, 81, 104, and many minuscules. It is followed by the majority of translations, e.g., KJV, DR, NIV, RSV, NAB, et al, including the 1550 Stephanus translation housing the Majority text).

5 Many today have made such conclusions, based on passages such as Galatians 3:28 (“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”). No doubt, this is why the head covering for women was removed and why women were permitted to speak in church after Vatican II, so as to symbolize the post-conciliar church’s new interpretation of Scripture. The pope himself makes reference to Galatians 3:28 as a supporting argument for his “mutual subjection” thesis. He writes in Mulieris Dignitatem: “This is a call which from that time onwards does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. St. Paul not only wrote: ‘In Christ Jesus . . . there is no more man or woman,’ but also wrote: ‘There is no more slave or freeman.’” But the context of Galatians 3 has nothing to do with authoritative or functionary roles or their application; rather, it is dealing only with who is eligible for salvation and the graces of God. Interestingly enough, when the roles of man and woman ARE put in contexts of authority and function, liberals casually dismiss these texts as culturally biased or historically archaic.

6 As Canon 212:2-3 states: “The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”

7 Raymond Brown writes: "If one has an a priori view of inerrancy that forbids a religious error, one will have to argue insistently that Job (14:13-22) did not mean what he seems to say” (Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), pp. 16-17. “Religious matters” are not to be confused with matters of “faith and morals.” The distinction between the two allows the liberal exegete to condemn “archaic religious ideas” propagated by the New Testament writers, but appear to hold on to the defined doctrines of faith and morals in the Catholic Church. In any case, Raymond Brown was appointed the head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission by John Paul II.

8 The Hebrew waw-consecutive can be translated as “and” or “but” in both Genesis 3:16 and 4:7, since that is the contextual meaning of the phrase in these instances – a contrast between one proposition and another.

Why have Catholic women the world over abandoned their traditional role?

Catholic women have abandoned nothing.

It's Catholic men who understand that their wives are on the same moral, intellectual, and spiritual plane that they are, and that mutual respect must prevail.

I don't think most married couples, Catholic or otherwise, think in terms of "submission." I can tell you that we, my wife and I, have never had one single discussion on the subject in 28 years (including courtship). We come to decisions mutually, after considering pros and cons. If one of us has a vested interest in a particular issue, that person usually prevails.

I don't see why there's this insistence on some marital infrastructure that most couples don't even think about. I can tell you that the Pauline admonition is not part of any marriage preparation that I've been involved in, and I've been involved for over 20 years.

How exactly is a "mutual subjection" compatible with the "primacy of the husband"?

The parts of the body serve each other:

1 Corinthians 12:12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single organ, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." On the contrary, the parts of the body which seem to be weaker are indispensable, and those parts of the body which we think less honorable we invest with the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior part, that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

>>“Wives should be subordinate to your husbands” if that truth was already covered in Eph 5:21's statement “Be subordinate to one another”? Would it not be superfluous and confusing to specify one of the spouses as having to be in subjection to the other in the very next verse?<<

Because he was talking to women when he said that. Ya gotta repeat yourself a lot! :^) *duck and cover*

Seriously, Men are instructed that they must follow Christ's example, which is to sacrifice their lives for their wives. His life is sworn to the protection and providence of hers, and in that role, she needs to obey him, just as the President obeys the secret service. Since his life is forfeit to hers as a Christian, and since he IS also elsewhere told that they must submit to each other, he shall not use this authority in any purpose but for that which it is given.

On the other hand, Christianity would quickly be identified as a religion of "women and slaves," who had few rights in the Roman Empire. It was a liberation movement, but did not seek liberation through social agitation. Women and slaves were to convert their husbands and masters, not revolt against them. Women were instruted to submit not only in the instances where there was *mutual* submission (which was plainly commanded!) but also where they were married to pagan men who were retaining their worldly power.

When people struggled for basic necessities, the issue of spousal dominance was less: People did what they needed to survive, and those men who did abuse their power suffered as a natural consequence to the dysfunction in their home. However, most of society was nominally, but only meagerly, Christian. And in times of affluence, men wielded their authority unjustly, and the basic *external* social structure needed to evolve to maintain the eternal inate social structure.

What the Pope is asserting then, is a response to a society which has neither the natural pressures towards a functional division of familial authorities, nor a strong inherent legal bias against women.

He is not, however, negating the natural and ordained differences between man and women. If you read the theology of the body, he does draw distinct differences between men and women in the areas of socialization, sexuality, spirituality and providence, which are in perfect accord with the roles presented in the Pauline letters.

What the author has done is found a place where the Pope is dealing with mutual submission, which is in the bible, and falsely presented it as missing the rest of the teachings.

Also, if St. Paul intended to teach that husbands are to be submissive to their wives, shouldn't we expect to see at least some specific statement to this effect somewhere in his writings? ... There are over a half-dozen passages in the New Testament that require the wife's submission to her husband, some under pain of discipline if she refuses, but there no command in all of Scripture stating that a husband is to be in subjection to his wife.

How odd that Sungenis manages to overlook 1 Cor 7:4:

"For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does."

Some may quibble that this verse appears in the context of conjugal rights. I answer that conjugal acts lie at the heart of the marital mystery. The theology that informs them informs and is inseparable from Christian marriage and ecclesiology as a whole.

Marriage is iconic, which is why it doesn't exist in heaven. Husbandly primacy is a consequence of the Fall, not inherent in marriage at the beginning. With the Church (consisting of Christians who're a "new creation") reconciled to God in Christ (the New Adam), Christian marriage is an icon of the paschal good news that all things are to be made new in Christ. Apart from the logical point that marital "obligations" are the forseeable consequences of a free choice (every bride says in effect "fiat mihi"), the insistence on approaching Christian marriage as a juridical problem is -- frankly -- idiotic, reflecting notions of Judaic legalism or even Islamic bondage. The wife is perfected and made free in her husband, not subjected, just as the Church is perfected in Christ who sets her free because he's the Truth.

Christ is risen, bonavertura. This changes everything.

"Apart from the logical point that marital "obligations" are the forseeable consequences of a free choice (every bride says in effect "fiat mihi"), the insistence on approaching Christian marriage as a juridical problem is -- frankly -- idiotic, reflecting notions of Judaic legalism or even Islamic bondage. The wife is perfected and made free in her husband, not subjected, just as the Church is perfected in Christ who sets her free because he's the Truth.

The fact that so many fathers, doctors, and popes have articulated this would seem to be evidence that it is nothing like Judaic legalism, nor islamic bondage, and especially not idiotic. Your last sentence fails to make the point you would have us believe. You say the wife is perfected, not subjected, as the Church is perfected in Christ. The point you seem to be missing is that the Church IS subject to Christ.

"Christ is risen, bonavertura. This changes everything"

Christ was risen when Peter, Paul, Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Thomas Aquinas, Origen, St. John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Tertullian, Ignatius of Antioch, Leo XIII, and Pius XI were writing on the subject as well. This seems to imply that everything is not, in fact, changed. So, your hypothesis about husbandly primacy being only a result of the fall doesn't seem to hold. This was also addressed in the article, though, so I will not rehash it.

Marriage is iconic, boney. That's the point you seem to be missing.

"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"

"nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife"

Both you and Sungenis gloss over the point made repeatedly -- from Augustine through Pius XI -- that wifely obligation is entirely qualified by a corresponding husbandly duty. The wife's ordering to her husband is an icon of the Church's ordering to Christ. But what's essential here -- what both you and Sungenis glibly overlook -- is that the wife's duty is grounded in her husband's duty to be an authentic icon of Christ.

Christian wives are no more ordered to unchristian husbands than the Church is ordered to antichrists. In such cases, wifely obediance is reduced to little more than an act of martyrdom. In fact, as the Pauline Privilege (also strangely unmentioned in this analysis) explicitly provides, there's no bond of marriage when the unbelieving spouse systematically rejects the grace of the sacrament.

I'm sorry about your seeming obsession with marriage as legalistic and defined by power, rather than existential and informed by love. I'm especially sorry that you seem to have mounted this hobby horse to register your contempt for the present pope, but it just goes to highlight the way disordered views of marriage relate to disordered ecclesiology.

Your failure to respond over 1 Cor 7 noted, btw.

I hate to agree with you, but I finally do. This is the point I had been making since I started this thread. I have repeatedly pointed out that I do not see the marriage obedience issue as the husband lording over a wife who is silently shaking her head yes to his every whim (I have clarified this in several emails now as well).

My point was that the issue is rightly seen in the context of the husband being the image of Christ in the family, the wife being the image of the Church. With that imagery, I do not see how "mutual submission" can be applied, because in this "icon" as you call it, the submission is not obligated from both sides. This was the crux of the entire debate. It isn't a matter of whether both sides owe the other respect, charity, love, etc. They most certainly do, and I never claimed otherwise.

In your response now, you have laid it out clearly, and this largely, I think, because you dropped the mutual submission line.

Throughout, though, people have accused me of taking the position of the muslems, et al. This is absurd. It is also absurd that this opinion is reducing marriage to some legalistic power play rather than a sacrament which is an image of Christs love. If that is the way you reduce the last quote in the article from St. John Chrysostom, though, so be it. I think it is a beautiful outline for marriage, and would have to say is a perfect summary of my view (expressed more clearly than I am capable of, obviously).

"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)

I will not address your last paragraph, I think it is a clear misrepresentation of what I have been saying, and a fairly petty insult. Oh well, I've heard much worse.

Also note that I don't recall a reference to 1 Cor 7, though I will go back in the thread and look for educational purposes. Given how this has deteriorated, I'm not going to try to go back and repeat the same things over and over, though. No amount of my commentary will make things more clear, so none more will be provided. If your comment on 1 Cor 7 makes a good point, then consider the point taken.

you dropped the mutual submission line.

Then by all means let me pick it up again.

Mutual submission in marriage is real and derives from the mutual consent of the spouses that, when it's authentic and made manifest in consummation, gives each spouse power over the other's body.

Look at it this way: if there were no mutual submission, a husband would be at liberty to divorce his wife at will. The Church of course maintains that he has no power to do so, having given himself to an irrevocable covenant. The image of submission is driven home by the very latinity of conjugium, which derives from jugum, meaning a yoke or collar for draft animals, and plainly expresses the idea that spouses are in harness together. I realise that you're arguing for a hierarchy of authority in marriage that images Christ's authority over the Church, and in a perfect marriage of unreserved obedience reciprocated by unstinted love you might have a case. I'll cheerfully concede in the case of the marriage of St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary. But most of us fall somewhat short of the awe and devotion Joseph had for his wife. Can you imagine him pulling rank on her? I can't. I really can't.

The problem with the entire debate is that it is always focused on the wrong portion of the scripture.The focus should be on the duty of the husband.The husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church.That is sacrificially and as a Shepherd.This means he must be prepared to lay down his life for his wife.He has the responsibility for protecting,providing for and being the spiritual leader.
God will hold the husband responsible for how he shepherds his family.When you begin to view the relationship from this perspective you realize God may have given a tougher charge to the husband than submission is for the woman.I believe that a strong case can be made that anytime a Christian marriage fails its is the husbands fault because of the responsibility God has given him

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.