Authentic Male Leadership

[EasterJoy]

In practice, I interpret what you wrote to actually mean: it really depends on the couple, and, in some couples, the husband will actually always submit.

I tend to agree with you a lot because you are sane and intelligent.

In this case, I don’t even see a difference between what you are saying here, in practice, and what I’d like to see happening, in practice.

To defer is not the same as to submit, but sure, sometimes the husband will think his wife has better judgment on the vast majority of their decisions. There is no reason that could not be a correct reckoning on his part, provided that he does not use that as an excuse to get lazy about his responsibility to make decisions with understanding of what is going on. (If he’s totally unable to do decision-making or if she is totally unable to offer intelligent feedback when she is consulted, one has to wonder if such a person is ready for marriage.)

I see the problems coming when the presumed models are a clash between “hey, we own this thing together, I get half of the decisions” and “hey, I’m the owner, you answer to me, and if you don’t like it, too bad.” There are only wrong answers to those models!

When there is the clear realization that the husband and wife are not the owners of the enterprise, but ultimately answering to a true owner, a more happy meeting of the minds happens all of the time. The problem comes in Christian marriage–and with all Christian authorities, let us face it!!–when it is forgotten who the enterprise actually belongs to, and that the true owner is going to turn up without prior announcement, when an accounting will be due.

A woman is capable of being a head of a household. Widows do it all the time, and religious superiors do it all of the time. Still, Jesuits have to submit to their superiors all of the time, too, and nobody think the “smartest guy” to be praiseworthy because he can’t give in when he’s not put in the place of authority. Nobody thinks the “smartest guy” is praiseworthy because he’s too smart to care about what those under him think or feel. Christian leadership is a leadership of the servant. It is being the one who gets the role of having to finally make the decision. If anything, it is being put in the position of habitually putting one’s own preferences last, when the question is merely one of preference. The leadership in marriage is no different than that…that is, it is a leadership where one is chosen, but often chosen from among equals, and even in the face of someone else who might have been more capable in some sense. Submission to one leader who is the servant of all is how equals live in peace, let’s face it!

 

[baseballLife]

What is important is that the particular man and the particular woman married to each other agree about it, or that (as is usually the case), they each have an opinion that gives the other more room than the other thinks is necessary. If anyone comes around thinking some fellow gives into his wife too much or that the wife gives in to her husband too much, they can go jump in a lake.

Why the offensive tone? I’m not judging anybody’s relationship. When a guy confides in another man about how his wife is treating him and that guy sums up that experience on a forum it is not a judgement. If a couple agrees on something and it works for them, God bless them! That couple doesn’t need guidance. The ones that need are the ones where there is a problem. We certainly aren’t going to tell a man whose wife walks all over him when he never agreed to that behavior to “go jump in a lake.” Don’t think a we would tell a woman that for sure.

I’m not getting your meaning at all about a woman’s free will. Who on earth has a right to do what is against the will of God? No one does, not the husband or the wife! No, this is about the couple discerning together between multiple options, all of which are morally permissible, and deciding which they will follow as a couple and as a family. If a woman is intent on sin, if she is intent on throwing off submission to God himself, adding the charge that she is not submitting to her husband is a parking ticket on top of a felony! If a man does that, he’s in the same boat…that is, if he ignores her objections when he is choosing to sin, of course it is him and not her who is in the wrong! Of course she does nothing wrong by refusing to sin in order to “submit” to him.

Why such the extreme example here? Let’s say husband looses his job and needs to move to another state to find work. Wife can find a job in the new state but just doesn’t want to move. This situation is not really a choice between following the 10 Commandments or not. Of coarse if anyone rises against God that is a non-starter but not every decision a couple makes has to potentially involve eternal punishment. Is the wife being unreasonable? Inconsiderate of the husband?

Here is another situation a friend of mine had to deal with. He has a very lucrative construction business and his wife couldn’t find work in our area. She wanted to move to another state but the state she wanted to move too has a really bad market for construction. She threatened to take the job and leave him behind (not divorce though) if he didn’t move. He obviously did not agree.

Let’s say he compromises and they move. Her salary can’t support them and he can’t find work. They go into financial ruin or worse have kids AND go into financial ruin. Whose responsibility is it?

I think the question of “male leadership” is really about who is going to be held accountable when things go wrong or praised when they go right. God held Adam accountable and demanded an account from him first, not Eve. If a man’s neck is on the line then then is it really a surprise men were given headship of the family? Nowadays bill collectors have no problem going after women but in the ancient world it was the man that was responsible to pay the family debts.

If the master leaves a servant in charge of his house and the servant beats the other servants while the master is away…woe to that servant! The master will blame the one who abused his power, not the ones abused who dared to stand up to him! That does not mean that in the best of cases there was a democracy going while the master was gone. No, it means that the steward was handling the things according to the way the master charged him to do it, and so of course he would expect questions from his 2nd in command, if he departed from that. Since she is given to him as a consultant and companion, and not a slave, of course he is expected to consult with her. No, it is only that the final decision about how the household is to follow the master’s will is ultimately up to him. If he thinks that means running everything according to his personal tastes, he is much mistaken! The head of a family is just like that steward. He is the head of the family, but not for himself, because the real head and master of the family, the real party that everyone answers to and whose pleasure must be of the highest concern, is God and God alone! He had better treat everyone in his family accordingly, from the least to the greatest, but especially the one given to him to have authority second only to his…and he, like Christ, is bound to have a Christ-like authority, the authority of the one who seeks to serve, not to be served. If he indulges himself at her expense, or even if they indulge themselves at their children’s expense, he will have the master to answer to, and make no mistake!

Why is the assumption that a man is always going to “lord the power” over a woman? I tend to think we create a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Let’s be real here. Most men jump through hoops for women. Sure, some are physically abusive but most aren’t. Most guys I know say “how high?” when a woman says “jump!” Maybe that’s not everyone’s experience but I think it would be charitable to at least give men the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Litcrit]

When there is the clear realization that the husband and wife are not the owners of the enterprise, but ultimately answering to a true owner, a more happy meeting of the minds happens all of the time. The problem comes in Christian marriage–and with all Christian authorities, let us face it!!–when it is forgotten who the enterprise actually belongs to, and that the true owner is going to turn up without prior announcement, when an accounting will be due.

I can wholeheartedly agree with this.

If people really put Christ first and submit to Him first, then I don’t think in practice there’s going to be a great difference between wifely submission and mutual submission in marriage.

If this crucial condition isn’t met, then I do believe legalistically expecting the wife to always submit will be the more dangerous model of the two.

 

[mommamaree]

Why is the assumption that a man is always going to “lord the power” over a woman? I tend to think we create a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Let’s be real here. Most men jump through hoops for women. Sure, some are physically abusive but most aren’t. Most guys I know say “how high?” when a woman says “jump!” Maybe that’s not everyone’s experience but I think it would be charitable to at least give men the benefit of the doubt.

This has been my experience. Especially when a woman uses her feminine gifts of gentle persuasion to invite him to jump, rather than demanding it like a harpy. Or even if they are harpies, men still jump, albeit with resentment. There are two phrases that I have heard that best sums up husband-wife relationships and demonstrate the power that even the most submissive of wives wields over her husband:

The man may be the head, but the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head any way she chooses.
The man is the head of the household, but the woman is the heart of the home.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m glad brought this alternate example up (I was actually going to use a female bread-winner in the hypothetical. Again, who is called to submit to whom? Let us also further assume that there really are legitimate reasons for staying or going regardless of who the breads-winner may be.

You seem to want to come up with an example of the ideal situation removed from human faults and failings. Realistically, that just isn’t going to occur very often, if ever, in real life, but if you want to hear my understanding of it, then here goes.

Perfect couple. Husband and wife disagree about whether they should stay or move. Both options are equally good for their family. Wife submits to the husband by giving him final say. Husband then proceeds to “submit” or, if you don’t like using that term that way, defer, to the wishes of his wife out of sacrificial Christ-like love for her and so gives her what she wishes rather than taking what he wants. That is the ideal in the scenario where it is purely a matter of one spouses wishes against another.

There are, however, many other scenarios. For instance, if one situation is objectively better for the family than the other then it doesn’t matter whose wish it is, that is the path the family ought to take. And, depending on the scenario and how much better it is for the family, it may become the duty of the wife to challenge her husbands wishes and decisions, to refuse to submit to them, for the good of the family. The thing about the above ideal scenario is that it is removed from the notion of one option being objectively better than another, when in reality that situation rarely, if ever, occurs.

It is also true that husband and wife can disagree about which is better for their family. They may both be well meaning, but just simply disagree. How do they deal with such a scenario? The wife is convinced that her preference is better for the family. However her husband disagrees. What is the correct option for her? Should she give the decision entirely into her husbands hands, even if it means allowing her family to suffer on account of it? Or should she continue to try to convince her husband that her preference is better for the family?. There are so many factors to consider. The main consideration, however, is whether or not, in that particular circumstance, trying to convince her husband of her point of view will harm the family more than simply submitting to his preferences. If she perceives that it would be more harmful for her family if she submitted to her husband, then she actually has a duty to not submit and continue to press for what she perceives to be best for her family. However, it seems very unlikely that a couple who are both well-intentioned and truly trying to discern God’s will and were careful to choose a spouse who has similar morals and worldviews would ever get to a point where her resistence would be necessary, but still, if she perceives it as neccessary for the goood of her family then that is how she is morally obliged to act. Yes, the wife is supposed to submit to her husband for the good of her family via preserving the unity of the spouses whenever such is in the best interests of the family. However, real life can complicate that issue. And it is very very important to keep that in mind so that the husband does not gain an attitude of deserving to always get the last say and feeling resentful if his wife will not submit. Because it is not true that his wife has a duty to submit to him whenever he deems it right for her to do so. If the husband begins to feel as though this is the case it will lead to a breaking down of the marital relationship. It is imperative that the husband recognize that his wife has a duty to do what she perceives as best for the family, even if he disagrees with her. And so, even if he thinks she ought to be submitting in a given scenario, he can recognize that she is actually doing what she must. (assuming good faith and intentionss on her part rather than selfish reasons and motivations). Yes, the Church teaches that the wife should submit to the husband (as well as that the husband should always put her desires before his own, unless the good of the family demands otherwise) but it is not a simple matter of the wife always and unquestioningly doing what her husband wants. Reality and life is far more complicated than that. I reiterate again that as soon as the husband feels entitled to his wifes submission whenever he deems it necessary he is failing to love his wife as Christ loves the Church and failing to lead her as Christ leads. He has lost his way and begun to view his wife in a very unchristian way. This midsight of entitlement to submission whenever desired must be eradicated from Christian marriages as it is contrary to the true image and model of the submit/love relationship model set up by Christ.

 

[EasterJoy]

Why the offensive tone? I’m not judging anybody’s relationship. When a guy confides in another man about how his wife is treating him and that guy sums up that experience on a forum it is not a judgement. If a couple agrees on something and it works for them, God bless them! That couple doesn’t need guidance. The ones that need are the ones where there is a problem. We certainly aren’t going to tell a man whose wife walks all over him when he never agreed to that behavior to “go jump in a lake.” Don’t think a we would tell a woman that for sure.

Who said you were judging? If you’re not, then why would what I said apply to you? I said that if it works for them, that is there business, and no one else’s. What did I say about anyone else?

Why such the extreme example here? Let’s say husband looses his job and needs to move to another state to find work. Wife can find a job in the new state but just doesn’t want to move. This situation is not really a choice between following the 10 Commandments or not. Of coarse if anyone rises against God that is a non-starter but not every decision a couple makes has to potentially involve eternal punishment. Is the wife being unreasonable? Inconsiderate of the husband?

I believe I was replying to somebody who referred to Lot’s wife as an example of a woman having free will. If one of the spouses is going for something sinful, then the question of authority is moot. I couldn’t answer to every case, but in general a woman who won’t move so that her husband can bring in a salary that the family needs because she doesn’t want the inconvenience of moving is unreasonable, yes. I did not mean by “felony” that anyone was going to hell, but rather than defiance of God’s law is more serious than crossing boundaries of authority, to the point that if there is a choice between God’s law and the authority God has invested in a human superior, of course moral law is going to win.

Here is another situation a friend of mine had to deal with. He has a very lucrative construction business and his wife couldn’t find work in our area. She wanted to move to another state but the state she wanted to move too has a really bad market for construction. She threatened to take the job and leave him behind (not divorce though) if he didn’t move. He obviously did not agree.

Let’s say he compromises and they move. Her salary can’t support them and he can’t find work. They go into financial ruin or worse have kids AND go into financial ruin. Whose responsibility is it?

I think the question of “male leadership” is really about who is going to be held accountable when things go wrong or praised when they go right. God held Adam accountable and demanded an account from him first, not Eve. If a man’s neck is on the line then then is it really a surprise men were given headship of the family? Nowadays bill collectors have no problem going after women but in the ancient world it was the man that was responsible to pay the family debts.

Yes, that is it…that is, that both make the decision by consulting together, but the husband has a particular authority and responsibility for what they decide to do.

Why is the assumption that a man is always going to “lord the power” over a woman? I tend to think we create a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Let’s be real here. Most men jump through hoops for women. Sure, some are physically abusive but most aren’t. Most guys I know say “how high?” when a woman says “jump!” Maybe that’s not everyone’s experience but I think it would be charitable to at least give men the benefit of the doubt.

You misunderstand. I was not saying at all that men abuse their power, but rather saying that their authority does not give them room to act like tyrants. They are the first among the servants of the household. As for men who say, “how high?” when their wife says, “jump”, I would not criticize them either for deciding to defer to what is, in the end, not a matter of right or wrong, but only of preference, but I’d also not criticize them for objecting to what they believe is becoming a moral fault in their wife. She cannot lead him around by the nose because he is the servant of the servants of God in their home.

Really, I think if we are clear that we will have to answer for our treatment of our spouses and our management of our households, as two stewards where one is willingly given the definitive say for the sake of peace, the question is not something that couples who stay happily married for 50 or 60 years have much trouble with.

The truth is, when the preference is not about moral law but about personal preference, the most praiseworthy couples I know are in a bigger hurry to give into their spouse than to get their own way. If anything, they have to be careful not to see a preference where none is voiced, because they fear their spouse will not say what needs to be said in order to not get in the way of pleasing them. In other words, there are times when a good marriage is almost mutually-deferential to a fault. When the husband has to overrule his wife, it not something he enjoys doing, let’s just say that, because most spouses like to find ways to please each other.

 

[marymary1975]

Why is the assumption that a man is always going to “lord the power” over a woman? I tend to think we create a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Let’s be real here. Most men jump through hoops for women. Sure, some are physically abusive but most aren’t. Most guys I know say “how high?” when a woman says “jump!” Maybe that’s not everyone’s experience but I think it would be charitable to at least give men the benefit of the doubt.

My personal experience is that there are plenty of men who would jump hoops for their women, and I know plenty of men who are wonderful husbands (and I mean wonderful, they share totally house responsibilities and are loving and respectful) and amazing fathers. BUt, being someone who worked In the areas of domestic law, criminal law, and worked in the Courts I can tell you that the statement of “some men are abusive” is not accurate and is an understatement. The statistics of women murdered by a husband, boyfriend or significant other are so ridiculously high that when there is a murder and is a woman, the first person that the police would investigate is the significant other. This is a country where the first cause of death for pregnant women is murder by a husband, boyfriend or significant other…and I am only talking about murder, not even going into physical abuse. The statics are quite scary so in the real world, a lot and I mean a lot of men kill their women and abuse them. Maybe you personally are not surrounded by the kind of men that are abusive or controlling, which is good because it means you are good and surround yourself with good people but that is not the world out there. Of course there are many as i said who are wonderful but there is a harsh reality of abuse out there that you cannot negate and that is really scary.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

To the “ruler”/“subject” people:

1. If submission is one-sided then what is the meaning of Ephesians 5:21 which precedes the verses you often quote?
2. If the call for wives to submit in verses 22-24 is one-sided, then is the call for the husband to demonstrate sacrificial love in Ephesians 25 also one-sided? Is a wife not called to have sacrificial love for her husband?
3. If Casti Connubi explicitly says that women are not to be treated as minor children, then how is the “ruler”/“subject” analogy fitting? Isn’t the relationship between subject and ruler quite similar to that between child and parent?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

baseballlife:

Why is the assumption that a man is always going to “lord the power” over a woman?

Maybe that’s not everyone’s experience but I think it would be charitable to at least give men the benefit of the doubt.

So when someone says to you “the man shouldn’t possess all of the authority in a relationship,” you interpret that as not giving the man the benefit of the doubt?

Well, when you say that a woman should have none of the authority in a relationship, are you giving women the benefit of the doubt?

Let’s say you had a dollar to split between a man and a woman, and you chose to give the whole dollar to the man but nothing to the woman. If the woman expressed an objection, would you say, “hey, you aren’t giving the man the benefit of the doubt!” Just not seeing this at all…

 

[severus68]

thewanderer, it is not even worth asking. Portrait will adhere to his beliefs even when they are in direct conflict with the sources he quotes as support for his beliefs. He is the opposite of a critical thinker and would certainly drive Socrates up a wall. He is clearly uninterested in learning and refining thought, but rather simply wants to use this forum as a soapbox for his preaching, which is both badly-written and factually incorrect.

That is.reed very clear, ag

 

[severus68]

Has the *wife *ever shown herself to be incapable of making important decisions that impact the family?

1. He is the breadwinner and she is a SAHM to a baby. The opportunity would give them more money in a better neighborhood. She doesn’t want to move because she doesn’t like change and she has just planted some flowers.
2. They both have steady jobs and she makes significantly more. His new job - which is a dream career for him - will bring a bit more money, but she won’t be able to find work there, so their income will effectively be halved. They have a dream house in a great neighborhood near both their families. Their five children are all in school and would be desperate if they had to be uprooted from their friends and cousins. They love Dad and understand his desire to pursue his dream job, but Mom just knows it is not practical at all and the entire family should not have to sacrifice like this.

Which gender stereotype do we prefer? The irrational childish wife and the strong leading husband? Or the pragmatic realistic wife who knows the needs of her family and the childish dreamer of a husband?

Or neither? Each human being is unique. Each couple is different and will find their own ways of coming to decisions together. If they both put Christ first and try to lovingly submit to one another, it’s going to be easier.

 

[severus68]

Has the *wife *ever shown herself to be incapable of making important decisions that impact the family?

1. He is the breadwinner and she is a SAHM to a baby. The opportunity would give them more money in a better neighborhood. She doesn’t want to move because she doesn’t like change and she has just planted some flowers.
2. They both have steady jobs and she makes significantly more. His new job - which is a dream career for him - will bring a bit more money, but she won’t be able to find work there, so their income will effectively be halved. They have a dream house in a great neighborhood near both their families. Their five children are all in school and would be desperate if they had to be uprooted from their friends and cousins. They love Dad and understand his desire to pursue his dream job, but Mom just knows it is not practical at all and the entire family should not have to sacrifice like this.

Which gender stereotype do we prefer? The irrational childish wife and the strong leading husband? Or the pragmatic realistic wife who knows the needs of her family and the childish dreamer of a husband?

Or neither? Each human being is unique. Each couple is different and will find their own ways of coming to decisions together. If they both put Christ first and try to lovingly submit to one another, it’s going to be easier.

Sorry.

 

[severus68]

No, it is not that simple. As I said, it is more like a situation where senior staff of two are left in charge of a company while the true owner is absent. Of course there is one person left in charge, but also of course the owner will want him to carefully consider the situations where he has sentiments that are totally against the sentiments of the companion left to run the place with him. The ultimate decision is his, yes, but it does not follow from that that he will always follow his own preference. He has to make the decision based on how it is actually going to work out for the organization as a whole, in keeping with the operational standards he has been left. He has to do what he thinks the owner would have him do, not as if he were the only decision-maker, but considering the situation with the staff that he has that was given to him for the purpose of helping him to decide how to run things.

The authority of the husband is always exercised with the understanding that he has stewardship of the household for the sake of the mastery of Christ. He has to work with what he has and with the “vision” of the one given to him to help him guide the household. He is not the master with a bunch of servants, one of whom is older and can make more money than the rest, but who is no more than a servant, all the same. No, he is the senior in a counsel of two of equal dignity and possible one in which the one not in the position of authority still has better common sense. On that account, he will sometimes (and maybe even usually, depending on the couple) do right to give in to his wife’s sense of things, because he sees that in practical terms this is most likely to lead to the best result.

A man does not have special holiness, authority and vision just because he is a man. Women too are asked to follow Christ.
I know you are trying to justify and sanatise one -sided submission but however you put it, it is about domination. This is not what Christ taught.

 

[EasterJoy]

A man does not have special holiness, authority and vision just because he is a man. Women too are asked to follow Christ.
I know you are trying to justify and sanatise one -sided submission but however you put it, it is about domination. This is not what Christ taught.

Hmmm. Explain to me who in Christendom has authority, and how they come to have it?

When you are done with that, name an organization you have been in where anyone who believes themselves to have the best vision has been free to grant themselves authority over the whole organization? How did that work for them? Have you felt dominated in every organization you have been in where you didn’t have the final decision on things? Do you think that the Church won’t be free of “domination” until it becomes a democracy? This seems to follow from what you are saying about the impossibility of submission fitting into the teachings of Christ.

Please also tell me where Christ taught that Christian leadership was one-sided domination. It seems to me very clearly that he said that the Church would not be without “the greatest”, but rather that the greatest would be the servants of all, which is what I’m describing. Where you go the idea that there would be no greatest among Christians or that Christ did not select certain men for positions he did not grant to any of his much-appreciated women disciples, even the ones who were supporting him financially, I am not sure.

Well?

 

[EasterJoy]

I can wholeheartedly agree with this.

If people really put Christ first and submit to Him first, then I don’t think in practice there’s going to be a great difference between wifely submission and mutual submission in marriage.

If this crucial condition isn’t met, then I do believe legalistically expecting the wife to always submit will be the more dangerous model of the two.

If the crucial condition isn’t met, then yes, I’d say that the submission of anyone to a human being not expecting himself or herself to submit to God and to use authority according to the model of Christ would be the worst of the two. There is no way that this works under the power structures of the World, the Flesh, or the Devil. It only can ever work under the power structure that has its model in the Holy Trinity itself, the God in whose image humankind is made.

Still, the idea of mutual submission when the two are not in submission to at least a commonly-held set of values–a set of values which is not God, but which could at least reflect the writing of God on the natural heart–then the result will also be disastrous. We all know how long 50/50 marriages can be expected to last before they either dissolve into divorce or else dissolve into perpetual infighting. Yet it is possible that a natural marriage could operate under the power of the Holy Spirit, and so could allow multiple human beings to make one life without having a constant power struggle at “the top” and virtual enslavement at “the bottom.” For if a woman cannot submit even to the authority of her husband without being in subjugation to the man with whom she is one flesh, then how can a society ever operate without the same subjugation at its foundation? If authority cannot work in a marriage, where can it work?

 

[Fairwinds]

I like the idea of servant leadership.

and the roles of husband and wife are more nuanced than the chest beating cartoon of a man who must dominate submissive women, or hold a veto power or 50+% of the vote in the household.

a guy who makes noises like that is trying hard to convince himself of something he isn’t or is totally inexperienced in adult relationships.

 

[Litcrit]

You seem to want to come up with an example of the ideal situation removed from human faults and failings. Realistically, that just isn’t going to occur very often, if ever, in real life, but if you want to hear my understanding of it, then here goes.

Perfect couple. Husband and wife disagree about whether they should stay or move. Both options are equally good for their family. Wife submits to the husband by giving him final say. Husband then proceeds to “submit” or, if you don’t like using that term that way, defer, to the wishes of his wife out of sacrificial Christ-like love for her and so gives her what she wishes rather than taking what he wants. That is the ideal in the scenario where it is purely a matter of one spouses wishes against another.

There are, however, many other scenarios. For instance, if one situation is objectively better for the family than the other then it doesn’t matter whose wish it is, that is the path the family ought to take. And, depending on the scenario and how much better it is for the family, it may become the duty of the wife to challenge her husbands wishes and decisions, to refuse to submit to them, for the good of the family. The thing about the above ideal scenario is that it is removed from the notion of one option being objectively better than another, when in reality that situation rarely, if ever, occurs.

Excellent points.

In good, Christ-centered marriages, where both spouses are reasonable and kind, then, there aren’t any very real differences between the “mutual submission” model and the “wifely submission” model, as both spouses will openly discuss everything and try to jointly come to a decision that’s best for the family.

Things are just couched in different terms. We can say that the wife will sometimes do her best to impact her husband’s leadership in a way that she really deems best for the family, instead of saying that she will insist, or we can say that the husband will sometimes “defer” to the wife instead of “submit.”

The problem with this different terminology for me is precisely that it might lead to women thinking they have to employ some sort of stereotypical feminine “wiles” or whatever to manipulate their husbands, instead of simply having an equal say as an equal human adult.

I have no “wiles,” see. The very notion gives me the creeps. I tend to present rational arguments and then discuss. Then we decide together.

 

[Litcrit]

For if a woman cannot submit even to the authority of her husband without being in subjugation to the man with whom she is one flesh, then how can a society ever operate without the same subjugation at its foundation? If authority cannot work in a marriage, where can it work?

I’d think that authority works best in situations where, owing to real (albeit impermanent) inequality, some humans are naturally called to lead others, as is the case with parents and children, priests and their spiritual children, teachers and students.

 

[Litcrit]

Also, submission to authority can be the wisest solution in situations where a relationship is culturally unequal, although there may not be any natural inequality between the human beings.

Here is what the Epistles have to say about slaves submitting to their masters:

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. (Colossians 3:22)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. (Ephesians 6:5)

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. (1 Peter 2:18)

I would argue that, historically and culturally, this made sense when the institution of slavery existed, just as wifely submission did when women were not really treated by the culture or the law as equal human beings.

Just like we wouldn’t argue, based on the above verses, that slavery is somehow an ideal human relationship sanctioned by God for all eternity, so it may be wise to remember the historical and cultural setting in which the Epistles were being written when discussing marriage.

And it would also be wise to remember that many authors of the period - including Platonists and Pythagoreans - taught that wives should submit to their husbands, but only Christians have “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” (Ephesians 5: 21). Again, I argue that this, being radically different from the culture in which it emerged, is what is authentically Christian.

 

[Portrait]

To the “ruler”/“subject” people:

1. If submission is one-sided then what is the meaning of Ephesians 5:21 which precedes the verses you often quote?
2. If the call for wives to submit in verses 22-24 is one-sided, then is the call for the husband to demonstrate sacrificial love in Ephesians 25 also one-sided? Is a wife not called to have sacrificial love for her husband?
3. If Casti Connubi explicitly says that women are not to be treated as minor children, then how is the “ruler”/“subject” analogy fitting? Isn’t the relationship between subject and ruler quite similar to that between child and parent?

Dear VeritaLuxMea,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Re. 1. In Ephesians 5: 21, dear friend, St. Paul is first giving the concept of submission a completely general application before he proceeds to enjoin the kind of submission that is required in particular relationships (vv 22-23; 6: 1-4, 5-9). Within the Christian community, generally, a reverence for Christ must indeed prompt the faithful to subject themselves to one another (cf. S. Jhn. 13: 1-7), for unless personal pride is mortified it is quite impossible to maintain that mutual fellowship which is the fruit of humility. St. Paul knew from experience that the secret of maintaining joyful fellowship in the community of God’s people was the order and discipline that come from willing submission of one person to another (cf. Eph. 4: 2, 3). In Ephesians verses 22-23 St. Paul goes on to show how this submission works out specifically in the home, the domestic church, thus there is no contradiction whatsoever. You will observe that throughout this much disputed section that husbands and wives are reminded of their duties not their rights. In the case of wives the duty is that of submitting themselves to their husbands (cf. I Cor. 11: 3; Col. 3: 18; Tit. 2: 5; I Pet. 3: 1f). In the family, for its order and its unity, there must be leadership and the responsibility of leadership is that of the husband and father, and his authority must be accepted. Needless to say, a pious Catholic husband will not exercise that God-given authority in an imperious manner, but will be gentle, kind and considerate to his beloved wife, always willing to calmly discuss matters should a disagreement arise. However, if chaos and disunity within the family are to be avoided his word must be final. To say that all this robs a woman of her dignity and makes her a virtual slave is to embrace the false egalitarianism inspired by modern feminism.

Re. 2. A wife is indeed called to have sacrificial love for her husband (see Titus 2: 4 “teach the young women …to love their husbands”). However, that does not in any way invalidate the duty of wives submitting to their husbands and rendering honourable noble obedience.

Re. 3. Sections 26-30 of the Encyclical *Casti Connubii *actually support the very position for which I have been contending in this thread, which is not some novel personal theory, but simply the constant teaching of the Church throughout the ages. Even Pope Leo’s Encyclical Arcanum, which I have previously cited, is referenced. For order, an “order of love” not of tyranny, to be maintained within the domestic church between the spouses, there must needs be "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 commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is head of the wife and Christ is head of the Church” (26). This continues to be valid and authoritative standing Church teaching today. What is said in sections 27-30 does not vitiate this fundamental truth but merely expands upon it and shows that there are obvious exceptions to wifely obedience, which no reasonable person would stop to deny. Thus a wife is clearly not to placed on the same level as a child and treated as if she lacked insight and understanding on account of immaturity. Moreover, a husband cannot be obeyed if what he asks is “not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to the wife”, which is really a matter of plain common sense with which neither sex would seriously demur at. In other words a Catholic woman will obey her husband in everything that pertains to his legitimate authority and in everything that is not contrary to faith and morals. Of course a woman can have her own thoughts and interests and neither would a decent Catholic chap argue against a little give and take in a marriage. However, the truth of the headship of the man and the woman’s honourable submission is the right “structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained in tact” (28, added emphasis mine).

No amount of reasoning with clever but fallacious arguments can evade the clear and unambiguous Church teaching upon the God-given order for marriage. Today, dear friend, this divine and blessed order is disturbed in two directions: wives are seeking to rule their husbands and are refusing loving self-subjection; husbands tyrannize their wives often to the point of enslaving them. Endless woe results. Our most holy religion restores the divine order with all its happiness - if only contemporary man realized this.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax