Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband

[yellow8yellowM]

I’m really suspicious of the motives of online laypeople who interpret Sacred Scripture and Church writing to attempt to persuade others that they’re they’re not doing it right when it comes to being in a Catholic marriage, or any marriage for that matter. It strikes me as incredibly arrogant.

It reminds me a lot of parenting forums. There are always a few who try to tell the others that they’re not parenting right. It rarely ends well.

I think everyone on this thread values lasting marriages. But let us not conflate “lasting” with “healthy” - many people in the past stayed in horrific marital situations because it was so shameful to divorce, or because the woman did not have the status or earning power to be a single parent. I remember my grandmother telling me that, “She couldn’t have left if she wanted to.” Romanticizing the past can be dangerous.

Anyway, there is no “one size fits all” prescription for lasting marriage. The couple should adopt the paradigm that best suits their strengths and personalities. For me, that is an egalitarian relationship. For you, it might be a dominant/submissive one. Whatever leads to the most peace between the spouses is good.

I too can’t understand the need to insist that all wives must submit to their husbands.
Sarcasm does not help further your view.

IMO, anonymous posters on an internet forum trying to come up with a treatise on how Catholic wives should behave in their marriages isn’t going to go anywhere for many, many reasons. It’s about a futile an endeavor as trying to anonymously tell people how to parent.

Anyone who’s serious about influencing Catholic marriages should volunteer for pre-cana, become active in a parish marriage ministry, become a leader at a Catholic marriage retreat, anything that’s going to bring them face-to-face with others. That’s the only way to affect meaningful changes. Here, it’s just words on a computer screen, and marriage deserves more than that.

If I walked into pre-cana and someone told me, “you’re the captain and she’s your first mate” or “you’re both in the army, you’re her superior” I would have walked right out and found a different parish to attend pre-cana in.

As with government, a person who desires absolute power in marriage is very unlikely to be a person who can be trusted with absolute power. Absolute, unfettered power is only attractive to tyrants.

We should all be seeking the truth. It happens that Ephesians 5 says some things that can be interpreted in different ways. But we cannot simply dismiss Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition because it makes us uncomfortable. When I started the thread I had no idea how entrenched some people would be in their positions. Call me naive, but I thought the majority of people agreed in the most basic understanding of Ephesians 5 and that wives ought to subordinate to their husbands and the question was really how to put this into practice. Where was the line to be drawn, etc?

A few of you have really answered the original post well and I thank you. I also thank the person who posted the Mulieris Dignitatem encyclical. It is interesting that St. John Paul II completely left out any hint that wives should be subordinate to their husbands in any way. He also left this out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Does this trump the two previous encyclicals, or is is just an emphasis on the obvious need for mutual subordination in the light of the millenia of women being unjustly treated?

Regardless, I want to emphasize again that it is important to know the truth. I want to know what the Holy Spirit was inspiring St. Paul to write in Ephesians 5. I think this is important. I want to be able to teach my daughter the truth, so that she can be the best wife possible someday, and to teach my son the truth so that he can be the best husband possible. And obviously I want to know the truth for my own sake and for my wife’s sake.

 

[severus68]

If I walked into pre-cana and someone told me, “you’re the captain and she’s your first mate” or “you’re both in the army, you’re her superior” I would have walked right out and found a different parish to attend pre-cana in.

Me too but I would tell my parish priest about the errors being taught.

 

[fpt]

These are questions about the conjugal moral to evaluate the level knowledge of each one: a conjugal quiz for summing up.

Morally speaking (in natural moral law), in the catholic marriage:

Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable donation of persons? YES

Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable reception of persons? YES

Is there a leader in the couple?*** NO*** Is there a boss in the couple? NO Is there a chief in the couple? ***NO ***Is there a superior in the couple? NO

Is there a leader concerning the conjugal sexuality? NO Is there a boss concerning the conjugal sexuality? NO Is there a chief concerning the conjugal sexuality? NO Is there a superior concerning the conjugal sexuality? NO

Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable submission between wife and husband? YES

Are there differences between the couple and the family?

YES

 

[Portrait]

We should all be seeking the truth. It happens that Ephesians 5 says some things that can be interpreted in different ways. But we cannot simply dismiss Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition because it makes us uncomfortable.

snip/

Dear yellow8yellowM,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

This whole notion of a ‘mutual submission’, so beloved by some contemporary Catholics, is plainly untenable and based on a gross misunderstanding of St. Paul’s teaching: “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5: 21). Unfortunately, this text has been wrenched from its context and used a pretext to support a false egalitarianism that repudiates the husband as head and final authority within the family. However, the text has reference generally to the community of the faithful and encourages them to subject themselves one to another (cf. S. Jhn. 13: 1-17). Unless personal pride is mortified it is jolly hard to maintain mutual harmonious fellowship with our brethren in Christ. Thus self-submission and not self-assertion is to be the hallmark of the pious Catholic. Beginning at verse 22 of Ephesians chapter 5, St. Paul enjoins the sort of submission that is required in particular relationships, namely husbands and wives, parents and children and masters and servants (vv. 22-23; 6: 1-4, 5-9). Now it is manifestly obvious that in all of these specific relationships there is a ruler-subject set-up in which one - husband, parent or master - commands the other, namely the wife, child and servant, who dutifully obeys. To force a ‘mutual submission’ on to these relationships nullifies the authority of the one who commands and renders their authority utterly meaningless, which is precisely what is occurring to today as a result of the impact of a spurious egalitarianism. There can no more be a mutual submission between husband and wife than there can be between parent and child or master or servant.

As regards *Mulieris Dignatem *1988, it is important to say that whatever its meaning it cannot set aside or invalidate the authoritative Encyclical teaching such as *Arcanum *1880 or Casti Connubii 1930, which remains standing Church doctrine today. Sadly, dear friend, many contemporary Catholics, including some who would identify as ‘theologically conservative’, are extremely uncomfortable with this older teaching because they have been influenced by false equality ideology, either wittingly or unwittingly. Thus they will indulge in all manner of sophistry to rationalize it or divest it of any real meaning.

However, dear friend, to return to Mulieris Dignatem, it should be observed that JPII presents his teaching as a ‘personal meditation’ written in the first person (“And it seems to me that the best thing is to give this text the style of a meditation”) (JPII’s own emphasis). Now the level and binding authority of this meditation is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive teaching, as in the two Encyclical’s cited above, which no Catholic is at liberty to dissent from. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII in *Arcanum *emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - that is to say word of God itself - teaches, that subjection is required not “only on the part of the Church” to Christ, as 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 explicitly taught in Arcanum. It is, I think, rather significant that JPII quotes only from the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians - "For the husband is head of the wife - whilst omitting the conclusion: "as Christ is head of the Church".

It is impossible to see, dear friend, how any authority worthy of the name could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were a ‘mutual subjection’ and no ruler-subject relation between the spouses. The entire modern notion of a mutual subjection within the domestic Church is not only an absurdity but also a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject. Neither Holy Mother Church nor the family can have two heads. Methinks that much of the resistance to and rejection of authoritative Church teaching on this issue of wifely submission, is more an issue about resistance and rejection of authority per se. Our lot is undoubtedly cast in a very anti-authoritarian and iconoclastic age, which tacitly assumes that previous generations were usually wrong and that even the Church was ‘anti-women’.

Finally, dear friend, when St. Paul and our Church speak of a women being in subjection to her husband, it clearly denotes a subjection which pertains to the husband’s legitimate authority and nothing contrary to faith and morals. In a pious Catholic family there will, hopefully, seldom be major disagreements. If and when these do occur then they can usually be resolved by the spouses calmly talking matters through. However, the Church authoritatively teaches that the husband is always the final authority within the domestic church.

It admits of no doubt that our present age is heading in the wrong direction in this as well as many other matters. The urgent need of the hour is to return to the biblical and Church vision of marriage and family life.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[LightBound]

Dear yellow8yellowM,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

This whole notion of a ‘mutual submission’, so beloved by some contemporary Catholics, is plainly untenable and based on a gross misunderstanding of St. Paul’s teaching: “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5: 21). Unfortunately, this text has been wrenched from its context and used a pretext to support a false egalitarianism that repudiates the husband as head and final authority within the family. However, the text has reference generally to the community of the faithful and encourages them to subject themselves one to another (cf. S. Jhn. 13: 1-17). Unless personal pride is mortified it is jolly hard to maintain mutual harmonious fellowship with our brethren in Christ. Thus self-submission and not self-assertion is to be the hallmark of the pious Catholic. Beginning at verse 22 of Ephesians chapter 5, St. Paul enjoins the sort of submission that is required in particular relationships, namely husbands and wives, parents and children and masters and servants (vv. 22-23; 6: 1-4, 5-9). Now it is manifestly obvious that in all of these specific relationships there is a ruler-subject set-up in which one - husband, parent or master - commands the other, namely the wife, child and servant, who dutifully obeys. To force a ‘mutual submission’ on to these relationships nullifies the authority of the one who commands and renders their authority utterly meaningless, which is precisely what is occurring to today as a result of the impact of a spurious egalitarianism. There can no more be a mutual submission between husband and wife than there can be between parent and child or master or servant.

As regards *Mulieris Dignatem *1988, it is important to say that whatever its meaning it cannot set aside or invalidate the authoritative Encyclical teaching such as *Arcanum *1880 or Casti Connubii 1930, which remains standing Church doctrine today. Sadly, dear friend, many contemporary Catholics, including some who would identify as ‘theologically conservative’, are extremely uncomfortable with this older teaching because they have been influenced by false equality ideology, either wittingly or unwittingly. Thus they will indulge in all manner of sophistry to rationalize it or divest it of any real meaning.

However, dear friend, to return to Mulieris Dignatem, it should be observed that JPII presents his teaching as a ‘personal meditation’ written in the first person (“And it seems to me that the best thing is to give this text the style of a meditation”) (JPII’s own emphasis). Now the level and binding authority of this meditation is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive teaching, as in the two Encyclical’s cited above, which no Catholic is at liberty to dissent from. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII in *Arcanum *emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - that is to say word of God itself - teaches, that subjection is required not “only on the part of the Church” to Christ, as 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 explicitly taught in Arcanum. It is, I think, rather significant that JPII quotes only from the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians - "For the husband is head of the wife - whilst omitting the conclusion: "as Christ is head of the Church".

It is impossible to see, dear friend, how any authority worthy of the name could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were a ‘mutual subjection’ and no ruler-subject relation between the spouses. The entire modern notion of a mutual subjection within the domestic Church is not only an absurdity but also a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject. Neither Holy Mother Church nor the family can have two heads. Methinks that much of the resistance to and rejection of authoritative Church teaching on this issue of wifely submission, is more an issue about resistance and rejection of authority per se. Our lot is undoubtedly cast in a very anti-authoritarian and iconoclastic age, which tacitly assumes that previous generations were usually wrong and that even the Church was ‘anti-women’.

Finally, dear friend, when St. Paul and our Church speak of a women being in subjection to her husband, it clearly denotes a subjection which pertains to the husband’s legitimate authority and nothing contrary to faith and morals. In a pious Catholic family there will, hopefully, seldom be major disagreements. If and when these do occur then they can usually be resolved by the spouses calmly talking matters through. However, the Church authoritatively teaches that the husband is always the final authority within the domestic church.

It admits of no doubt that our present age is heading in the wrong direction in this as well as many other matters. The urgent need of the hour is to return to the biblical and Church vision of marriage and family life.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

Greetings Dear Portrait,

Instead of giving me a jolly good reply here, how about reading this thread by the same OP and actually answering his question on practical ways the husband should lay down his life for his wife forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=884194

From previous threads and posts, I see that you are rather adept at telling women how and why they should be submissive, so I’m curious to hear just how you lay down your life for your wife on a practical basis, be it daily or weekly.

 

[LightBound]

Dear yellow8yellowM,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

This whole notion of a ‘mutual submission’, so beloved by some contemporary Catholics, is plainly untenable and based on a gross misunderstanding of St. Paul’s teaching: “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5: 21). Unfortunately, this text has been wrenched from its context and used a pretext to support a false egalitarianism that repudiates the husband as head and final authority within the family. However, the text has reference generally to the community of the faithful and encourages them to subject themselves one to another (cf. S. Jhn. 13: 1-17). Unless personal pride is mortified it is jolly hard to maintain mutual harmonious fellowship with our brethren in Christ. Thus self-submission and not self-assertion is to be the hallmark of the pious Catholic. Beginning at verse 22 of Ephesians chapter 5, St. Paul enjoins the sort of submission that is required in particular relationships, namely husbands and wives, parents and children and masters and servants (vv. 22-23; 6: 1-4, 5-9). Now it is manifestly obvious that in all of these specific relationships there is a ruler-subject set-up in which one - husband, parent or master - commands the other, namely the wife, child and servant, who dutifully obeys. To force a ‘mutual submission’ on to these relationships nullifies the authority of the one who commands and renders their authority utterly meaningless, which is precisely what is occurring to today as a result of the impact of a spurious egalitarianism. There can no more be a mutual submission between husband and wife than there can be between parent and child or master or servant.

As regards *Mulieris Dignatem *1988, it is important to say that whatever its meaning it cannot set aside or invalidate the authoritative Encyclical teaching such as *Arcanum *1880 or Casti Connubii 1930, which remains standing Church doctrine today. Sadly, dear friend, many contemporary Catholics, including some who would identify as ‘theologically conservative’, are extremely uncomfortable with this older teaching because they have been influenced by false equality ideology, either wittingly or unwittingly. Thus they will indulge in all manner of sophistry to rationalize it or divest it of any real meaning.

However, dear friend, to return to Mulieris Dignatem, it should be observed that JPII presents his teaching as a ‘personal meditation’ written in the first person (“And it seems to me that the best thing is to give this text the style of a meditation”) (JPII’s own emphasis). Now the level and binding authority of this meditation is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive teaching, as in the two Encyclical’s cited above, which no Catholic is at liberty to dissent from. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII in *Arcanum *emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - that is to say word of God itself - teaches, that subjection is required not “only on the part of the Church” to Christ, as 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 explicitly taught in Arcanum. It is, I think, rather significant that JPII quotes only from the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians - "For the husband is head of the wife - whilst omitting the conclusion: "as Christ is head of the Church".

It is impossible to see, dear friend, how any authority worthy of the name could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were a ‘mutual subjection’ and no ruler-subject relation between the spouses. The entire modern notion of a mutual subjection within the domestic Church is not only an absurdity but also a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject. Neither Holy Mother Church nor the family can have two heads. Methinks that much of the resistance to and rejection of authoritative Church teaching on this issue of wifely submission, is more an issue about resistance and rejection of authority per se. Our lot is undoubtedly cast in a very anti-authoritarian and iconoclastic age, which tacitly assumes that previous generations were usually wrong and that even the Church was ‘anti-women’.

Finally, dear friend, when St. Paul and our Church speak of a women being in subjection to her husband, it clearly denotes a subjection which pertains to the husband’s legitimate authority and nothing contrary to faith and morals. In a pious Catholic family there will, hopefully, seldom be major disagreements. If and when these do occur then they can usually be resolved by the spouses calmly talking matters through. However, the Church authoritatively teaches that the husband is always the final authority within the domestic church.

It admits of no doubt that our present age is heading in the wrong direction in this as well as many other matters. The urgent need of the hour is to return to the biblical and Church vision of marriage and family life.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

Dear Portrait,

Would you take a moment and respond to the question posed on this thread?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=884194

Keep in mind, like the thread we are now on, the OP asks for practical ways, not the “why”, so please share with us actual, practical ways you lay down your life for your wife, as St Paul admonished you to do in Ephesians.

 

[EasterJoy]

…It is impossible to see, dear friend, how any authority worthy of the name could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were a ‘mutual subjection’ and no ruler-subject relation between the spouses. The entire modern notion of a mutual subjection within the domestic Church is not only an absurdity but also a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject…

You are right. Our Lord taught quite clearly–the evangelist Mark notes this twice in the space of two chapters!–that anyone who takes on a leadership role among Christians is bound in a particular way to pour himself out for those over whom his has authority:

*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.” *Mark 9-33-35

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

The Christian husband is to pour himself as did Christ and give himself up for his family as Christ gave himself up for the Church, and the wife is to submit to his doing it, and not try to make a secular king out of him. That would be a stumbling block to him. To anyone who tries to discourage him from imitating his Lord in how he leads, who tries to entice him to lead from a position of domination and pride, rather than to offer up his life for the sake of his domestic church, a Christian husband ought to say, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Matt. 16:23. That is correct, yes.

Our Lord, the standard of all that is manly, taught this. It is his intention to return fallen men to be the model of the Trinity that they were made to be, just as God intends Our Lady to be the model of all that is womanly, starting with her free consent to the plan of God, as told to her by the angel. To teach otherwise would subvert the witness that Christian marriage and family are meant to be in the world.

 

[severus68]

You are right. Our Lord taught quite clearly–the evangelist Mark notes this twice in the space of two chapters!–that anyone who takes on a leadership role among Christians is bound in a particular way to pour himself out for those over whom his has authority:

*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.” *Mark 9-33-35

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

The Christian husband is to pour himself as did Christ and give himself up for his family as Christ gave himself up for the Church, and the wife is to submit to his doing it, and not try to make a secular king out of him. That would be a stumbling block to him. To anyone who tries to discourage him from imitating his Lord in how he leads, who tries to entice him to lead from a position of domination and pride, rather than to offer up his life for the sake of his domestic church, a Christian husband ought to say, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” Matt. 16:23. That is correct, yes.

Our Lord, the standard of all that is manly, taught this. It is his intention to return fallen men to be the model of the Trinity that they were made to be, just as God intends Our Lady to be the model of all that is womanly, starting with her free consent to the plan of God, as told to her by the angel. To teach otherwise would subvert the witness that Christian marriage and family are meant to be in the world.

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

All, men and women, should follow Christ and model themselves on what Christ was and taught. By taking Christ out of the equation for women, you are basically stating that women are lesser than men, that Christ excluded women.

 

[severus68]

Dear yellow8yellowM,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

This whole notion of a ‘mutual submission’, so beloved by some contemporary Catholics, is plainly untenable and based on a gross misunderstanding of St. Paul’s teaching: “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5: 21). Unfortunately, this text has been wrenched from its context and used a pretext to support a false egalitarianism that repudiates the husband as head and final authority within the family. However, the text has reference generally to the community of the faithful and encourages them to subject themselves one to another (cf. S. Jhn. 13: 1-17). Unless personal pride is mortified it is jolly hard to maintain mutual harmonious fellowship with our brethren in Christ. Thus self-submission and not self-assertion is to be the hallmark of the pious Catholic. Beginning at verse 22 of Ephesians chapter 5, St. Paul enjoins the sort of submission that is required in particular relationships, namely husbands and wives, parents and children and masters and servants (vv. 22-23; 6: 1-4, 5-9). Now it is manifestly obvious that in all of these specific relationships there is a ruler-subject set-up in which one - husband, parent or master - commands the other, namely the wife, child and servant, who dutifully obeys. To force a ‘mutual submission’ on to these relationships nullifies the authority of the one who commands and renders their authority utterly meaningless, which is precisely what is occurring to today as a result of the impact of a spurious egalitarianism. There can no more be a mutual submission between husband and wife than there can be between parent and child or master or servant.

As regards *Mulieris Dignatem *1988, it is important to say that whatever its meaning it cannot set aside or invalidate the authoritative Encyclical teaching such as *Arcanum *1880 or Casti Connubii 1930, which remains standing Church doctrine today. Sadly, dear friend, many contemporary Catholics, including some who would identify as ‘theologically conservative’, are extremely uncomfortable with this older teaching because they have been influenced by false equality ideology, either wittingly or unwittingly. Thus they will indulge in all manner of sophistry to rationalize it or divest it of any real meaning.

However, dear friend, to return to Mulieris Dignatem, it should be observed that JPII presents his teaching as a ‘personal meditation’ written in the first person (“And it seems to me that the best thing is to give this text the style of a meditation”) (JPII’s own emphasis). Now the level and binding authority of this meditation is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive teaching, as in the two Encyclical’s cited above, which no Catholic is at liberty to dissent from. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII in *Arcanum *emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - that is to say word of God itself - teaches, that subjection is required not “only on the part of the Church” to Christ, as 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 explicitly taught in Arcanum. It is, I think, rather significant that JPII quotes only from the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians - "For the husband is head of the wife - whilst omitting the conclusion: "as Christ is head of the Church".

It is impossible to see, dear friend, how any authority worthy of the name could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were a ‘mutual subjection’ and no ruler-subject relation between the spouses. The entire modern notion of a mutual subjection within the domestic Church is not only an absurdity but also a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject. Neither Holy Mother Church nor the family can have two heads. Methinks that much of the resistance to and rejection of authoritative Church teaching on this issue of wifely submission, is more an issue about resistance and rejection of authority per se. Our lot is undoubtedly cast in a very anti-authoritarian and iconoclastic age, which tacitly assumes that previous generations were usually wrong and that even the Church was ‘anti-women’.

Finally, dear friend, when St. Paul and our Church speak of a women being in subjection to her husband, it clearly denotes a subjection which pertains to the husband’s legitimate authority and nothing contrary to faith and morals. In a pious Catholic family there will, hopefully, seldom be major disagreements. If and when these do occur then they can usually be resolved by the spouses calmly talking matters through. However, the Church authoritatively teaches that the husband is always the final authority within the domestic church.

It admits of no doubt that our present age is heading in the wrong direction in this as well as many other matters. The urgent need of the hour is to return to the biblical and Church vision of marriage and family life.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

I will St JP II 's position on women and marriage, thank you…

 

[Portrait]

We all know the passage from Ephesians 5 and elsewhere that a wife should be subject/submissive to her husband. But what does this mean in practical terms? Let’s please try to limit this discussion to practical examples. For example:

If my wife wants to go to Disneyworld for the 2nd time in the last month, and I say no due to financial difficulties, should she submit to my decision not to go?

If I try to institute a weekly family rosary, should she agree?

Obviously, the line is drawn when the husband asks the wife to violate God’s law or violates her dignity (part of God’s law), the wife should not submit, but there is a lot gray area in between.

Dear yellow8yellowM,

Cordial greetings and hello again.

The love of a husband for his wife must be deep-seated, thorough-going, intelligent and purposeful, a love in which the entire personality - not only the emotions but also the mind and will - expresses itself. The main characteristic of this love is that it is spontaneous and self-sacrificing, for it is compared to the love of Christ whereby He gave himself up for the Church (see Eph. 5: 25). More excellent love than that is inconceivable. Indeed, when a Catholic husband loves his wife in this sort of fashion obedience from the side of the wife will be quite easy. It will be a case of the wife knowing her husband loves her so deeply and is so kind and considerate to her that she virtually jumps at the opportunity to obey him.

On most occasions, dear friend, when Catholic spouses are walking submissively with Christ there will normally be a consensus respecting matters of fundamental importance. With the husband’s initiative and by talking matters through, they should be able to come to an agreed conclusion together. However, sometimes, the man as head of the household, has to make the final decision in a situation where the way forward is not entirely clear, or where the wife disagrees. Certainly at that point he must listen lovingly to his wife, but it does not mean that he must always do as she would like. He must endeavour to understand fully her position, but he may honestly come to the conclusion that what she desires would not be for her ultimate good, or the good of the family - or, more importantly, the glory of God. In such a case he has no option but to stand firm and not yield. For example, if a family are going suffer severe financial hardship as a consequence of over-stretching themselves by an excursion to the ‘Disneyworld’, which the wife desires, then the husband must be resolute and refuse. However, I am bound to say that in a devout Catholic family this sort of thing will seldom arise as the wife will be a sensible woman who will gladly live within her means.

A pious Catholic wife, dear friend, will cheerfully submit herself to her husband with fidelity and humility - “in every thing” says St. Paul (Eph. 5: 24), that is to say every thing to which the husband’s authority just extends itself - all things reasonable and lawful and not contrary to faith and morals (see *Casti Connubii *1930).

God bless and trust that is of help to you. Goodbye.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos

 

[Walking_Home]

I will St JP II 's position on women and marriage, thank you…

---

Yes --Ditto. And to add --the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches – mutual submission of the spouses.

 

[Bookcat]

I will St JP II 's position on women and marriage, thank you…

---

Yes --Ditto. And to add --the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches – mutual submission of the spouses.

Yes.

And such does not change the teaching of reality of the husband being the head (and the wife the heart) and of the wife being submissive.

1 Peter 3:1

 

[Bookcat]

Dr. Brant Pitre has a nice overview called “Wives do what?”

He gives a nice overview and explains the various aspects.

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes.

And such does not change the teaching of reality of the husband being the head (and the wife the heart) and of the wife being submissive.

1 Peter 3:1

---

There is one head in a marriage – that being God. Mutual subjection (submission) of the spouses – in reverence to God the head. For the husband to claim headship – he usurps God.

 

[severus68]

---

There is one head in a marriage – that being God. Mutual subjection (submission) of the spouses – in reverence to God the head. For the husband to claim headship – he usurps God.

Yes.

 

[fpt]

Dear yellow8yellowM,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

This whole notion of a ‘mutual submission’, so beloved by some contemporary Catholics, is plainly untenable and based on a gross misunderstanding of St. Paul’s teaching: “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5: 21). Unfortunately, this text has been wrenched from its context and used a pretext to support a false egalitarianism that repudiates the husband as head and final authority within the family. However, the text has reference generally to the community of the faithful and encourages them to subject themselves one to another (cf. S. Jhn. 13: 1-17). Unless personal pride is mortified it is jolly hard to maintain mutual harmonious fellowship with our brethren in Christ. Thus self-submission and not self-assertion is to be the hallmark of the pious Catholic. Beginning at verse 22 of Ephesians chapter 5, St. Paul enjoins the sort of submission that is required in particular relationships, namely husbands and wives, parents and children and masters and servants (vv. 22-23; 6: 1-4, 5-9). Now it is manifestly obvious that in all of these specific relationships there is a ruler-subject set-up in which one - husband, parent or master - commands the other, namely the wife, child and servant, who dutifully obeys. To force a ‘mutual submission’ on to these relationships nullifies the authority of the one who commands and renders their authority utterly meaningless, which is precisely what is occurring to today as a result of the impact of a spurious egalitarianism. There can no more be a mutual submission between husband and wife than there can be between parent and child or master or servant.

As regards *Mulieris Dignatem *1988, it is important to say that whatever its meaning it cannot set aside or invalidate the authoritative Encyclical teaching such as *Arcanum *1880 or Casti Connubii 1930, which remains standing Church doctrine today. Sadly, dear friend, many contemporary Catholics, including some who would identify as ‘theologically conservative’, are extremely uncomfortable with this older teaching because they have been influenced by false equality ideology, either wittingly or unwittingly. Thus they will indulge in all manner of sophistry to rationalize it or divest it of any real meaning.

However, dear friend, to return to Mulieris Dignatem, it should be observed that JPII presents his teaching as a ‘personal meditation’ written in the first person (“And it seems to me that the best thing is to give this text the style of a meditation”) (JPII’s own emphasis). Now the level and binding authority of this meditation is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive teaching, as in the two Encyclical’s cited above, which no Catholic is at liberty to dissent from. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII in *Arcanum *emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - that is to say word of God itself - teaches, that subjection is required not “only on the part of the Church” to Christ, as 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 explicitly taught in Arcanum. It is, I think, rather significant that JPII quotes only from the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians - "For the husband is head of the wife - whilst omitting the conclusion: "as Christ is head of the Church".

It is impossible to see, dear friend, how any authority worthy of the name could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were a ‘mutual subjection’ and no ruler-subject relation between the spouses. The entire modern notion of a mutual subjection within the domestic Church is not only an absurdity but also a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject. Neither Holy Mother Church nor the family can have two heads. Methinks that much of the resistance to and rejection of authoritative Church teaching on this issue of wifely submission, is more an issue about resistance and rejection of authority per se. Our lot is undoubtedly cast in a very anti-authoritarian and iconoclastic age, which tacitly assumes that previous generations were usually wrong and that even the Church was ‘anti-women’.

A quiz about the dual humanity and about the marriage:

Is there an ontological equality and an ontological equity between the male human and the female human? Are there same rights for man and woman, and are there particular rights for each sex?

Is there an ontological equality and an ontological equity between the male spouse and the female spouse, between husband and wife? Are there same rights for husband and wife, and are there particular rights for each spouse?

Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable *donation *of persons? Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable *reception *of persons? Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable submission between wife and husband?

The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the household? The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the couple? The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the conjugal sexuality? The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the family? Are there different spheres? Do we have to make difference between those spheres?

 

[Xantippe]

Portrait said:

“For example, if a family are going suffer severe financial hardship as a consequence of over-stretching themselves by an excursion to the ‘Disneyworld’, which the wife desires, then the husband must be resolute and refuse.”

It’s stacking the deck to talk about wifely submission in a situation where the wife’s desires are clearly not feasible and the husband is being more sensible.

What if it’s the reverse? What if the husband wants to go to Disneyland and the wife thinks there isn’t enough money available to pay for that and the family’s basic needs (food, shelter, and so forth)? Does she need to cheerfully acquiesce, or should she put her foot down?

Or let’s say that the wife has just gotten a large inheritance and her husband wants her to immediately invest all of it in a new business that his ne’er-do-well brother has just dreamed up. Should she cheerfully sign over every dime to the ne’er-do-well brother-in-law (who has a record of substance abuse, bankruptcy, and being an all around deadbeat and nogoodnik) or should she stall for time?

 

[Bookcat]

Yes.

\

Incorrect.

---

There is one head in a marriage – that being God. Mutual subjection (submission) of the spouses – in reverence to God the head. For the husband to claim headship – he usurps God.

Such is not what God tells us. Nor the Church.

Yes the husband is the head.

The husband is the head of the wife. Ephesians 5:23 As Christ is the head of the Church. The Husband does not claim being head for himself-- God has* given him that role*.

The wife is the heart!

And he is to serve–to sacrifice for the wife …as did Christ for the Church. Give his blood.

Yes there is also mutual submission. But that is only part of the Teaching. One cannot pick only part.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Yes.

And such does not change the teaching of reality of the husband being the head (and the wife the heart) and of the wife being submissive.

1 Peter 3:1

Besides submitting to the head in all things (which, frankly, a robot could do), what exactly is the role of the heart?

 

[Bookcat]

Besides submitting to the head in all things (which, frankly, a robot could do), what exactly is the role of the heart?

No a robot could not submit in the way Paul (and Sacred Scripture) refers…a robot cannot do so in love and as a Christian, as a sister, as a wife, in truth and virtue.

(a wife is not a robot, or a child or a slave (though as Paul notes we are to be slaves to each other in the Christian sense), or an employee etc etc…she is a Christian wife!)

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).