"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.
I don't recall where anyone said that disregarding JPII's teaching on this issue made one schismatic, just as my preference of JPII's teaching over that of Pius XI's doesn't make me schismatic. It is Paul's preference that women subject themselves to men, just as he preferred that all men remain celibate, as he was. But a marriage that does not use that model does not subject the spouses to damnation.
SSPXers are not schismatic because they reject JPII, but because they reject the authority of the Pope to determine who will be bishops and who will not. And, their leader, Lefebvre, acted against the Pope's authority.
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.
The above is the epistle in the traditional nuptial Mass - following the matrimonial vows. It's clear that wives are called to obey their husbands "in all things" except where obedience to the command would involve sin.
When the grounds are clear and cogent, when they are shared by a number of serious and loyal theologians, then it is permitted to differ from the decree or at least to withdraw one's agreement for the present time. But it is not permissible, out of respect for the holy power of the Apostolic See, to take a public position against it; rather, one should undertake a respectful silence, or the difficulty may be presented to the Apostolic See. (F. Gallati, "Wenn die Papste Sprechen", Vienna: 1960, p. 175)