What exactly does this whole submission to the husband thing mean?

[Le_Crouton]

As a man I feel really weird about this whole submissive thing. Why do wives have to submit to their husbands? They’re their own women. I don’t want my wife to submit to me. What if I’m wrong about something? Shouldn’t she do what’s right and not what I want her to do? It just seems very controlling. Or it’s often used as an excuse by men who wish to control and abuse their wives.

I can understand my children being obedient toward me. But I wouldn’t expect or demand that any woman obey me. That’s just creepy. Am I the only one who feels this way?

 

[Cruciferi]

You might wanna try the Search Feature concerning this subject. It reappears regularly…

 

[edwest211]

Nothing creepy about it. It’s not meant to be one-sided. Ephesians 5:24 -28

New International Version
Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

New International Version
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

New International Version
to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word,

New International Version
and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

New International Version
In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

 

[ioannes_pius]

From St. Thomas Aquinas’ commentary on the fifth chapter of Ephesians:

CHAPTER 5

LECTURE 8

Next, he adds his reason; regarding it he makes three points:

First, he offers it for consideration.

Secondly, he introduces an example (v. 23b).

Thirdly, from the example he draws his conclusion (v. 24).

The reason for this subjection is that the husband is the bead of the wife, and the sense of sight is localized in the head—“The eyes of a wise man are in his head” (Eccl. 2:14)—and hence a husband ought to govern his wife as her head. “The head of the woman is the man” (1 Cor. 11:3). Then he brings in his example when he says: as Christ is the head of the church. God “has made him head over all the church, which is his body” (Eph. 1:22-23). This is not for his own utility, but for that of the Church since he is the saviour of his body. “For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Ac. 4:12). “Behold, God is my saviour; I will deal confidently and will not fear” (Is. 12:2).

From this he draws the conclusion he intended, saying Therefore, as the church is subject to Christ. As though he said: It is not proper for an organ to rebel against its head in any situation; but as Christ is head of the church in his own way, so a husband is the head of his wife; therefore the wife must be obedient to her husband as the church is subject to Christ. “Shall not my soul be subject to God?” (Ps. 61:2), so also let the wives be to their husbands. “And you shall be under your husband’s power” (Gen. 3:16), in all things which are not contrary to God, for Acts 5 (29) affirms: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”

(Not sure how to properly cite this, so I will simply provide the link)

https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/Eph5.htm

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Many if not most men nowadays accept the Church teaching that spouses are equal partners and there is no “submission” of either party involved. The husband in Scripture is supposed to love his wife so much that he would not be ordering her around in the sense you, OP, are thinking of it.

“Submit” made sense in the era when it was written, where a wife had few or no rights in society was supposed to do her husband’'s bidding. Paul was basically telling the women to behave themselves as society expected, don’t revolt. Nowadays we’d probably say “Wives, respect your husbands.” But Paul was also saying something very radical by telling the men they were supposed to love their wives as they loved their own bodies. In other words, treat their wives way better than society required them to.

I can also tell you that in all the Catholic marriages I’ve seen within my own family, this never came up. Not once. There were no guys running around demanding their wives be “submissive” to them. That would not have even worked in my grandparents’ generation. However, the wives realized their husbands needed to have the final say in certain matters or deserved respect as the head of the household, and they generally gave that without needing to be badgered about it and largely without thinking about it too much. Nobody was abused in my family either.

 

[Sarcelle]

This means the husband is tasked with shepherding his family to heaven and God expects him to take the lead in making sure his family is on the right path to sainthood. He has to lead the way to heaven.

It does not mean he has to end up as a micromanager, administrating every aspect of his wife’s life like she was one of his minor children, nor is it a green light for the husband to abuse his wife.

 

[Zaccheus]

“Submit” made sense in the era when it was written, where a wife had few or no rights in society was supposed to do her husband’'s bidding. Paul was basically telling the women to behave themselves as society expected, don’t revolt. Nowadays we’d probably say “Wives, respect your husbands.” But Paul was also saying something very radical by telling the men they were supposed to love their wives as they loved their own bodies. In other words, treat their wives way better than society required them to.

Quoted for truth.

 

[Mary888]

In times of crisis is great if we can just depend on the men reasoning. This is my take of it. Also the men must not only demand to lead but be ready to lead.

 

[Sarcelle]

Yes, and it gives the appearance of creepy.

Not to mention the message it gives to their children.

 

[JimG]

You might be interested in two books written by Italian journalist Costanza Miriano, based on this scripture, one for men, one for women. One is: “Marry Him and Be Submissive.” The other is “Marry Her and Die for Her.”

 

[4Questions]

I am too young to be married myself, but based on what I have learned there is no intent for this dynamic to be creepy. It merely suggests that the husband is a leader. Yes, that dynamic can turn predatory and abusive, but you’ll notice that husbands are not really ordered to make the wife submit. So the controlling behavior you describe is not acceptable.

At its core, submission can just mean agreeing to let someone (the husband in this case) make major decisions and be loving and respecting towards them. Also, since husbands are called upon to love their wives, I’d say it sounds pretty equal to me, in a way. It doesn’t mean women should be treated as slaves.

As to what LumineDei said…yes some individuals take it too far and it becomes strange and perverse. Particularly some “trad” accounts online that I have seen. But a real Godly relationship is not demeaning towards one member or perverse, it is beautiful.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

At its core, submission can just mean agreeing to let someone (the husband in this case) make major decisions and be loving and respecting towards them.

While I generally agree with this, I note that many husbands like to get (name removed by moderator)ut from their wife before they make major decisions that will affect her and their children, such as major expenditures, where the family will live, whether the husband should change jobs or go back to school, etc. This is part of loving his wife as Scripture says he should do. So the couple really make the decisions together.

 

[adgloriam]

This means the husband is tasked with shepherding his family to heaven and God expects him to take the lead in making sure his family is on the right path to sainthood. He has to lead the way to heaven.

It does not mean he has to end up as a micromanager, administrating every aspect of his wife’s life like she was one of his minor children, nor is it a green light for the husband to abuse his wife.

Thanks @Sarcelle , it’s so rare to hear someone say this.

However, the wives realized their husbands needed to have the final say in certain matters or deserved respect as the head of the household, and they generally gave that without needing to be badgered about it and largely without thinking about it too much.

This is the real trick isn’t it? Defining “certain matters” under specific circumstances (that aren’t simply trivial) is the difficult part. That is an exercise (of objective analyses) I haven’t seen anyone elaborate on, not even here on CAF…

But, whatever the case, the simple notion gives something to build on - and is better than nothing.

 

[adgloriam]

It is creepy.

I’ll tell you what’s creepy: that the wife somehow lets herself be peer-pressured and manipulated into betraying her husband.

had past posts on the forum from a woman (or possibly two) who said

And how many cases of those I mentioned have we seen??

 

[Lea101]

As a man I feel really weird about this whole submissive thing. Why do wives have to submit to their husbands? They’re their own women. I don’t want my wife to submit to me. What if I’m wrong about something? Shouldn’t she do what’s right and not what I want her to do? It just seems very controlling. Or it’s often used as an excuse by men who wish to control and abuse their wives.

I can understand my children being obedient toward me. But I wouldn’t expect or demand that any woman obey me. That’s just creepy. Am I the only one who feels this way?

You’re obviously not the only one, or else it wouldn’t be such a controversial topic!

I wouldn’t want that as well, and it’s one of the things that make me not want to have a Catholic marriage (if I’m going to be extremely honest and expose myself to judgment here)

I grew up in a very patriarchal household, and the only proper freedom my mother got was when she died! Seeing similar marriages around me and growing up in a society with mostly egalitarian values made me feel like such submission is usually unnecessary in a loving marriage.

I just don’t want it for me. I don’t get analogies either, such as the captain/ceo/first in command. Seems pretty unnecessary to have that sort of dynamics in a relationship with just two people.

I don’t defer to a friend within a friendship for instance. Sometimes in a relationship you have to, but I wouldn’t make the decision based on what’s between someone’s legs but rather on their points/capabilities.

Doesn’t matter how loving he is, that argument never made sense to me. A loving master is still a master. A loved slave is still a slave. Before anyone jumps on me for that comparison, my point is that I’m not really concerned about abuse, since Christians made it clear that it is sinful. I’m concerned about the structure and its implications.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

This is the real trick isn’t it? Defining “certain matters” under specific circumstances (that aren’t simply trivial) is the difficult part. That is an exercise (of objective analyses) I haven’t seen anyone elaborate on, not even here on CAF…

It’s because it varies with the man. Some things are pretty universal, such as what job or profession husband will take up, where he will work etc. But a lot of other things fall in the "some men want control and some don’t " category. For example, neither my father nor my husband wanted to have much to do with the family budget. They wanted a wife to just deal with that. I’ve known other men who wanted to be the main one managing the budget.

It can also be small things like what time the husband likes to eat dinner and does he need to rest up for a certain amount of time after work before getting involved with talking to his wife, helping with the kids etc.

 

[Thrstypirate]

Here’s a nice video about the subject from a woman’s POV:

 

[Lea101]

Never really understood this perspective.

She broke down the word submit, an English word, instead of using the source word. Which as far as I know, does not mean under the mission.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The bible is pretty clear that women at best second class citizens and at worst property.

Huh? This to me shows a pretty major misunderstanding of/ lack of familiarity with the Bible. Jesus sure didn’t treat women in this way.

William Lane Craig would say

Not a Catholic, so whatever this guy says to me is irrelevant to the current discussion. We’re addressing this question from a Catholic perspective.

we women stood up for ourselves and fought hard against both of those previous states to achieve the equality that is normal in most of the civilized world.

This is a social issue and either peripheral or not relevant at all to the current discussion.

Lets all agree at least that we can cherrypick around leviticus and numbers when it comes to how we treat eachother.

Leviticus and Numbers were written as law for a particular people at a particular historic time. They are not binding on Catholics today, so I don’t bother to look at them at all when I’m considering how to treat someone. Jesus said it all when he told us to love the Lord your God and to love your neighbor as yourself. That’s all I need.

 

[Vico]

As a man I feel really weird about this whole submissive thing. Why do wives have to submit to their husbands? They’re their own women. I don’t want my wife to submit to me. What if I’m wrong about something? Shouldn’t she do what’s right and not what I want her to do? It just seems very controlling. Or it’s often used as an excuse by men who wish to control and abuse their wives.

I can understand my children being obedient toward me. But I wouldn’t expect or demand that any woman obey me. That’s just creepy. Am I the only one who feels this way?

Pope Pius XI (1930) stated in Casti cannubii, the husband occupies the chief place in ruling, such that the wife claims the chief place in love:

27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-...ents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html