Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband

[Xantippe]

EasterJoy said:

“Just explain why Ephesians describes a wife one way and a husband another way. What is the difference between a man and a woman in a Christian marriage?”

My suspicion is that in practice, submission is self-sacrifice and self-sacrifice is submission.

We hear in Philippians that we are to “Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.”

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

God did. The Church just teaches that he did. Repeating that it is not the Teaching is not going to change the reality that it is. See above.

The difficulty comes in when one misunderstands what that means -it is not that the husband orders the wife around or treats her like a servant or slave or what not.

And he is to be head as Christ is head - give his blood! for his bride.

Portrait:

Let us hear what Pope Leo XIII says the Encyclical Arcanum, 1880, which remains standing Church teaching and from which the faithful cannot dissent:

"The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. 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,

Portrait:

him who commands and in her who obeys

Portrait:

Now it is manifestly obvious that in all of these specific relationships there is a** ruler-subject** set-up

Portrait:

There can no more be a mutual submission between husband and wife than there can be between parent and child or master or servant.

 

[Bookcat]

“the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church”

~ Ephesians 5:23 RSVCE

“head”- kefalé - in terms of the husband as head of the wife -does not mean there a role of master to slaves, or boss to employees, or even parent to child! One must remove any such understanding.

Rather - Servant leadership (serving the others!- at the service of the good of the wife and family). As Christ washed the feet of his disciples.

If one reads the full context -it rather involves the laying down of ones life for the beloved…the giving of ones blood…

 

[thewanderer]

---

Your are stepping into fundamentalist protestant territory. The Catholic Church has interpreted scripture – as the mutual subjection of the spouses – in reverence to God. This equality of subjection – husband subject to the wife/wife subject to the husband – does not give “headship” to the husband.

I’m afraid Walking_Home you are mistaken here. The Church absolutely does teach that there is an inherent “order of love” in marriage. Casti Connubii is an official Church document, and as such contains official Church teaching. However you are correct in saying that the Church teaches the importance of mutual submission in marriage. In fact, it turns out that the Church teaches both. Since the Church teaches both there must be some way of understanding them as being compatible rather than as being contradictory. Because of this our approach as Catholics should not be to reject one and insist on the other, but rather to work on better understanding what the Church actually means by each of them so that we can rid ourselves of our misunderstandings which cause us to believe the two contradict each other.

You and Portrait are both falling into the trap of extremism here in that you are both clinging to one part of Church teaching on this subject while rejecting another. The fact that you reject a part of authoritative Church teaching is a sure sign that your idea of what Church teaching actually is is incorrect. The same goes for Portrait. You are clinging to your own opinions over the actual teaching of the Church and it is leading both of you astray. Yes, the Church clearly teaches that the man is the head and the wife is the heart and is to submit to the head, her husband. However, the Church also clearly teaches that mutual submission is an extremely important part of marriage, that a wife has no obligation to “submit” to her husband if her husband’s request is not in line with right reason, that the wife is not to be looked on as being less intelligent, rational, or prudent than her husband, she is not to be treated as a child or a slave, as well as that the form and extent of a wife’s submission to her husband will vary depending on the people involved, the time they live in as well as the place they live. Anybody who rejects even one of these statements is not in accord with Church teaching.

 

[thewanderer]

…

Sorry, I can’t quote your quotes, but I just wanted to point out that just because Portrait’s understanding and opinion of headship is not compatible with actual Church teaching does not mean that Bookcat is incorrect in stating what actual Church teaching on this topic is.

 

[thewanderer]

Here are some official and authoritative Church quotes to back up my earlier claims about what you must accept as true if you wish to be in line with actual Church teaching.

My two sources are the CCC and Casti Conubii

1. The spouses must both submit and “be subject” to each other.

CCC:

147 Christ dwells with [Christian spouses], gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another’s burdens, to "be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ,"148 and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful love. In the joys of their love and family life he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb:

1. There is an “order of love” within marriage that has been ordained by God and ought always to exist within marriage.

Casti Conubii:

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]

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 .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. 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 .

1. Wives are not to be treated or viewed as though they are less intelligent, reasonable, or prudent, they have no obligation to submit to their husbands if their husbands request is not in accord with right reason, they are not to be treated or viewed as children, their rights as a human are not to be infringed upon, and they are not to ever be treated with less dignity than they deserve as a human being, wife, and mother.

Casti Conubii:

1. 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.

and

1. The manner and degree of a wives submission to her husband depends on the people, place, and time in which they live.

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.

Now, we can discuss just what all this means in practice, and even hold different opinions about what these actually ultimately mean, but we cannot deny any of these statements if we wish to remain in line with Church teaching.

 

[thewanderer]

The reason I put number 4 in bold is that so often in discussions about this topic people like to ask a a question such as “husband wants x, wife disagrees, should she give in and let him have his way?” As though there is a simple universal answer to that question. The fact is that there is no such thing as a simple universal answer here, it all depends on the particulars of the case. (The particular people, their strengths and weaknesses, which one of them is actually in accord with right reason about what is better for their family, what time they live in, what place they live in etc) However, these kind of “should the wife submit” questions very rarely, if ever, actually attempt to take all of these factors into account. This is never a simple question with a simple answer and should not be treated as such.

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy said:

“Just explain why Ephesians describes a wife one way and a husband another way. What is the difference between a man and a woman in a Christian marriage?”

My suspicion is that in practice, submission is self-sacrifice and self-sacrifice is submission.

We hear in Philippians that we are to “Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.”

IOW, a husband leads according to the model of Our Lord, which is radically different than leading or being in authority as the world understands it. Of the sort of leadership the world thinks worthy of the name, Our Lord said very bluntly, “It is not to be that way with you.”

If a husband leads according to the world’s model, he essentially sticks his wife in the position of the Prophet Nathan with King David. She has to speak up and say, “This is not what you were anointed to do.” Not “here, let me do it, you are incompetent,” but “you tell me whether this is what you have promised.”

I don’t mean that there is some particular problem-solving or communication model that married couples have to use. I mean that there are times when the person not in the situation of authority in one sense is still duty-bound to give moral authority a voice. Submission within a family or within the Church doesn’t mean everyone who isn’t “in authority” keeping quiet even to the point of putting those with authority beyond admonishment. “Beyond reproach” means not in need of reproach because ill behavior has been strictly avoided, not because those who are victims of reproachable behavior have been made to shut up.

 

[EasterJoy]

The reason I put number 4 in bold is that so often in discussions about this topic people like to ask a a question such as “husband wants x, wife disagrees, should she give in and let him have his way?” As though there is a simple universal answer to that question. The fact is that there is no such thing as a simple universal answer here, it all depends on the particulars of the case. (The particular people, their strengths and weaknesses, which one of them is actually in accord with right reason about what is better for their family, what time they live in, what place they live in etc) However, these kind of “should the wife submit” questions very rarely, if ever, actually attempt to take all of these factors into account. This is never a simple question with a simple answer and should not be treated as such.

Yes. “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.”

 

[severus68]

I did not take Christ out of the equation for women. Good grief. Do you think that because a priest acts as the head of his parish, that he is the only one in the parish acting as Christ, and all the rest of the baptized are “something else,” some lower sort of being not called to “real” sanctity or “real” self-sacrifice? When Christ says that someone who wants to lead is to be the servant of all, was he saying that only leaders must imitate Christ? Of course not.

You are not responding to what I said in response to the part you posted. I have no idea what point you are making I am afraid…

 

[severus68]

A heart - loves.

As Pope Pius IX noted the wife “ought to claim for herself the chief place in love”

The list of the gifts and aspects of the vocation of the wife and mother I imagine are very long…one cannot recount them all in a forum (or perhaps in even in ones lifetime).

Yes there is an order in love…an order in family…but at the very heart of a family …is the Wife the Mother! Her love!

Who was “submissive” as a wife in the most perfect way? Mary

Immaculate Heart of Mary …pray for us.

Mary submitted to God. As a woman of that time, she would have had to submit to her father and husband.

 

[EasterJoy]

You are not responding to what I said in response to the part you posted. I have no idea what point you are making I am afraid…

Your response included: By taking Christ out of the equation for women, you are basically stating that women are lesser than men, that Christ excluded women.

No, I guess I don’t know what your point was.

Generally speaking, after all, when our call to imitate Christ differs, is it not always in kind and not in degree?

 

[severus68]

Remember as Pope Francis pointed out (in references to Priests):

“Those who are ordained are placed at the head of the community. They are “at the head”, yes, but for Jesus this means placing ones authority at the service , as Jesus himself showed and taught his disciples…” March 2014 emp. added

How does that apply to marriage?

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by severus68
Do you think then that Saint JPII was absurd , since he said marriage is about mutual subjection?

The answer was an excellent point. All of us share in the priesthood of Christ but does that void the ordained Priesthood? Is there no real authority in the role of a Priest?

Because husband and wife are both Christ and the Church does that void the heirarchical organic structure of marriage?

Because we ourselves are both head and body, does that mean we can start making decisions with some other organ or walking on our head?

Each organ has a predestined role and will be judged according to how it used the gifts it is given to contribute to the life of the body. And a wife will not be judged on the failures of her husband and a husband will not be judged on the failures of his wife.

 

[severus68]

I’m afraid Walking_Home you are mistaken here. The Church absolutely does teach that there is an inherent “order of love” in marriage. Casti Connubii is an official Church document, and as such contains official Church teaching. However you are correct in saying that the Church teaches the importance of mutual submission in marriage. In fact, it turns out that the Church teaches both. Since the Church teaches both there must be some way of understanding them as being compatible rather than as being contradictory. Because of this our approach as Catholics should not be to reject one and insist on the other, but rather to work on better understanding what the Church actually means by each of them so that we can rid ourselves of our misunderstandings which cause us to believe the two contradict each other.

You and Portrait are both falling into the trap of extremism here in that you are both clinging to one part of Church teaching on this subject while rejecting another. The fact that you reject a part of authoritative Church teaching is a sure sign that your idea of what Church teaching actually is is incorrect. The same goes for Portrait. You are clinging to your own opinions over the actual teaching of the Church and it is leading both of you astray. Yes, the Church clearly teaches that the man is the head and the wife is the heart and is to submit to the head, her husband. However, the Church also clearly teaches that mutual submission is an extremely important part of marriage, that a wife has no obligation to “submit” to her husband if her husband’s request is not in line with right reason, that the wife is not to be looked on as being less intelligent, rational, or prudent than her husband, she is not to be treated as a child or a slave, as well as that the form and extent of a wife’s submission to her husband will vary depending on the people involved, the time they live in as well as the place they live. Anybody who rejects even one of these statements is not in accord with Church teaching.

None of the people around me follow this headship and submission and all have good lasting marriages. So, are they, the husbands and wives sinning? I do not believe that the Church, today says wives are under the authority of their husbands. However it is sugar coated, this basically makes women lesser beings. A slave with a kind master is still a slave.

 

[Walking_Home]

Nothing can change the organic order in creation though. It was Thomas Aquinas who said that divine law presupposes natural law (as grace presupposes nature). If there is no organic meaning in the world of relationships we should equally be saying that as both men and women share in the priesthood of Christ, women should also be Priests. Again, if female and male are merely symbolic in marital union, then a feminine man should be allowed to marry a masculine man.

---

The male being created first – does not give the male sex – some kind of superiority/headship over the female sex. Even though – no woman can be priest – women and men belong to the royal priesthood.

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by thewanderer

---

Bingo.

 

[thewanderer]

None of the people around me follow this headship and submission and all have good lasting marriages. So, are they, the husbands and wives sinning? I do not believe that the Church, today says wives are under the authority of their husbands. However it is sugar coated, this basically makes women lesser beings. A slave with a kind master is still a slave.

Personally, I would be very hesitant to say they are not following this headship as the Church asks. Just because they don’t have a formalized rule that the husband has the last say doesn’t mean they aren’t following the head/heart relationship as the Church asks them to. In fact, my reading of Casti Conubii has actually led me to the conclusion that those who claim that the husband must always have the last say are actually contradicting Church teaching on the matter as laid out in Casti Conubii.

Again, the Church clearly has an official teaching that this head/heart relationship exists and is instituted by God. That is a fact. The Church also clearly teaches that the marriage relationship is one of mutual submission. That is also a fact. Now, unless you want to claim that official Church teaching is changeable and can be ignored you have to look for a way to understand these concepts which allows them to be reconciled with each other. So, instead of coming at this topic by saying “my interpretation of the phrase “headship” means the wife is ultimately a slave therefore there can’t possibly be an interpretation of the phrase that means something different and so the Church was wrong when it used the phrase” perhaps you should come at it by saying “well, my understanding of headship means the wife is ultimately a slave, but the Church clearly teaches such an understanding of the relationship between a husband and wife is incorrect, so, when the Church uses the phrase “headship” it must mean something else than what my understanding of headship is”. Do you see what I’m saying here?

 

[sailor28]

Earlier someone referenced St Augustine and a writing from the pope from 1930. We really need to remember how much the church evolves and changes as it comes to understand human beings better. Back in the earlier 1900’s women did not have the right to vote or go to medical school. At one point in time they were not welcome in public schools. Certainly this effected how we view women. Augustine had poor advice and perspective on some things. Here is a quote from him from “Confessions”:

"[Monica] was thus nurtured in an atmosphere of purity and temperance, and was subjected by you [God] to the authority of her parents rather than by them to yours. When she attained full marriageable age she was entrusted to a husband; she served him as her lord, but she made it her business to win him for you by preaching you to him through her way of life, for by her conduct you made her beautiful in her husband’s eyes, as a person to be respected, loved and admired.

So gently did she put up with his marital infidelities that no quarrel ever broke out between them on this score, for she looked to you to show him mercy, knowing that once he came to believe he would become chaste.

Although he was outstandingly generous, he was also hot-tempered, but she learned to offer him no resistance, by deed or even by word, when he was angry; she would wait for a favorable moment, when she saw that his mood had changed and he was calm again, and then explain her action, in case he had given way to wrath without due consideration.

**There were plenty of women married to husbands of gentler temper whose faces were badly disfigured by traces of blows, who while gossiping together would complain about their husbands’ behavior; but she checked their talk, reminding them in what seemed to be a joking vein but with serious import that from the time they had heard their marriage contracts read out they had been in duty bound to consider these as legal documents which made slaves of them. In consequence they ought to keep their subservient status in mind and not defy their masters.
**
These other wives knew what a violent husband she had to put up with, and were amazed that there had never been any rumor of Patricius striking his wife, nor the least evidence of its happening, nor even a day’s domestic strife between the two of them; and in friendly talk they sought an explanation. My mother would then instruct them in this plan of hers that I have outlined. Those who followed it found out its worth and were happy; those who did not continued to be bullied and battered. (Confessions, Book IX, #9, 19, Boulding translation)"

THANK GOD we have made progress…This is certainly not good advice for any woman in a marriage with the understanding we have today. I agree with the posters who state that is not Catholic teaching that the husband is head of the wife. It is all about mutual submission and respect.

 

[thewanderer]

Earlier someone referenced St Augustine and a writing from the pope from 1930. We really need to remember how much the church evolves and changes as it comes to understand human beings better. Back in the earlier 1900’s women did not have the right to vote or go to medical school. At one point in time they were not welcome in public schools. Certainly this effected how we view women. Augustine had poor advice and perspective on some things. Here is a quote from him from “Confessions”:

"[Monica] was thus nurtured in an atmosphere of purity and temperance, and was subjected by you [God] to the authority of her parents rather than by them to yours. When she attained full marriageable age she was entrusted to a husband; she served him as her lord, but she made it her business to win him for you by preaching you to him through her way of life, for by her conduct you made her beautiful in her husband’s eyes, as a person to be respected, loved and admired.

So gently did she put up with his marital infidelities that no quarrel ever broke out between them on this score, for she looked to you to show him mercy, knowing that once he came to believe he would become chaste.

Although he was outstandingly generous, he was also hot-tempered, but she learned to offer him no resistance, by deed or even by word, when he was angry; she would wait for a favorable moment, when she saw that his mood had changed and he was calm again, and then explain her action, in case he had given way to wrath without due consideration.

**There were plenty of women married to husbands of gentler temper whose faces were badly disfigured by traces of blows, who while gossiping together would complain about their husbands’ behavior; but she checked their talk, reminding them in what seemed to be a joking vein but with serious import that from the time they had heard their marriage contracts read out they had been in duty bound to consider these as legal documents which made slaves of them. In consequence they ought to keep their subservient status in mind and not defy their masters.
**
These other wives knew what a violent husband she had to put up with, and were amazed that there had never been any rumor of Patricius striking his wife, nor the least evidence of its happening, nor even a day’s domestic strife between the two of them; and in friendly talk they sought an explanation. My mother would then instruct them in this plan of hers that I have outlined. Those who followed it found out its worth and were happy; those who did not continued to be bullied and battered. (Confessions, Book IX, #9, 19, Boulding translation)"

THANK GOD we have made progress…This is certainly not good advice for any woman in a marriage with the understanding we have today. I agree with the posters who state that is not Catholic teaching that the husband is head of the wife. It is all about mutual submission and respect.

While I would need to see the full context of this passage to really be certain, from the text it seems to me the bolded paragraph is moreso referencing the legal contract of marriage as governed by the state than the moral aspect of how a marriage ought to be. Just because wives were essentially considered slaves of their husbands does not mean the Church ever taught such a thing.

As for your attempt to dismiss Casti Conubii because it was written in the “1930’s”, unfortunately, that is not how Catholicism works. You can’t dismiss an official teaching of the Church, no matter when it was written. Also, if you actually read Casti Conubii carefully you might be surprised to find it does not condone the idea that wives must always submit to their husbands and give them last say, or that wives must become servants or slaves to their husbands.