How Practical is it for Women to be Submissive to Their Husbands in Modern Society

[omgriley]

I think that rules ought to cover exceptional cases.

So, I would suggest that you formulate a rule that accommodates exception. See, for example, the quotes I’ve been using from Casti Connubii. That would be a good place to start.

I’ve quoted Casti Connubii multiple times to you, and you’ve ignored it’s words. Here is another teaching from the encyclical which deals directly with exceptions, and the Church’s attitude toward them.

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. -Casti Connubii #28

Clearly if the husband fails in the duties of his office (due to a comma) then it falls to the wife. But the Church points out that this situation actually proves the rule.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

For modern, “liberated” women that still want to abide in the Christian faith, this sucks.

That’s not how it is, though. It’s something that conveniently caters to the male ego, without taking into account the individual leadership qualities of the spouses.

I get it. We always want an “out”.

-If my marriage is bad, I want to be able to get out of it and get into a good one.
-I don’t want to have any(more) children, but I also want to have an active sex-life.
-I want to be in a homosexual relationship AND Catholic.

I refer to the story of Hosea. His wife was chronically unfaithful and spurious toward him. Yet he still supported her (as best a prophet could, anyway…).

The moral of the story is that he could have been “just” and sent her away, but he exercised faith and grace in staying committed to his bad marriage. God’s words to him were basically “I know EXACTLY how you feel. Israel cheats on me ceaselessly, yet I’m still here…”

 

[Vonsalza]

Also, Jesus actually did mention the Trinity several times, including right before His Ascension. You need to do some fact-checking.

Just saw this.

The doctrine of the Trinity wasn’t established until the Council of Nicaea.

No charge.

 

[omgriley]

What about slaves? St Paul wrote about slaves and he most certainly was NOT speaking about paid workers. What makes those verses “a product of the times or culture”, but not the ones on “marital roles”? How are we to take those verses on slavery (not paid workers or apprentices/unpaid interns working off an education) in modern society? Not trying to derail, just bringing up that aspect of St Paul’s writing, since the OP did ask about verses from Scripture in modern times.

St. Paul wrote to slaves to suffer their slavery for the sake of God.

“Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior" Titus 2:9-10

Besides, he would have no doubt gotten untold numbers of Christian slaves executed if he had bade them to rebel against their masters.

Paul being an educated Jew with Roman citizenship, knew full well how the slavery industry worked. He knew that if Christians slaves obeyed their masters, then they would likely gain the opportunity to be released:

Every one should remain in the state in which he was called. Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men. So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God (1 Cor. 7:20-24).

It seems to me that Paul implicitly is rejecting slavery here, yet exhorting Christians to fulfill their state in life (whether that be slave or free). He’s also warning Christian slaves that it would do them no good to try and overthrow their masters. They’d almost certainly be killed. Rather they should suffer the evils of this life knowing God will repay them 100 fold in the next.

We don’t see this context when Paul is speaking about marriage. He never implies that a husband’s authority is a necessary evil that women must suffer. He actually says the opposite.

 

[Walking_Home]

Christ came to raise marriage to what God intended from the beginning – before sin entered the heart/soul of men.
It is through Christ’s Grace that Christian spouses can overcome the subjugation (rule over you)/the disfigurement/ the disorder of one sex over the other.

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD

1. Drawn into the Paschal mystery and made living signs of the love of Christ and his Church, the hearts of Christian spouses are renewed and they are able to avoid elements of concupiscence in their relationship, as well as the subjugation introduced into the life of the first married couple by the break with God caused by sin. For Christian spouses, the goodness of love, for which the wounded human heart has continued to long, is revealed with new accents and possibilities. It is in this light that Jesus, faced with the question about divorce (cf. Mt 19:3-9), recalls the demands of the covenant between man and woman as willed by God at the beginning, that is, before the eruption of sin which had justified the later accommodations found in the Mosaic Law. Far from being the imposition of a hard and inflexible order, these words of Jesus are actually the proclamation of the “good news” of that faithfulness which is stronger than sin. The power of the resurrection makes possible the victory of faithfulness over weakness, over injuries and over the couple’s sins. In the grace of Christ which renews their hearts, man and woman become capable of being freed from sin and of knowing the joy of mutual giving.
2. “For all of you who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ… there is neither male nor female”, writes Saint Paul to the Galatians (3:27-28). The Apostle Paul does not say that the distinction between man and woman, which in other places is referred to the plan of God, has been erased. He means rather that in Christ the rivalry, enmity and violence which disfigured the relationship between men and women can be overcome and have been overcome. In this sense, the distinction between man and woman is reaffirmed more than ever; indeed, it is present in biblical revelation up to the very end. In the final hour of present history, the Book of Revelation of Saint John, speaking of “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev 21:1), presents the vision of a feminine Jerusalem “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev 21:2). Revelation concludes with the words of the Bride and the Spirit who beseech the coming of the Bridegroom, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev22:20

 

[Rau]

The point is to not go back over these decisions, but to answer Lea’s very good question about examples where paternal authority and submission would apply.

They seem to be cases where - objectively - wife wanted to take decisions contrary to the best interests of the family. How would this have worked had the roles been reversed, and the husband proposed the foolish course of action?

 

[Xantippe]

Then you’re in the wrong religion. “Anyone can baptize in an emergency”, “Extraordinary grace for non-Catholics”, ect.

That’s part of the rule–especially the baptism one.

 

[Xantippe]

I’ve quoted Casti Connubii multiple times to you, and you’ve ignored it’s words. Here is another teaching from the encyclical which deals directly with exceptions, and the Church’s attitude toward them.

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. -Casti Connubii #28

Clearly if the husband fails in the duties of his office (due to a comma) then it falls to the wife. But the Church points out that this situation actually proves the rule.

What I’m asking you to do is to incorporate those quotes from Casti Connubii into your rule. Also, while were at it, this bit of Casti Connubii is also relevant: “28. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time.”

What that means is that we actually should not be shocked if there is a difference in the degree and manner of wifely submission in 1st century Corinth versus 13th century Italy versus 19th century England versus 21st century America.

What I’m mostly trying to get across to you and Vonsalza is that it is not possible to boil down Church teaching on wifely submission to “husband has the final say.” I actually suspect that it has never been possible to do so (see, for example Abigail and Sapphira), and it certainly isn’t possible to do so and embrace the teachings of the last several popes.

I don’t know if anybody else uses this terminology, but I like to talk about “hard” wifely submission versus “soft” wifely submission. I’m actually all for “soft” submission (submission as every Christian’s duty, mediated by various safeguards) but very, very negative about “hard” wifely submission (“final say” or “tie-breaker” submission with little discussion of safeguards and limits).

 

[Rau]

function of the leadership of the home.

A function not warranting a mention in vows? They promise to love. That gets a mention. But submit does not seem to rate…

 

[KathleenT]

The husband does have final say…until his wife talks him out of it.

 

[KathleenT]

Joking aside that’s how I understand it.

My mother, grandmothers and aunts never acted against their husband’s stated wishes and rarely contradicted them in public. But they did voice their opinions and arguments to their husbands in private.

 

[Xantippe]

We don’t see this context when Paul is speaking about marriage. He never implies that a husband’s authority is a necessary evil that women must suffer. He actually says the opposite.

You do realize that Roman pater familias traditionally had the power of life and death over family members?

Pater familias - Wikipedia

“In theory at least, he held powers of life and death over every member of his extended familia through ancient right. In practice, the extreme form of this right was seldom exercised. It was eventually limited by law.”

Under the circumstances, the slave parallel is fairly apt, especially as the verses relating to husbands and slave masters occur very close together in at least a couple places in the New Testament.

 

[Vonsalza]

Under the circumstances, the slave parallel is fairly apt, especially as the verses relating to husbands and slave masters occur very close together in at least a couple places in the New Testament.

I can see the natural relationship there.

A man wealthy enough to have slaves probably didn’t suffer for want of feminine attention.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

function of the leadership of the home.

A function not warranting a mention in vows? They promise to love. That gets a mention. But submit does not seem to rate…

Would it be fair to say then that the chief argument in the equality-in-leadership camp is one from supposed absence?

 

[omgriley]

You do realize that Roman pater familias traditionally had the power of life and death over family members?

  en.wikipedia.org

Pater familias

The pater familias, also written as paterfamilias (plural patres familias), was the head of a Roman family. The pater familias was the oldest living male in a household, and exercised autocratic authority over his extended family. The term is Latin for “father of the family” or the “owner of the family estate”. The form is archaic in Latin, preserving the old genitive ending in -ās (see Latin declension), whereas in classical Latin the normal genitive ending was -ae. The pater familias always Ro…

“In theory at least, he held powers of life and death over every member of his extended familia through ancient right. In practice, the extreme form of this right was seldom exercised. It was eventually limited by law.”

Under the circumstances, the slave parallel is fairly apt, especially as the verses relating to husbands and slave masters occur very close together in at least a couple places in the New Testament.

How is this relevant? I’m not attempting to enforce Roman law, and clearly neither was St Paul.

What I’m wondering is how you still have not been able to explain how Ephesians 5, and all the exhortations from Casti Connubii and Arcanum Divinae, et al apply to you and your marriage.

It seems to me that “willing obedience [to your husband]” means nothing to you unless you deem your husband’s request is worth to be obeyed.

 

[Vonsalza]

This very website has an excellent summary of the issue.

Wives Do What? | Catholic Answers Magazine

Among selected passages…

Pope Leo XIII minced no words on the subject in his encyclical Christian Marriage: “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.”

Pope Pius XI gently reaffirmed what his predecessor had bluntly said: “There should flourish in [domestic society] 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” (Casti Connubii).

And as an olive branch of sorts to the liberated women on this forum;

“If the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family” (CC). But the fact that some women are prevented from living their proper roles does not mean all married women are dispensed from obedience, as Pius XI makes clear in the next line of his encyclical: “But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact” (CC).

I think the article is an excellent, balanced treatment of the topic.

 

[KathleenT]

Just to toss in a monkey wrench…modern women are generally educated and often decide who to marry, even over objections from family so wouldn’t it follow we have more duty to obey than the wives of yesteryear rather than less?

 

[ChunkMonk]

Some women want an equality relationship and this is okay, do things the way it works for them.

Some men want a traditional relationship but this is apparently not okay, they need to change.

“Do what works for you… But only my way works.”

 

[Xantippe]

Somebody was asking about disagreements and I had some stuff I wanted to talk about. While I dimly remember us having a lot of arguments over the years, looking back, I think that a lot were over stuff that didn’t matter, or at least the heat generated was disproportionate to the importance of the issue. If nothing is on fire, there’s a lot to be said for backburnering a controversial issue. It is very likely that a compromise will materialize with time and thought. It might be possible to go 50/50, take turns, or one or both may decide they like the other person’s idea. It might turn out that you didn’t even actually understand what your spouse meant.

Here are some real life examples.

–When husband and I got married and started living together, we realized that I was the neat freak and he was the slob. I wanted everything perfect while he never thought it was time to clean. Since we’ve had kids, I’ve realized that neither of us had reasonable standards, but we were able to meet in the middle.

–In my experience, the major issue is not so much submitting to one’s spouse, but submitting to reality. Over the years, that’s been true of most financial issues and some other issues. Years ago, I had my heart set on a $10k a year preschool. We lived in an area where that was normal, but the reality was we couldn’t afford it. Husband said no and I found a city co-op that cost under $150 a month.

It took me nearly a decade into our marriage to learn about money management. I was the spender at our house, but my husband didn’t have any financial plan beyond “don’t spend money.” Fortunately, I learned about Dave Ramsey, insisted that we do a budget every month, and off we went! We have done a monthly budget for 10 years and have made a lot of progress. Interestingly, the cure for my spending issues turned out to be involving me more in the finances, not less. Again, it was not so much a question of submitting to my husband, but submitting to the reality that money is finite.

Most recently, both my husband and I have been dealing with the fact that now that our youngest child is at the big kids’ school three days a week, our tuition costs are truly nightmarish. Our emergency fund is dwindling and we have been eating into it at a rate of $300-500 a month. We both agree that we need to suck it up and keep the kids in school (that wasn’t even on the table), but we are in the process of cutting expenses and trying to boost income in order to cover tuition and we finally managed to create a December budget that has us in the black after several months in the red. This is not a pleasant process but–again–it’s us submitting to reality.

As Sheila Wray Gregoire points out, when the wife has to submit to the husband, it’s because the wife doesn’t agree with her husband. That’s a cop-out. If you put in the time and the work, it should be possible to wind up on the same page. What is the point of having her do what he says if she doesn’t see reality the way he does? It’s a HUGE problem if your spouse isn’t living in the real world–a much bigger problem than just disagreeing about particular decisions.

 

[Xantippe]

Would it be fair to say then that the chief argument in the equality-in-leadership camp is one from supposed absence?

It’s not just “supposed” absence in the vows. It’s not there.

If it’s not in the text of the vows, that’s not what we’re vowing.