[Romulus]

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.

[bonaventura]

"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.