Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband

[fpt]

Are you okay with that??? With this list, all seems to be clear!!!

The radical feminism is morally wrong; The radical masculism is morally wrong.
The egalitarianism is morally wrong; The misogynism is is morally wrong; The misandrism is morally wrong; The machism is morally wrong; The sexism is morally wrong; The doxa of the war of sexes is morally wrong;

The doxa of the superiority of man on the woman is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of husband on the wife is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of woman on the man is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of wife on the husband is morally wrong; The refusal of the equality and of the equity between females and males is morally wrong; The refusal of the equality and of the equity between wife and spouse is morally wrong;

The doxa of the negation of the physical sexuation is is morally wrong; The doctrinal negation of the psychical sexuation is is morally wrong; The doxa of the negation of the affective sexuation is is morally wrong; The doxa of the negation of the spiritual sexuation is is morally wrong; The doxa of the un-sexuation is morally wrong; The doxa of the a-exuation is morally wrong; The doxa of the de-sexuation is morally wrong.

The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male human and the female human is morally wrong; The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male spouse and the female spouse is morally wrong;** The refusal of the equity and equality in the couple is morally wrong;**

The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reasonable donation of persons is morally wrong; The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reasonable reception of persons is morally wrong; The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reciprocal submission about the union of bodies is morally wrong;

The fact of thinking that the wife is inferior to the husband is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the wife is superior to the husband is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the husband is superior to the wife is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the husband is inferior to the wife is morally wrong;

For a father, the fact of wanting to be mother is morally wrong; For a mother, the fact of wanting to be father is morally wrong; For a husband the fact being of a dictator, a tyran, a boss, a employer, a chief and a master of his wife and of his family is morally wrong; For a wife the fact being of a dictator, a tyran, a boss, a employer, a chief and a mistress of her husband and of her family is morally wrong;

The conjugal victorianism is morally wrong; The conjugal puritanism is morally wrong; The conjugal jansenism is morally wrong; The conjugal catharism is morally wrong; The conjugal quiverfullism is morally wrong; The conjugal prudism is morally wrong; The conjugal theoretical providentialism is morally wrong; The conjugal pharisaism is morally wrong; The fact of refusing the natural rights of wife is morally wrong; The fact of refusing the natural rights of husband is morally wrong;

The civil laws and the penal laws of State instituting a “true discrimination” between women and men are morally wrong. The civil laws and the penal laws of State instituting a “true discrimination” between husbands and wives are morally wrong. Morally speaking, a husband or a wife can not use the civil laws or the penal laws of State that do not respect the equity and the equality for imposing something to the other. The unfair laws have to be denounced by a catholic husband and not to apply by the catholic husband. The absolute positivism of the laws of State is not very catholic.

 

[fpt]

Are you okay with that??? With this list, all seems to be clear!!!

The radical feminism is morally wrong; The radical masculism is morally wrong.
The egalitarianism is morally wrong; The misogynism is is morally wrong; The misandrism is morally wrong; The machism is morally wrong; The sexism is morally wrong; The doxa of the war of sexes is morally wrong;

The doxa of the superiority of man on the woman is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of husband on the wife is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of woman on the man is morally wrong; The doxa of the superiority of wife on the husband is morally wrong; The refusal of the equality and of the equity between females and males is morally wrong; The refusal of the equality and of the equity between wife and spouse is morally wrong;

The doxa of the negation of the physical sexuation is is morally wrong; The doctrinal negation of the psychical sexuation is is morally wrong; The doxa of the negation of the affective sexuation is is morally wrong; The doxa of the negation of the spiritual sexuation is is morally wrong; The doxa of the un-sexuation is morally wrong; The doxa of the a-exuation is morally wrong; The doxa of the de-sexuation is morally wrong.

The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male human and the female human is morally wrong; The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male spouse and the female spouse is morally wrong;** The refusal of the equity and equality in the couple is morally wrong;**

**The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reasonable donation **of persons is morally wrong; The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reasonable reception of persons is morally wrong; The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reciprocal submission about the union of bodies is morally wrong;

The fact of thinking that the wife is inferior to the husband is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the wife is superior to the husband is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the husband is superior to the wife is morally wrong; The fact of thinking that the husband is inferior to the wife is morally wrong;

For a father, the fact of wanting to be mother is morally wrong; For a mother, the fact of wanting to be father is morally wrong; For a husband the fact being of a dictator, a tyran, a boss, an employer, a chief and a master of his wife and of his family is morally wrong; For a wife the fact being of a dictator, a tyran, a boss, an employer, a chief and a mistress of her husband and of her family is morally wrong;

The conjugal victorianism is morally wrong; The conjugal puritanism is morally wrong; The conjugal jansenism is morally wrong; The conjugal catharism is morally wrong; The conjugal quiverfullism is morally wrong; The conjugal prudism is morally wrong; The conjugal theoretical providentialism is morally wrong; The conjugal pharisaism is morally wrong; The fact of refusing the natural rights of wife is morally wrong; The fact of refusing the natural rights of husband is morally wrong;

The civil laws and the penal laws of State instituting a “true discrimination” between women and men are morally wrong. The civil laws and the penal laws of State instituting a “true discrimination” between husbands and wives are morally wrong. Morally speaking, a husband or a wife can not use the civil laws or the penal laws of State that do not respect the equity and the equality for imposing something to the other. The unfair laws have to be denounced by a catholic husband and n**ot to be applied **by the catholic husband. The unfair laws have to be denounced by a catholic wife and **not to be applied **by the catholic wife.

The absolute positivism of the laws of State is not very catholic.

The conjugal judgmentalism, the conjugal externalism, the conjugal rigorism, the conjugal anti-personalism are morally wrong.The conjugal anti-phenomenologism, the conjugal evangelical fundamentalisms and the conjugal mormonism are morally wrong.

 

[Bookcat]

Please -all readers and posters.

It will not take long - read the entire chapter – Ephesians 5 (RSV)

as lectio divina

 

[thewanderer]

No1 Please do not put words in my mouth. I recall that thread where you were explaining about the Encyclical and whether a wife has to always agree with her husband. I was agreeing on the meaning of the words referred to, nothing more.

Believe and say what you want. This kind of view (not referring to you only) places women a step lower than men. I did not choose to be Muslim or a fundamentalist Christian but a Catholic. Women form half the human race and I cannot believe that Christ who preached equality would then contradict His own teachings by relegating women to a subordinate position.

I sometimes forget that people are posting on an anonymous internet public forum. I do not see any point in continuing on this thread.

Be at peace all of you.

I am not putting words in your mouth, I asked you an honest question. But your response makes it pretty clear that despite my clarifications you still think that my view of headship is incompatible with mutual submission and degrades women. I am sorry to see that you are still under the mistaken impression that the idea of headship necessarily degrades women. But I guess if you are going to continue to insist that headship is necessarily degrading no matter what is meant by headship then there really isn’t much point in having a discussion about it. I agree with you that the idea of headship has often and still does today lead to the degrading of women and that is terribly wrong. But that really doesn’t mean that every possible meaning of the word is degrading to women.

 

[lily22]

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?
YES

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

 

[Xantippe]

lily22,

If the husband insists on going to Disneyland for the second time in a month, should the wife agree?

If the wife insists on a family rosary, should the husband agree?

It’s worth flipping the genders to see if the answer changes or not.

 

[mommamaree]

lily22,

If the husband insists on going to Disneyland for the second time in a month, should the wife agree?

If the wife insists on a family rosary, should the husband agree?

It’s worth flipping the genders to see if the answer changes or not.

No matter the gender, I object to the idea of going to Disneyland if money is too tight. As a wife, I would put my foot down and refuse.

Regarding the family rosary, I do not believe it is right to compel any grown person to pray, whether male or female. However, urging a new tradition or even trying it out with the children are good actions.

 

[EasterJoy]

lily22,

If the husband insists on going to Disneyland for the second time in a month, should the wife agree?

If the wife insists on a family rosary, should the husband agree?

It’s worth flipping the genders to see if the answer changes or not.

I don’t know of any healthy marriages where either spouse would make a large discretionary purchase w/o mutual consent. Unilateral “putting a foot down” when not in defense of an obligation is rare. Mutual submission, practically speaking, is usually a matter of resolving not to “sweat the small stuff.” If anything, there can be frustrations about getting one spouse to cop to what they want instead of doing what they are guessing the other spouse wants, and vice versa!!

There are deep disagreements about what is and is not an obligation. That’s when some serious spats can happen: that is, when either one refuses what the other believes is a “must”.

 

[Bookcat]

The whole question: “Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband”

Is a dissent into all sorts of contingent particulars that are going to vary from Marriage to Marriage and place to place…

The truth involved in Ephesians 5 (read the whole chapter) is one thing.

The “practical” applications -is another. They are going to often vary and often cannot be translated from one Marriage to the another. For persons, and marriages, and places, and times, and circumstances vary greatly.

So one can often only offer “possible” practical ways…in such questions (which can easily be open to dispute due to their contingent and varied nature).

 

[Xantippe]

Easter Joy said:

“I don’t know of any healthy marriages where either spouse would make a large discretionary purchase w/o mutual consent.”

That’s true, I think it’s hugely important, and yet I don’t recall that being mentioned as one of the basic principles of a healthy marriage. Of course, maybe it was said (either in marriage prep or in one of the books I read) and I was too young to understand it at the time.

True story:

I was at a big box home goods store today and I bumped into a woman in the lady’s room who had a HUGE shopping bag with her. “Big day!” I said brightly. “Yes,” she said. “I’m kind of scared to go home.” !!!

Any way you look at that, there’s something terrible going on, and maybe on both sides.

The flip side of that is that if it’s a reasonable expense, it ought to be agreed to without it needing to be a federal case. Being mindlessly stingy about basic expenses often drives spending underground. There’s a saying about how “it’s easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission”–if we want to be consulted before spending happens, we have to be reasonable to deal with. One of the classic dysfunctional marriage types is ridiculously miserly husband/financially irresponsible wife. The more miserly he gets, the more she misbehaves and hides purchases, and the more she misbehaves the more miserly he gets, etc, and round and round we go. (There is a stingy wife/freewheeling husband version of this, too.)

 

[LongingSoul]

Easter Joy said:

“I don’t know of any healthy marriages where either spouse would make a large discretionary purchase w/o mutual consent.”

That’s true, I think it’s hugely important, and yet I don’t recall that being mentioned as one of the basic principles of a healthy marriage. Of course, maybe it was said (either in marriage prep or in one of the books I read) and I was too young to understand it at the time.

True story:

I was at a big box home goods store today and I bumped into a woman in the lady’s room who had a HUGE shopping bag with her. “Big day!” I said brightly. “Yes,” she said. “I’m kind of scared to go home.” !!!

Any way you look at that, there’s something terrible going on, and maybe on both sides.

The flip side of that is that if it’s a reasonable expense, it ought to be agreed to without it needing to be a federal case. Being mindlessly stingy about basic expenses often drives spending underground. There’s a saying about how “it’s easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission”–if we want to be consulted before spending happens, we have to be reasonable to deal with. One of the classic dysfunctional marriage types is ridiculously miserly husband/financially irresponsible wife. The more miserly he gets, the more she misbehaves and hides purchases, and the more she misbehaves the more miserly he gets, etc, and round and round we go. (There is a stingy wife/freewheeling husband version of this, too.)

I continue to be confused by what your underlying argument really is. What point are you trying to make by posting examples of bad marriages? Do you think that the biblical model of marriage as per Ephesians is entirely defunct in modern society? If not, what would be some of the reasons it could have value to us in todays world?

 

[Xantippe]

LongingSoul said:

“I continue to be confused by what your underlying argument really is. What point are you trying to make by posting examples of bad marriages? Do you think that the biblical model of marriage as per Ephesians is entirely defunct in modern society? If not, what would be some of the reasons it could have value to us in todays world?”

I am describing the ecology of marriage as it exists in the wild.

Whatever Ephesians 5 means, it has to provide helpful guidance to people in a variety of different situations. We can’t just sit here contemplating the Platonic ideal of the perfect marriage and expect to get there from here without grappling with the real problems that real people have in real marriages.

There’s a thread elsewhere in the Family Forum where a wife is struggling with the fact that her husband is severely depressed and barely functioning and refuses to seek treatment for his depression. I would add that to the pile of tricky situations for a more “traditional” view of submission. If he tells her to leave him alone and not bother him about the doctor or medication or picking up after himself, is she duty bound to do so?

 

[EasterJoy]

Easter Joy said:

“I don’t know of any healthy marriages where either spouse would make a large discretionary purchase w/o mutual consent.”

That’s true, I think it’s hugely important, and yet I don’t recall that being mentioned as one of the basic principles of a healthy marriage. Of course, maybe it was said (either in marriage prep or in one of the books I read) and I was too young to understand it at the time.

True story:

I was at a big box home goods store today and I bumped into a woman in the lady’s room who had a HUGE shopping bag with her. “Big day!” I said brightly. “Yes,” she said. “I’m kind of scared to go home.” !!!

Any way you look at that, there’s something terrible going on, and maybe on both sides.

The flip side of that is that if it’s a reasonable expense, it ought to be agreed to without it needing to be a federal case. Being mindlessly stingy about basic expenses often drives spending underground. There’s a saying about how “it’s easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission”–if we want to be consulted before spending happens, we have to be reasonable to deal with. One of the classic dysfunctional marriage types is ridiculously miserly husband/financially irresponsible wife. The more miserly he gets, the more she misbehaves and hides purchases, and the more she misbehaves the more miserly he gets, etc, and round and round we go. (There is a stingy wife/freewheeling husband version of this, too.)

It isn’t our place to say what financial attitudes others “ought to” have, excepting that we do have a responsibility to be on our spouse’s side with regards to near occasions of sin. They may not lie, but we ought not tempt them to do it. That will mean different things to couples with different temptations.

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

It had not been my intention to return to this thread, but am I alone in thinking that it makes for very sad reading observing professing Catholics rejecting authoritative *standing *Church teaching on a Catholic website. Both of the Encyclicals *Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, *1880, para. 11 (Pope Leo XIII) and the Casti Connubii, 1930, paras. 26-29 (Pope Pius XI), unequivocally and unmistakably declare the primacy and headship of the husband and the ready subjection and “willing obedience” of the wife within holy wedlock. Those who publicly refuse to receive this valid Church teaching are doing an immense disservice to our most holy religion and are playing into the hands of secular feminist ideology with its false and un-Catholic egalitarianism. Moreover, these authoritative Encyclicals form part of magisterial teaching, which require religious submission of the mind and will of pious Catholic’s throughout the world. Dissent from papal teaching in Encyclicals is not part of the creed of a Catholic. The Catholic faithful wilfully conform to papal teaching and do not dispute it or dispense with it on account of its antiquity. That is modernism, which is forever seeking means of evading Church teaching that does not happen to sit comfortably with secular progressive thinking. Arcanum and Casti Connubii, incontrovertably treat of timeless truth and therefore perpetually valid teaching based upon St. Paul in the Ephesian Epistle and elsewhere. If this were not the case then both Pope Leo and Pope Pius would have been in serious error in making their appeal to St. Paul’s teaching in their respective Encyclicals. Organic development decidedly does not mean the repudiation of timeless Church teaching, simply an enlargement upon it - a very different thing altogether. Both of the aforementioned Encyclicals have not and cannot be repealed by the Magisterium of the Church, treating as they do of timeless and perpetually valid truth for all generations.

Moreover, dear friends, if humbly receiving the authoritative Church teaching respecting the headship of the husband and dutiful subjection of the wife is ‘fundamentalism’ then we must surely conclude that St. Paul, Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI were all fundamentalists who were guilty of peddling false teaching demeaning to women. That is, of course, as utterly preposterous as it is impious, at least for the devout Catholic who gladly submits his mind and will to authoritative standing Church teaching. Some try to dismiss the teaching of St. Paul on the headship of the husband and submission of the wife by asserting that it is culturally bound and therefore no longer binding. This is an unorthodox position so beloved of modernists, but plainly untenable notwithstanding. Are we to conclude that God dictated His revelation of the divinely ordained constitution of the family in language that was culturally determined and that required ‘unpacking’ by historical-critical exegesis? Moreover, are we to conclude that in authoritative Encyclical teaching both Pope Leo and Pope Pius and all of their predecessors at the Vatican misinterpreted the Ephesian Epistle by reading St. Paul to literally? This seems to be the position that liberal Catholicism shuts itself into, so much does it detest the teaching of the headship of the husband and the submission of the wife. Look here, once you adopt this sort of approach you will run into divers problems and will make yourself the final arbiter as to what constitutes authoritative standing Church teaching. In other words you adopt an a la carte approach to the faith which allows you to reject anything that does not happen to square with your own pet theories and beliefs. This is modernism and not thinking with an authentic Catholic mind. The Catholic faithful are not at liberty to reject and disobey authoritative Encyclical teaching, even if they think that teaching is at variance with modern secular views of equality.

Finally, dear friends, the ‘mutual submission’ of husband and wife is not inimical to the headship of the husband and the dutiful submission of the wife in holy wedlock, when mutual submission is properly understood. Needless to say, the current Catechism of the Catholic Church cannot and would not contradict or annul previous Encyclical teaching. Thus the Catholic faithful should not set the catechism teaching in opposition to Arcanum or *Casti connubii *for polemical purposes. We are, I think, to understand ‘mutual submission’ in marriage to mean sacrificial love, which is of course to be mutually given by both of the spouses. However, if mutual submission is supposed to have some reference to obedience to authority then it has no place at all, for that would not be consonant with the Encyclical teaching, which plainly speaks of a ruler-subject relationship between husband and wife. Thus, for example, Pope Leo (Arcanum, 1880) specifically speaks of “him who commands and her who obeys”, which if words mean anything at all clearly speaks of a one-sided submission. In any case, there would be little point in a husband commanding if a wife was free to disobey whenever she so pleased.

God bless and, once again, thankyou for suffering this final further posting, dear friends. My only plea is that the Catholic faithful submit themselves to the all of the authoritative Church teaching on this topic, and not only recent teaching. le us not fall into the “hermeneutic of discontinuity with the past” error, so deplored by the former Holy Father.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

In Christos

 

[sailor28]

whew…that was a lot to say. It all sounds very pious. However, you did not answer the original question of this thread. If you could kindly give some practical ways you live this out in your marriage or how you think this is lived out in a marriage that would be helpful. Especially, since you are accusing some of us of rejecting authoritative teaching. It would be helpful if you could write your answer in plain English. I don’t want to sound offensive to you but that way you wrote sounds very theological but not giving us a practical answer. When instructing and teaching people you have to speak to them at a level they understand. Are you married and if so how long have you been married? How do you live this teaching out in your marriage? That would definitely help me to understand what you are trying to say

 

[Bookcat]

whew…that was a lot to say. If you could kindly give some practical ways you live this out in your marriage or how you think this is lived out in a marriage that would be helpful.y

The whole question: “Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband”

Is a dissent into all sorts of contingent particulars that are going to vary from Marriage to Marriage and place to place…

The truth involved in Ephesians 5 (read the whole chapter) is one thing.

The “practical” applications -is another. They are going to often vary and often cannot be translated from one Marriage to the another. For persons, and marriages, and places, and times, and circumstances vary greatly.

So one can often only offer “possible” practical ways…in such questions (which can easily be open to dispute due to their contingent and varied nature).

 

[LongingSoul]

LongingSoul said:

“I continue to be confused by what your underlying argument really is. What point are you trying to make by posting examples of bad marriages? Do you think that the biblical model of marriage as per Ephesians is entirely defunct in modern society? If not, what would be some of the reasons it could have value to us in todays world?”

I am describing the ecology of marriage as it exists in the wild.

Whatever Ephesians 5 means, it has to provide helpful guidance to people in a variety of different situations. We can’t just sit here contemplating the Platonic ideal of the perfect marriage and expect to get there from here without grappling with the real problems that real people have in real marriages.

There’s a thread elsewhere in the Family Forum where a wife is struggling with the fact that her husband is severely depressed and barely functioning and refuses to seek treatment for his depression. I would add that to the pile of tricky situations for a more “traditional” view of submission. If he tells her to leave him alone and not bother him about the doctor or medication or picking up after himself, is she duty bound to do so?

Why does Ephesians 5 have to ‘provide helpful guidance to people in a variety of different situations’? It’s providing a blueprint of the ideal upon which society bases its norms and mores to the best advantage of the human race. We could just as easily go all argumentative on the fourth commandment because many children are abused and neglected by selfish parents. The question that asks in what practical ways should children honour their parents would be more a call to contemplate how to apply that ideal in different circumstances rather than discredit the ideal as a harmful one.

 

[Bookcat]

Why does Ephesians 5 have to ‘provide helpful guidance to people in a variety of different situations’? It’s providing a blueprint of the ideal upon which society bases its norms and mores to the best advantage of the human race. We could just as easily go all argumentative on the fourth commandment because many children are abused and neglected by selfish parents. The question that asks in what practical ways should children honour their parents would be more a call to contemplate how to apply that ideal in different circumstances rather than discredit the ideal as a harmful one.

Just a couple of thoughts that I would like to add

1. Ephesians 5 does provide helpful guidance to all (I would not call it an “ideal” but rather simply how we are to live as Christians -something that can be done -where as at times “ideal” may refer to something that is not lived but admired).

It is similar to “love one another”…

1. Yes and once people start getting into the contingent possibilities of how children can honor their parents – the cat will once again be among the pigeons. For this too will often vary according the place and time and family etc.

As I noted in the post above - in this kind of teaching - the teaching is one thing -but the practical application is contingent upon various things (unlike the kind of teaching “do not murder”).

And yes it very correct to point out that “exceptions” do not negate the rule per se as they say. Just cause there has been abuse or wrongful applications of a teaching by one person or another - does not make the teaching not true and not something for life.

 

[EasterJoy]

Why does Ephesians 5 have to ‘provide helpful guidance to people in a variety of different situations’? It’s providing a blueprint of the ideal upon which society bases its norms and mores to the best advantage of the human race. We could just as easily go all argumentative on the fourth commandment because many children are abused and neglected by selfish parents. The question that asks in what practical ways should children honour their parents would be more a call to contemplate how to apply that ideal in different circumstances rather than discredit the ideal as a harmful one.

To me, the combination of submitting to each other out of reverence for Christ and the wife submitting to the husband and the husband giving himself up as does Christ, that when it is "you decide! " “no, you decide!” “No, you decide!” then the husband is stuck deciding and it is understood that the wife will say, “we are one, this is what we say.”

What about when it is “my way!” “no, my way!” “No! my way!” and so on? You get back in there, swallow some pride, and try again, this time esteeming the other as better than yourself and the will of God above all. That is more like practical Christian decision-making. Is overturning the table of a moneychanger wrong? No, but it is rare.

Either spouse may be the advocate for virtue over lesser motives, in imitation of the prophets and Our Lord. The Lord is both prophet and king; all the other prophets spoke fearlessly to power, including Nathan speaking to David. Our Lord, meanwhile, spoke the truth and yet was willing to die at the hands of the disobedient, praying “Father, forgive them. They know not what they do.” He did not “pull rank” to force them to follow his word. Those are the examples we have. None are demeaning, even though none rule by force.

 

[Xantippe]

LongingSoul said:

“We could just as easily go all argumentative on the fourth commandment because many children are abused and neglected by selfish parents. The question that asks in what practical ways should children honour their parents would be more a call to contemplate how to apply that ideal in different circumstances rather than discredit the ideal as a harmful one.”

Exactly. Just as wives are not to obey their husbands under all circumstances, children (and particularly adult children) do not need to obey their parents under all circumstances.

We are called to respect legitimate authority and to obey it as possible, but even legitimate authority has limitations. There is a whole lot of Bible alongside Ephesians 5, and it says stuff like ““If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” The fact that one is married to a man does not mean that this verse does not apply to him in the case of wrongdoing.

I see in Ephesians 5 the need for a wife to honor and respect her husband, even when he’s wrong, and even when he’s mentally ill, senile, abusive, or has some other issue. I think it’s possible to do this even in the case of divorce (for example, resisting the temptation to bad mouth one’s ex-husband to the kids, no matter how heinous the offences involved).