Authentic Male Leadership

[EasterJoy]

Hmmm so basically what you are telling me is that when my first husband, who was bipolar decided that instead of buying food for my daughter we had to take every penny we had so he could get a BMW (which we couldn’t afford) I should had obeyed him, buy him a BMW and let my daughter starve. Quite interesting especially since when I talked about this situation and the submissive role with my priest he gave me a VERY different answer to what you are saying in here.

The Pope said (as quoted by Portrait), “The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him: not, indeed as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honour or dignity.”

A loyal companion does not let the leader of the expedition go off into Never-Never Land, and I don’t care what Portrait or anyone else says. Nobody would let their pastor do it, nobody would let their bishop do it, and nobody in their right mind would let their husband do it, either.

 

[EasterJoy]

Again – the one sided submission of wife/subject under the husband/ruler— has sin as its core.

Yes. It is the situation where the wife is not treated as an equal companion and co-heir, but as a servant. Even the papal documents that Portrait quote specifically disqualified that as an authentic imitation of Christ. To call that Christ-like would, well, it would practically be blasphemous.

Like the priest, if a husband does not take up his position of authority with a reverential awe, he is missing something. If his leadership feels like a dictatorship, he is failing. If he presumes to take on the mantle of Christ himself and uses that for his own self-gratification or self-aggrandizement, he will have Heaven to answer to.

 

[EasterJoy]

Hey Portrait, if Paul was not in his ecclesiastical directives speaking simply to the church at the time… do you agree then 1 Corinthians 14:34-35? That it is disgraceful for a woman to speak up in the church and that she should direct all her questions to husband so he can ask for her?

There’s a huge difference in what the Truth is as St. Paul wrote and what he directed people to do in the context of the time…

In that very letter, actually, in referring to hair covering for women, St. Paul said this: *But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God. *1 Cor. 11:16

He refers to the rules surrounding women’s hair as a custom, and implies that it is under the control of the bishops, rather than being a right of the men. Certainly our contemporary bishops have read it that way.

 

[thewanderer]

In that very letter, actually, in referring to hair covering for women, St. Paul said this: *But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God. *1 Cor. 11:16

He refers to the rules surrounding women’s hair as a custom, and implies that it is under the control of the bishops, rather than being a right of the men. Certainly our contemporary bishops have read it that way.

Yes, while that argument doesn’t apply to the passage on love/submit what fascinates me is that people who argue for one-sided submission completely ignore the line right before this about how spouses are supposed to submit to each other. In otherwords, whatever this love/submit dynamic is, it is not a one-sided submission, but must necessarily be compatible with the idea of mutual submission. Even just by looking at the idea of what it means to love as Christ did shows that the husband, in order to obey this command laid upon him, must necessarily submit to his wife, her good and her wishes. To go so far as to give his entire life for her, to sacrifice everything for her, including his own pride. If the husband ever begins to focus on the idea that his wife “owes” him obediance he has lost his way and is no longer loving her as Christ loved the Church. There is a passage in the Bible about this scenario, remove the log from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from your neighbours. Guys, don’t focus on whether or not your wife is “obeying” you. Focus only on loving them in a completely selfless and self-sacrificing way. That is your task, and since we are all human it is inevitable that you can always improve upon yourself in this respect. Forget about what your wife should be doing and focus on yourself.

 

[EasterJoy]

…Quite frankly, dear sister, I fail to see how any authority could exist any more in the family than in the Church if there were ‘mutual subjection’ and no ruler-subject relation between the spouses. This whole mutual subjection notion, now so fashionable among modern Catholics (including some who identify as ‘conservative’), is actually a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject, and neither Holy Mother Church or the family can have two heads…

Do you know why the idea of mutual subjection has come about? It has come about because of men who instead of acting like Christ have decided the Bible gives them a weapon to be little gods. I contend that a man who seeks to be Christ-like in his leadership will not bridle at it!

I have heard this read as the Gospel at a wedding:
They came to Capernaum and, once inside the house, he began to ask them, “What were you arguing about on the way?” But they remained silent. They had been discussing among themselves on the way who was the greatest. Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.” Taking a child he placed it in their midst, and putting his arms around it he said to them, “Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but the one who sent me.” ** Mark 9:33-37**

That Gospel goes on to say just a chapter later:
Jesus summoned them and said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you will be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you will be the slave of all. For the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10:42-45

You may not act this way (heaven forbid it!) but you write about “subjects” and “rulers” in a way that totally implies that secular authority that Our Lord warned us against, because it brings to mind that man who “make their authority over them felt.” What woman, knowing she ought to be treated, as Pope Leo put it, as a companion and not as a slave, would not bridle at such arrogance? I propose that she has not only the right, but the duty to speak up against that, as Nathan had the duty to confront King David in his sin. Do you agree that a wife, subjected to the authority of a 1st century Gentile tyrant instead of the authority of Christ, has a duty to object to the tactics of her “ruler”, or do you believe she must remain silent? As she has the duty to hope her husband reaches heaven by the straightest path, I contend that she has that duty. She must speak up, and be a prophet to him, and confront him about it.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think, in reality, it’s the women who are the leaders and backbone of the families.

They are leaders and backbones of parishes, too, but not because they are the pastor.

 

[marymary1975]

Dear marymary1975,

Hello again.

The citation from Leo XIII, dear sister, stands on its own and is surely quite clear and unambiguous, thus can you explain how “the rest of the text” completely alters or nullifies the meaning which hurting and I have ascribed to the passage?

With regards to what H.H.JPII said in Mulieris Dignitatem, first, dear sister, it should be observed that he presents his teaching as a “personal meditation” (“And it seems that the best thing is to* give this the style and character of a meditation*”, his own emphasis). Now the level and binding nature of this “meditation” is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive teaching which no man is at liberty to question. Second, Pope Leo XIII emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - which is to say the very word of God itself - teaches, namely that subjection is required not “only on the part of the Church” to Christ, as H.H.JPII asserts, but also on the part of the wife to her husband, because in the order of familial authority the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, as Pope Leo taught in the *Arcanum *Encyclical. Third, H.H.JPII quotes from the beginning of the key sentence from the Ephesian Epistle - “For the husband is head of the wife”, omitting the conclusion, “as Christ is head of the Church”. Fourth, H.H.JPII suggests that St. Paul’s teaching (in Ephesians 5) is but “a way of speaking” arising from “the customs and religious tradition of the time”. In the first place, the “religious tradition of the time” was Christianity. Moreover, does not St. Paul mean exactly what his words signify and what Pope Leo affirmed they signified, that is, that the wife is subject to the husband as Holy Mother Church is subject to Christ? Is not God Himself the author of those words, which were written “wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost”, to recall the teaching of Pope Leo in Providentissimus Deus? Are the Catholic faithful to conclude then that God dictated His revelation of the divinely ordained constitution of the family in language that was culturally determined and required ‘unpacking’ by historico-critical exegesis, and that Pope Leo and all his predecessors misinterpreted the Ephesians Epistle by reading it too literally? What then of St. Paul’s teaching on homosexual vice, plus all the other ‘hard sayings’ of the New Testament? Were these similarly “ways of speaking” that must now be understood in some different sense? To anticipate any misunderstanding, I am quite certain that that is not what H.H.JPII intended and neither should we intend such. However, one cannot stress enough the importance of taking the whole sweep of Catholic Tradition to get an authentically balanced perspective of Catholic doctrine.

The sad truth is, dear sister, that many contemporary Catholics, especially the youth, are deeply unhappy and even ashamed of older Church teaching and would prefer to largely ignore it or reinterpret it so as to make it chime with their pre-conceived liberal and trendy fancies. This is an exemplification of the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” with the past, so deplored by our former Pope, and is indicative of failure to think with an authentic Catholic mind. It is also, in my opinion, clear evidence that many modern Catholics have assimilated the godless ideology of Western culture and are trying hard to adapt this to their Catholic faith.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

First, your idea of stand on its own is not catholic. That is protestant and you are doing exactly what protestants do: cherry picking the ideas that fit your own interpretation ignoring the rest of the teaching. Catholic faith is understood under the light of its entire teaching. Right now you are being no different that the protestant that argues that virgin Mary had more children other than Jesus because the Bible says in one sentence “Jesus’s brothers.” If anything in your idea contradicts any part of the whole of the church teaching then is wrong. Your notion of cherry picking becomes also clear when you speak about st Paul. You are again cherry picking sentences from st Paul and giving them an interpretation separate and negating the entire context of what he writes. That is not catholic. If the paragraph you cite would stand on its own and was so unambiguous then it would be only one page and wouldn’t have several pages after that explain or clarify that paragraph. Again you need to read the link and stop cherry picking the parts that fit your personal idea while disregarding the rest of the teaching.

Second, are you insinuating that an enciclica wrote by blessed pope John Paul is not church’s teaching? Again sorry but I don’t think that is correct and even if as you said what JPII wrote was a mere meditation not worthy of belief and not a church teaching, I can assure you that JPII’s meditation is by far, way more accurate and closer to the truth than your own personal meditation, therefore when your personal interpretation contradicts what JPII wrote the likelihood that what you are saying is correct is close to 0. There is a reason why JPII is Blessed and was considered a saint in life and you are not.

Third Pope Leo was not wrong, your personal interpretation of what he wrote is wrong. Again if you read the entire enciclica without cherry picking Pope Leo leans exactly towards what JPII wrote. Again read the link! What is wrong is your cherry picking of certain phrases to make them match your own ideas.

 

[marymary1975]

Yes. It is the situation where the wife is not treated as an equal companion and co-heir, but as a servant. Even the papal documents that Portrait quote specifically disqualified that as an authentic imitation of Christ. To call that Christ-like would, well, it would practically be blasphemous.

Like the priest, if a husband does not take up his position of authority with a reverential awe, he is missing something. If his leadership feels like a dictatorship, he is failing. If he presumes to take on the mantle of Christ himself and uses that for his own self-gratification or self-aggrandizement, he will have Heaven to answer to.

You are entirely right on both posts that you wrote Easterjoy. What happens is that Portrait is cherry picking from the enciclica and he is ignoring the parts that disqualify husbands from that role and he is ignoring the fact that the husband must be submitted to christ.

 

[thewanderer]

Here is what Casti Connubii has to say about all this. I will put emphasis on the particular passages which I think are too often ignored by those who claim that mutual submission is incompatible with Church teaching

1. 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 commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]

27. 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.

1. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions 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 .

I know I’ve emphasized practically everything Casti Connubii has to say about this, but it is all so important. Which is one reason why I am often surprised by those who claim to follow Church teaching yet at the same time claim that the Church teaches a one sided submission such that the woman is put just about on the level of children. That is strictly forbidden by Casti Connubi. CC explicitly says that not only is the wife perfectly within her rights to ignore or disobey anything her husband wishes which is not in line with right reason (and of course it is the wife who is allowed to determine whether or not such things are within right reason as she is not to be treated as though she has a lack of judgement or is unaware of human affairs, she is to be allowed to reason for herself, that is fitting to her because of her dignity as a person). So if the wife is convinced that her husband is not acting correctly or ruling correctly she is not bound to obey him. She does have a duty to honestly seek what is best for the family, but she is not bound to obey everything he says unless it is sinful. She is also not to be treated or viewed as though she is unintelligent, incapable of making judgements herself, or as though she is naive and unaware how the world works. So any husbands out there that justify your one sided domination by the idea that women are not capable of making good judgements because of their emotions etc Casti Conubii explicitly speaks against this attitude, it is explicitly against Church teaching.

One of the things I find most interesting about this passage from CC is that it explicitly claims that the form in which this love/submit relationship exists will change depending on the people, place and time in which they live. There is not some set unchanging way of having the wife do everything the husband says. It is a way of living the marital life so that husband and wife are in union with each other, but that is explicitly said to exist in different forms for different couples depending not only on the people, but also on the place and time (ie, the different cultures of different places and times). If demanding obedience from your wife, however, causes her to feel as though you do not love her and are acting against her, and so causes her to feel emotionally separated from you then you are in fact acting against the only reason given for the wifes submission and obedience. And so you are wrong to do so. It is not Christlike to demand obedience in a way which will alienate your beloved from you.

Ok, I know I’m just rambling at this point, and I haven’t really organized this very well, but I think anybody who wants to understand Church teaching on all this needs to reread CC without the blinkers of prejudice and see what it is actually saying. It is not at all calling for a one-sided submission of the woman and domination of the man.

 

[marymary1975]

I think, in reality, it’s the women who are the leaders and backbone of the families.

If we look at reality this is true and precisely because of what Easterjoy said because men had taken that verse of the bible to name themselves little arrogant Gods, created double standards, thought religion was only for women not for them, hence they got strayed in sin leaving the women with the entire weight of leading the family.

 

[EasterJoy]

You are entirely right on both posts that you wrote Easterjoy. What happens is that Portrait is cherry picking from the enciclica and he is ignoring the parts that disqualify husbands from that role and he is ignoring the fact that the husband must be submitted to christ.

I would hope that in practice we are arguing over semantics; there has not been a Pope who has taught that men have any other model than Christ, who came not to be served, but to serve. Our Lord was not afraid to be zealous in defense of the will of God, but he did not win any disciples by domination. “In the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped, rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness, and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.”

The authority of Christ came from his total obedience to God, to his devotion to be a witness to the Truth. Any husband whose authority follows that model deserves his place as head of the house, and his wife will not resent him, but be thankful for his fidelity to God, and their decisions will be made with one mind.

As Steven Covey put it: The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. Who has ever heard of a husband and wife fighting or wrangling over their discernment of the will of God in their lives? The fights usually come because someone (and sometimes both) have abdicated their fidelity to God and given over to self. Both need to allow their spouses to be their prophet in that regard. Let Christ be at the center, and even honest disagreements over matters of import are worked through without strife, and even the lesser of two options will suffice. If the worst a spouse ever does is to give his or her spouse their way out of affection and respect, when no violation of moral law is a result, they will do well and the model of Christ will not be violated.

 

[thewanderer]

I would hope that in practice we are arguing over semantics; there has not been a Pope who has taught that men have any other model than Christ, who came not to be served, but to serve. Our Lord was not afraid to be zealous in defense of the will of God, but he did not win any disciples by domination. “In the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped, rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness, and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.”

The authority of Christ came from his total obedience to God, to his devotion to be a witness to the Truth. Any husband whose authority follows that model deserves his place as head of the house, and his wife will not resent him, but be thankful for his fidelity to God, and their decisions will be made with one mind.

As Steven Covey put it: The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. Who has ever heard of a husband and wife fighting or wrangling over their discernment of the will of God in their lives? The fights usually come because someone (and sometimes both) have abdicated their fidelity to God and given over to self. Both need to allow their spouses to be their prophet in that regard. Let Christ be at the center, and even honest disagreements over matters of import are worked through without strife, and even the lesser of two options will suffice. If the worst a spouse ever does is to give his or her spouse their way out of affection and respect, when no violation of moral law is a result, they will do well and the model of Christ will not be violated.

 

[Portrait]

Hey Portrait, if Paul was not in his ecclesiastical directives speaking simply to the church at the time… do you agree then 1 Corinthians 14:34-35? That it is disgraceful for a woman to speak up in the church and that she should direct all her questions to husband so he can ask for her?

There’s a huge difference in what the Truth is as St. Paul wrote and what he directed people to do in the context of the time. Rocking the boat radically and allowing women to have full equality in the church in everything would have resulted in chaos among the Jews. There’s no way that would have been tolerated. It would have been a death knell for the growing church. Working instead within the culture to change it went in the right direction.

And remember that despite these directives Paul was still clear on multiple occasions that everyone was equal and that we are all parts of one body. Just two chapters before the directive I brought up he said:

When you see that you can clearly separate the directives aimed at dealing with the church as it was in that culture and what absolute Truth is. The Lord’s revelation takes time to unfold because we are hard of heart and hard of hearing. Mosaic law allowed for divorce because the Hebrews’ hearts were hard, but Christ changed that law. And so it was that women’s role in the Church has evolved over time to the point where they are equal, though not the same.

Dear The Bucket,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

As far as the I Corinthians passage is concerned, dear friend, I understand that by ‘speak’ St. Paul refers specifically to preaching and instructing during public worship, for women are not permitted to exercise any authority in the church (cf. I Tim. 2: 11-12).

Whilst it perfectly true, dear friend, that St. Paul shows that women have equal status with men in Christ (Gal. 3: 28), he also insists that redemption in Christ does not obliterate the natural distinction between the sexes, which was established by the priority given to man in creation (I Tim. 2: 13). The apostle will not permit a woman to assume the place of leadership in the Catholic Church as an authoritative teacher of doctrine, since that would set aside the order of nature and put her in the position of exercising authority over the men in the congregation of the faithful. This is teaching that is not culturally conditioned and remains perpetually valid for all time, which is one of the reasons why the priesthood is not open to women even unto this day.

St. Paul, dear friend, was actually quite radical by the standards of his time, for you must remember that in pagan society the inferiority of women and their lawful subjugation by men was taken for granted. St. Paul in Ephesians 5: 22 challenges ‘this fact of life’ with the teaching which transformed the status of women in every society that accepted it. He bids every Christian wife so to subject herself to her own husband (not all men) that she regards this voluntary (not enforced) submission as part of her obedience to Christ. The idea is that the will of God who arranged the marriage relation at creation is likewise the will of God for Christian wives. The headship of man incontrovertibly makes the man the ruling spouse in marriage relation, an arrangement not only established by creation but also endorsed in redemption. For St. Paul’s likens the husband’s headship over his wife to Christ’s headship over the Holy Catholic Church (see Eph. 1: 22). No higher view of the marriage bond can be envisaged than this sublime conception which makes obedience a matter of devotion, and authority and expression of love. This is surely something which modern Catholic women who defiantly rebel against the headship of man ought to ponder very deeply.

St. Paul certainly affirmed a religious equality between the sexes in the Gospel (Gal. 3: 28) and this I would not stop to deny, dear friend. However, he did not believe that this negated the headship of man in marriage and a woman’s rightful submission, which was impossible then as it is impossible now, given this timeless teaching is rooted in the priority of man in creation and not in the social customs of the time.

God bless and goodbye for now, dear friend - supper time.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

Dear The Bucket,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

As far as the I Corinthians passage is concerned, dear friend, I understand that by ‘speak’ St. Paul refers specifically to preaching and instructing during public worship, for women are not permitted to exercise any authority in the church (cf. I Tim. 2: 11-12).

Whilst it perfectly true, dear friend, that St. Paul shows that women have equal status with men in Christ (Gal. 3: 28), he also insists that redemption in Christ does not obliterate the natural distinction between the sexes, which was established by the priority given to man in creation (I Tim. 2: 13). The apostle will not permit a woman to assume the place of leadership in the Catholic Church as an authoritative teacher of doctrine, since that would set aside the order of nature and put her in the position of exercising authority over the men in the congregation of the faithful. This is teaching that is not culturally conditioned and remains perpetually valid for all time, which is one of the reasons why the priesthood is not open to women even unto this day.

St. Paul, dear friend, was actually quite radical by the standards of his time, for you must remember that in pagan society the inferiority of women and their lawful subjugation by men was taken for granted. St. Paul in Ephesians 5: 22 challenges ‘this fact of life’ with the teaching which transformed the status of women in every society that accepted it. He bids every Christian wife so to subject herself to her own husband (not all men) that she regards this voluntary (not enforced) submission as part of her obedience to Christ. The idea is that the will of God who arranged the marriage relation at creation is likewise the will of God for Christian wives. The headship of man incontrovertibly makes the man the ruling spouse in marriage relation, an arrangement not only established by creation but also endorsed in redemption. For St. Paul’s likens the husband’s headship over his wife to Christ’s headship over the Holy Catholic Church (see Eph. 1: 22). No higher view of the marriage bond can be envisaged than this sublime conception which makes obedience a matter of devotion, and authority and expression of love. This is surely something which modern Catholic women to rebel against the headship of man ought to ponder very deeply.

St. Paul certainly affirmed a religious equality between the sexes in the Gospel (Gal. 3: 28) and this I would not stop to deny, dear friend. However, he did not believe that this negated the headship of man in marriage and a woman’s rightful submission, which was impossible then as it is impossible now, given this timeless teaching is rooted in the priority of man in creation and not in the social customs of the time.

God bless and goodbye for now, dear friend - supper time.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

---

I’ll keep repeating – the one sided submission has sin as it’s core. The concupiscence/Pride of one sex – to dominate/subjugate the other. Furthermore – not only is it’s core sin – but forms the building block that draws/calls more evil onto the relationship. A “husband” who “white washes” --verbal/physical abuse/rape of a wife --because of his sinful belief of his “right”/“authority to punish”-- her.

 

[marymary1975]

The apostle will not permit a woman to assume the place of leadership in the Catholic Church as an authoritative teacher of doctrine, since that would set aside the order of nature and put her in the position of exercising authority over the men in the congregation of the faithful.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

If what you are saying this is true, how do you explain that the catholic church has named women as Doctors of the Church. That is quite an inconsistency with what your saying so how do you explain that inconsistency? And give me the official source of the Church (not your own opinion) about the priority of men.

 

[EasterJoy]

… No higher view of the marriage bond can be envisaged than this sublime conception which makes obedience a matter of devotion, and authority and expression of love. This is surely something which modern Catholic women who defiantly rebel against the headship of man ought to ponder very deeply…

Enough of obedience as a matter of devotion. That horse is beaten to death. When you are back from supper, speak more about authority as an expression of love. That is, address the question of the OP, namely: “…consider some concrete examples and situations, showing how a dictatorial husband would lead over and against how an authentic husband might behave.” Then we will know if we have any real differences.

 

[OnTheRock]

This is great!

Please continue!!

Here’s my current thoughts:

“Mutual submission” does not undermine a “one-sided” submission, but merely completes the picture. That is, the husband submits to wife and wife to husband in different ways.

I would consider Christ’s act of washing the Apostles feet as an act of “lowering himself” (The Greek for “submissive” is “hypotássō”, literally “under-arrange.”) in submission to his beloved. But this in no way diminishes their subjection to him in terms of authority–he was nonetheless their King. In a proper marriage, it would seem that the husband stands in as a “steward” of Christ in his family, and he must be treated as such insofar as he fulfills that role.

A mistake I think is often made is that we read the second part of "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them." as some of negation of the first part. It seems that we’re intellectualizing:

“Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands… Husbands, through your love for your wife, reject her offer of submission.”

That being said, the wife’s submission is not unqualified. As CC states,

“27. 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”

But what this cannot mean is an unqualified:

“The wife submits to the husband as long as she fully agrees with what he says.”

For then her submission is not to her husband but to herself.

My studies of this have mostly been in the context of politics, and I think it is the proper way to understand it.

St. Thomas Aquinas held a very strong view of the importance and authority of the Law, but reserved the right for insurrection among the people. But the reasons needed to be grave, for we are weighing the good for which the people aim through insurrection with the good of stability within the political community–and a stable political community is a very great good.

Likewise, a stable family is a very great good. If the submission of the wife to the husband reduces to “I will do whatever you say as long as it is what I want to do” then we’re not talking about any real submission at all. “Right reason” is an important qualification, but I don’t think it is intended to be so destructive on the wife’s submission.

Further, Aquinas appeals to the female’s stronger emotions as his primary reason for submitting her to her husband. This is an anthropological appeal, not one of custom or “a certain time.” Pius XI seems to agree: “[This submission] 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.”

 

[severus68]

Dear The Bucket,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response.

As far as the I Corinthians passage is concerned, dear friend, I understand that by ‘speak’ St. Paul refers specifically to preaching and instructing during public worship, for women are not permitted to exercise any authority in the church (cf. I Tim. 2: 11-12).

Whilst it perfectly true, dear friend, that St. Paul shows that women have equal status with men in Christ (Gal. 3: 28), he also insists that redemption in Christ does not obliterate the natural distinction between the sexes, which was established by the priority given to man in creation (I Tim. 2: 13). The apostle will not permit a woman to assume the place of leadership in the Catholic Church as an authoritative teacher of doctrine, since that would set aside the order of nature and put her in the position of exercising authority over the men in the congregation of the faithful. This is teaching that is not culturally conditioned and remains perpetually valid for all time, which is one of the reasons why the priesthood is not open to women even unto this day.

St. Paul, dear friend, was actually quite radical by the standards of his time, for you must remember that in pagan society the inferiority of women and their lawful subjugation by men was taken for granted. St. Paul in Ephesians 5: 22 challenges ‘this fact of life’ with the teaching which transformed the status of women in every society that accepted it. He bids every Christian wife so to subject herself to her own husband (not all men) that she regards this voluntary (not enforced) submission as part of her obedience to Christ. The idea is that the will of God who arranged the marriage relation at creation is likewise the will of God for Christian wives. The headship of man incontrovertibly makes the man the ruling spouse in marriage relation, an arrangement not only established by creation but also endorsed in redemption. For St. Paul’s likens the husband’s headship over his wife to Christ’s headship over the Holy Catholic Church (see Eph. 1: 22). No higher view of the marriage bond can be envisaged than this sublime conception which makes obedience a matter of devotion, and authority and expression of love. This is surely something which modern Catholic women who defiantly rebel against the headship of man ought to ponder very deeply.

St. Paul certainly affirmed a religious equality between the sexes in the Gospel (Gal. 3: 28) and this I would not stop to deny, dear friend. However, he did not believe that this negated the headship of man in marriage and a woman’s rightful submission, which was impossible then as it is impossible now, given this timeless teaching is rooted in the priority of man in creation and not in the social customs of the time.

God bless and goodbye for now, dear friend - supper time.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Please read the CCC and the Compendium. First being created in Genesis does not give men authority over women. Both are created in the image of God. Both were created to give glory to God. NO, women were not created to give glory to men.

 

[severus68]

---

I’ll keep repeating – the one sided submission has sin as it’s core. The concupiscence/Pride of one sex – to dominate/subjugate the other. Furthermore – not only is it’s core sin – but forms the building block that draws/calls more evil onto the relationship. A “husband” who “white washes” --verbal/physical abuse/rape of a wife --because of his sinful belief of his “right”/“authority to punish”-- her.

Yes.

 

[baseballLife]

I would hope that in practice we are arguing over semantics; there has not been a Pope who has taught that men have any other model than Christ, who came not to be served, but to serve. Our Lord was not afraid to be zealous in defense of the will of God, but he did not win any disciples by domination. “In the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped, rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness, and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.”

The authority of Christ came from his total obedience to God, to his devotion to be a witness to the Truth. Any husband whose authority follows that model deserves his place as head of the house, and his wife will not resent him, but be thankful for his fidelity to God, and their decisions will be made with one mind.

As Steven Covey put it: The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. Who has ever heard of a husband and wife fighting or wrangling over their discernment of the will of God in their lives? The fights usually come because someone (and sometimes both) have abdicated their fidelity to God and given over to self. Both need to allow their spouses to be their prophet in that regard. Let Christ be at the center, and even honest disagreements over matters of import are worked through without strife, and even the lesser of two options will suffice. If the worst a spouse ever does is to give his or her spouse their way out of affection and respect, when no violation of moral law is a result, they will do well and the model of Christ will not be violated.

Before I comment I just want to say I don’t think anyone alive can really talk about this issue since one’s pride is going to be offended and rise against the other. I think one should take this issue up with God and hope for the best. The simple fact is neither men nor women will ever reach consensus or truth on it without God’s guidance.

In light of that I do want to comment on the bolded. If I understand correctly you are saying “as long as the man does the right thing the woman will automatically follow.” I think that denies woman’s free will. A man can be doing the right thing and his wife can still desire and do something entirely different or even sinful. Just because a man does that which is favorable to the Lord does not mean his wife will follow suit. Remember when Lot was told by God to leave Sodom and Gomorrah and not to look back? Wife disobeyed but Lot did not. I can think of numerous examples in my life where the husband was a God-fearing man but the wife marched to her own beat and made his life a living “hot place.”