"Wives submit to your husbands" and Catechism?

[valient_Lucy]

Pope JP II explains it all in this Letter to Women. He does’t ask women to submit to their husbands like a father/daughter relationship either.

…neither has any other pope in any other writing. Neither does the Bible.** I don’t get why some of y’all are stuck on this.** (I have read the Letter to Women, btw, it’s great.)

It’s because these verses and this concept have been used to keep women from leaving an abusive relationship. My mom (not Catholic) stayed with my father for years because she believed that women should submit to their husbands and that divorce was wrong. My brother and I had to beg her for over a year to get rid of him, because my brother and I simply could not live that life anymore.

I also remember a conversation I had with a girl in college (also not Catholic) who talked about the women in her family who stayed with husbands who beat them, and she felt that this was the right decision. She explained that women were supposed to be submissive to their husbands, including their husbands’ beatings. If these women went to their (Protestant) pastor for advice on what to do, they were told that they should submit to their husbands.

Please note from the example that I’m not blaming Catholics exclusively for this problem, especially since some of the worst offenders in my experience are Protestants.

Actually, the USCCB published a very good letter about this issue, but the title escapes me.

 

[severus68]

It’s because these verses and this concept have been used to keep women from leaving an abusive relationship. My mom (not Catholic) stayed with my father for years because she believed that women should submit to their husbands and that divorce was wrong. My brother and I had to beg her for over a year to get rid of him, because my brother and I simply could not live that life anymore.

I also remember a conversation I had with a girl in college (also not Catholic) who talked about the women in her family who stayed with husbands who beat them, and she felt that this was the right decision. She explained that women were supposed to be submissive to their husbands, including their husbands’ beatings. If these women went to their (Protestant) pastor for advice on what to do, they were told that they should submit to their husbands.

Please note from the example that I’m not blaming Catholics exclusively for this problem, especially since some of the worst offenders in my experience are Protestants.

Actually, the USCCB published a very good letter about this issue, but the title escapes me.

Thanks for sharing Lucy. No one has the right to abuse another and it a worse sin to say God gave that right.

It is not all Protestants who believe in the submission of wives.

I have read what the USCCB has said about it. I am not from the US but it would be interesting to read it again.

 

[severus68]

It’s because these verses and this concept have been used to keep women from leaving an abusive relationship. My mom (not Catholic) stayed with my father for years because she believed that women should submit to their husbands and that divorce was wrong. My brother and I had to beg her for over a year to get rid of him, because my brother and I simply could not live that life anymore.

I also remember a conversation I had with a girl in college (also not Catholic) who talked about the women in her family who stayed with husbands who beat them, and she felt that this was the right decision. She explained that women were supposed to be submissive to their husbands, including their husbands’ beatings. If these women went to their (Protestant) pastor for advice on what to do, they were told that they should submit to their husbands.

Please note from the example that I’m not blaming Catholics exclusively for this problem, especially since some of the worst offenders in my experience are Protestants.

Actually, the USCCB published a very good letter about this issue, but the title escapes me.

Here is the link to that USCCB letter. God bless.
usccb.org/laity/help.shtml

 

[ChiRho]

I am actually as well as with other passages and commentaries as well bible notes on them. This view of yours and others is the same old same old exaltation of men and negation of the equality of women. A man is not a God figure, neither is a woman.

Then what does Paul mean when he makes the Christ:Church, husband:wife analogy? It is explicitly stated that the husband takes roles similar to Christ and the wife similar to the Church, one dying for the other, the other submitting to the other. How is this equivalent to an exaltation of men and negation of the equality of women (whatever that actually means)?

 

[severus68]

Then what does Paul mean when he makes the Christ:Church, husband:wife analogy? It is explicitly stated that the husband takes roles similar to Christ and the wife similar to the Church, one dying for the other, the other submitting to the other. How is this equivalent to an exaltation of men and negation of the equality of women (whatever that actually means)?

See 1 Corinthians 11 and 12 please. Why did Paul write that please? See what JPII had to say and the USCCB. I referto USCCB as I see you live in the US. Why does the Church not insert or reinsert “obey” in marriage vows for the woman?

If you say a wife submits to her husband and some here have even said an adult woman must submit to the authority of her father/brother, that negates the teachings of the Church about the equality of women, and certainly negates Christ 's teachings that all are equal. Paul was living in the Jewish culture then. If you take this passage literally, then you are saying an impossibility as how on earth would any man be able to ever love as Christ (God) loves the Church.

 

[ChiRho]

See 1 Corinthians 11 and 12 please. Why did Paul write that please? See what JPII had to say and the USCCB. I referto USCCB as I see you live in the US. Why does the Church not insert or reinsert “obey” in marriage vows for the woman?

If you say a wife submits to her husband and some here have even said an adult woman must submit to the authority of her father/brother, that negates the teachings of the Church about the equality of women, and certainly negates Christ 's teachings that all are equal. Paul was living in the Jewish culture then. If you take this passage literally, then you are saying an impossibility as how on earth would any man be able to ever love as Christ (God) loves the Church.

You didn’t answer my questions, you just said essentially “It can’t possible mean submit because this would conflict with A, B, and C.”

I am simply asking whether these passages advise the man to take a Christ-like position in the marriage, and the woman a Church-like role.

Furthermore, what do you mean by “equality”? The word can be meant to mean so many things, it’s fairly useless unless strictly defined. I think you are equivocating what Christ meant by equality into some modern concept of the word. Are you arguing that Paul’s words “negate” Christ’s teachings? That they directly contradict them?

 

[severus68]

You didn’t answer my questions, you just said essentially “It can’t possible mean submit because this would conflict with A, B, and C.”

I am simply asking whether these passages advise the man to take a Christ-like position in the marriage, and the woman a Church-like role.

Furthermore, what do you mean by “equality”? The word can be meant to mean so many things, it’s fairly useless unless strictly defined. I think you are equivocating what Christ meant by equality into some modern concept of the word. Are you arguing that Paul’s words “negate” Christ’s teachings? That they directly contradict them?

Why does no one respond when I refer to 1 Corinthians 11 and 12? I have posted what JPII and the USCCB have said on the meaning of that passage. So that is what I say it means. Here are some extracts:

“Many abusive men hold a view of women as inferior. Their conversation and language reveal their attitude towards a woman’s place in society. Many believe that men are meant to dominate and control women”.
Abused women often say, “I can’t leave this relationship. The Bible says it would be wrong.” Abusive men often say, “The Bible says my wife should be submissive to me.” They take the biblical text and distort it to support their right to batter.

As bishops, we condemn the use of the Bible to support abusive behavior in any form. A correct reading of Scripture leads people to an understanding of the equal dignity of men and women and to relationships based on mutuality and love. Beginning with Genesis, Scripture teaches that women and men are created in God’s image. Jesus himself always respected the human dignity of women. Pope John Paul II reminds us that "Christ’s way of acting, the Gospel of his words and deeds, is a consistent protest against whatever offends the dignity of women."11

“Men who abuse often use Ephesians 5:22, taken out of context, to justify their behavior, but the passage (v. 21-33) refers to the mutual submission of husband and wife out of love for Christ. Husbands should love their wives as they love their own body, as Christ loves the Church”.

Perhaps the requirement for husbands to love their as they love their own bodies was because of the then norms in the treatment of women by many men. The passage does not say that husbands are a Christ figure.

Again, please refer to 1 Corinthians 11 and 12 on the real equality of Christ which Paul had to espouse and accepted despite his then Jewish cultural inclinations… Tell me, do you think Christ had a limited definition of equality when it came to women? Modern concept of equality? For women? Would you prefer women be in the subserviant position they were in not so long ago and many still are?

 

[ChiRho]

Why does no one respond when I refer to 1 Corinthians 11 and 12? I have posted what JPII and the USCCB have said on the meaning of that passage. So that is what I say it means. Here are some extracts:

“Many abusive men hold a view of women as inferior. Their conversation and language reveal their attitude towards a woman’s place in society. Many believe that men are meant to dominate and control women”.
Abused women often say, “I can’t leave this relationship. The Bible says it would be wrong.” Abusive men often say, “The Bible says my wife should be submissive to me.” They take the biblical text and distort it to support their right to batter.

As bishops, we condemn the use of the Bible to support abusive behavior in any form. A correct reading of Scripture leads people to an understanding of the equal dignity of men and women and to relationships based on mutuality and love. Beginning with Genesis, Scripture teaches that women and men are created in God’s image. Jesus himself always respected the human dignity of women. Pope John Paul II reminds us that "Christ’s way of acting, the Gospel of his words and deeds, is a consistent protest against whatever offends the dignity of women."11

“Men who abuse often use Ephesians 5:22, taken out of context, to justify their behavior, but the passage (v. 21-33) refers to the mutual submission of husband and wife out of love for Christ. Husbands should love their wives as they love their own body, as Christ loves the Church”.

Perhaps the requirement for husbands to love their as they love their own bodies was because of the then norms in the treatment of women by many men. The passage does not say that husbands are a Christ figure.

Again, please refer to 1 Corinthians 11 and 12 on the real equality of Christ which Paul had to espouse and accepted despite his then Jewish cultural inclinations… Tell me, do you think Christ had a limited definition of equality when it came to women? Modern concept of equality? For women? Would you prefer women be in the subserviant position they were in not so long ago and many still are?

you are equating the presence of submission to the presence of abuse. They are not the same, and I have never advocated the latter. You’re quoting me passages from bishops (whom I agree with), as if the only interpretation of “submission” is that the man must be an evil monster who is abusive to his wife, who slaves away in the kitchen endless hours. Can’t there be another option?

Are you forgetting what First Corinthians 11:3 says about the husband:wife relationship? I’m not sure how that helps your case at all. Is there anything more explicit than calling the husband the head of his wife? It seems pretty clear to me.

You aren’t answering my questions, you are just returning them with more questions. I asked you, “What do you mean by equality?”, which seems a fairly straight forward question. In return, you asked me a question which hinges on your definition of equality, which you haven’t even given me yet, then follow it with three more questions. How am I supposed to respond to your posts when all you do is ask me more questions and refuse to answer mine?

 

[ac_claire]

Why does no one respond when I refer to 1 Corinthians 11 and 12? I have posted what JPII and the USCCB have said on the meaning of that passage. So that is what I say it means. Here are some extracts:

“Many abusive men hold a view of women as inferior. Their conversation and language reveal their attitude towards a woman’s place in society. Many believe that men are meant to dominate and control women”.
Abused women often say, “I can’t leave this relationship. The Bible says it would be wrong.” Abusive men often say, “The Bible says my wife should be submissive to me.” They take the biblical text and distort it to support their right to batter.

As bishops, we condemn the use of the Bible to support abusive behavior in any form. A correct reading of Scripture leads people to an understanding of the equal dignity of men and women and to relationships based on mutuality and love. Beginning with Genesis, Scripture teaches that women and men are created in God’s image. Jesus himself always respected the human dignity of women. Pope John Paul II reminds us that "Christ’s way of acting, the Gospel of his words and deeds, is a consistent protest against whatever offends the dignity of women."11

“Men who abuse often use Ephesians 5:22, taken out of context, to justify their behavior, but the passage (v. 21-33) refers to the mutual submission of husband and wife out of love for Christ. Husbands should love their wives as they love their own body, as Christ loves the Church”.

Perhaps the requirement for husbands to love their as they love their own bodies was because of the then norms in the treatment of women by many men. The passage does not say that husbands are a Christ figure.

Again, please refer to 1 Corinthians 11 and 12 on the real equality of Christ which Paul had to espouse and accepted despite his then Jewish cultural inclinations… Tell me, do you think Christ had a limited definition of equality when it came to women? Modern concept of equality? For women? Would you prefer women be in the subserviant position they were in not so long ago and many still are?

you are equating the presence of submission to the presence of abuse. They are not the same, and I have never advocated the latter. You’re quoting me passages from bishops (whom I agree with), as if the only interpretation of “submission” is that the man must be an evil monster who is abusive to his wife, who slaves away in the kitchen endless hours. Can’t there be another option?

Severus, I did note the passages you quoted and my response basically would have been what ChiRho explained. That first sentence, especially, I think s/he nailed it. Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. I don’t undrestand why you can’t see the Corinthians verses and the Ephesians verses as both meaning exactly what they say and those meanings not being mutually exclusive?

Do some men misinterpret Ephesians 5 and try to use it to justify abuse, degregation, etc.? Sure. Does that mean the teaching of Ephesians 5 is wrong? No. It means that SOME men misinterpret it and misuse it. Those same men probably similarly misinterpret St. Paul’s exhortations to husbands to (sometimes literally) *and *figuratively give up their lives for their women. Why throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, yk?

 

[severus68]

you are equating the presence of submission to the presence of abuse. They are not the same, and I have never advocated the latter. You’re quoting me passages from bishops (whom I agree with), as if the only interpretation of “submission” is that the man must be an evil monster who is abusive to his wife, who slaves away in the kitchen endless hours. Can’t there be another option?

Are you forgetting what First Corinthians 11:3 says about the husband:wife relationship? I’m not sure how that helps your case at all. Is there anything more explicit than calling the husband the head of his wife? It seems pretty clear to me.

You aren’t answering my questions, you are just returning them with more questions. I asked you, “What do you mean by equality?”, which seems a fairly straight forward question. In return, you asked me a question which hinges on your definition of equality, which you haven’t even given me yet, then follow it with three more questions. How am I supposed to respond to your posts when all you do is ask me more questions and refuse to answer mine?

While I have referred to a USCCB letter which talks of domestic violence, the Bishops statement of the meaning of passage is relevant here.

I have tried replying to your questions but is it that you really do not see it or choose not to?
What about verses 11 and 12 where Paul makes it clear that under Christ it is different and all are equal??

Equality? As the state of being equal in status, rights and opportunities. Straight from a dictionary and yes that is what I believe in for all.

 

[ac_claire]

While I have referred to a USCCB letter which talks of domestic violence, the Bishops statement of the meaning of passage is relevant here.

I have tried replying to your questions but is it that you really do not see it or choose not to?
What about verses 11 and 12 where Paul makes it clear that under Christ it is different and all are equal??

Equality? As the state of being equal in status, rights and opportunities. Straight from a dictionary and yes that is what I believe in for all.

The Church backs up what your verses says about all people (men and women) being equal in dignity and equal before Christ. Why does that contradict that a husband is the head of his wife and she is to submit to him as Christ did to the Church, and he is to die for her as Christ did for the Church? Why do you think those interpretations are mutually exclusive?

Wifely submission does not equal abuse or inequality. That seems to be the root issue/misunderstanding here.

 

[severus68]

The Church backs up what your verses says about all people (men and women) being equal in dignity and equal before Christ. Why does that contradict that a husband is the head of his wife and she is to submit to him as Christ did to the Church, and he is to die for her as Christ did for the Church? Why do you think those interpretations are mutually exclusive?

Wifely submission does not equal abuse or inequality. That seems to be the root issue/misunderstanding here.

I never said that passage supported or encouraged abuse. Claire, by now it should be clear that my position is that Christ never asked for a wife to submit to her husband and that the Church today does not say a wife must obey or submit to her husband but marriage is about mutual submission. There is no understanding on my part.

If you and any woman wishes to submit to her husband, it is not for me or any other man or woman to tell you otherwise.

 

[LittleDeb]

The Church backs up what your verses says about all people (men and women) being equal in dignity and equal before Christ. Why does that contradict that a husband is the head of his wife and she is to submit to him as Christ did to the Church, and he is to die for her as Christ did for the Church? Why do you think those interpretations are mutually exclusive?

Wifely submission does not equal abuse or inequality. That seems to be the root issue/misunderstanding here.

That is my question exactly!

 

[LittleDeb]

I never said that passage supported or encouraged abuse. Claire, by now it should be clear that my position is that Christ never asked for a wife to submit to her husband and that the Church today does not say a wife must obey or submit to her husband but marriage is about mutual submission. There is no understanding on my part.

If you and any woman wishes to submit to her husband, it is not for me or any other man or woman to tell you otherwise.

What it sounds like you are saying is that it is only a cultural reference, not binding on today.

Blessed John Paul II goes to great lengths in his talks on TOB to express that Eph 5 is expressing mutual submission. Like ac claire said, She is the bride, he is the bridegroom. The roles are defined by the model of Christ and his Church. The roles are not interchangeable. The bride is not the one who dies. This is modeled first for us by the Garden of Eden. Eve disobeyed the Lord, instead of offering himself in place of his bride, Adam participated in her disobedience, instead. They were both expelled from the Garden.

The point remains true that the man must be willing to offer himself (submit himself) for his bride. And the bride must submit to that offer. How is that just a culturally-bound time-period interpretation?

 

[severus68]

What it sounds like you are saying is that it is only a cultural reference, not binding on today.

Blessed John Paul II goes to great lengths in his talks on TOB to express that Eph 5 is expressing mutual submission. Like ac claire said, She is the bride, he is the bridegroom. The roles are defined by the model of Christ and his Church. The roles are not interchangeable. The bride is not the one who dies. This is modeled first for us by the Garden of Eden. Eve disobeyed the Lord, instead of offering himself in place of his bride, Adam participated in her disobedience, instead. They were both expelled from the Garden.

The point remains true that the man must be willing to offer himself (submit himself) for his bride. And the bride must submit to that offer. How is that just a culturally-bound time-period interpretation?

I have read what JPII said at length and I have read quite a bit more on this issue. With respect to you and Claire,I have no desire to prolong what to me is a going no where discussion/debate. There have been a few threads on this and similar issues since I joined CAF and I know all the reasoning given.

Strangely I never realised that some Catholics still took this position today until I joined CAF. I recall a wedding my family and I attended at an Evangilical church where the pastor went on and on about the “obey” in the vows for the bride. He did it precisely because there were many Catholics in the church. After the service my extended Catholic family joked about it, my cousin telling one of my brothers “thank goodness our wives do not need to submit to us or where would we all be now.” My elderly Methodist was also smiling with amusement at the pastor’s words.

I have asked this question more than once but have got no answer from anyone who takes your position - Why does the Church not require a bride to vow to obey her husband if you are sure your position is the position of the Church please?

 

[happymommy]

I have read what JPII said at length and I have read quite a bit more on this issue. With respect to you and Claire,I have no desire to prolong what to me is a going no where discussion/debate. There have been a few threads on this and similar issues since I joined CAF and I know all the reasoning given.

Strangely I never realised that some Catholics still took this position today until I joined CAF. I recall a wedding my family and I attended at an Evangilical church where the pastor went on and on about the “obey” in the vows for the bride. He did it precisely because there were many Catholics in the church. After the service my extended Catholic family joked about it, my cousin telling one of my brothers “thank goodness our wives do not need to submit to us or where would we all be now.” My elderly Methodist was also smiling with amusement at the pastor’s words.

I have asked this question more than once but have got no answer from anyone who takes your position - Why does the Church not require a bride to vow to obey her husband if you are sure your position is the position of the Church please?

because obey and submit are not the same thing. I must submit to my husband, but I do not have to obey him as my children do. There is a difference:shrug:

 

[severus68]

because obey and submit are not the same thing. I must submit to my husband, but I do not have to obey him as my children do. There is a difference:shrug:

With respect, thats just semantics. If you submit, you defer to him .

 

[happymommy]

With respect, thats just semantics. If you submit, you defer to him .

defer - to yield with courtesy

obey - to carry out the orders of

There is a difference. Some don’t want to see it because they don’t want to “have” to defer to anyone.

 

[ac_claire]

I have asked this question more than once but have got no answer from anyone who takes your position - Why does the Church not require a bride to vow to obey her husband if you are sure your position is the position of the Church please?

The Church’s position IS that Ephesians 5 is infallible and inerrant. Read the sources given. Countless popes and theologians have written and taught on the topic. If a lot of people you know don’t seem to follow/believe in/understand it…what does that really prove? A lot of Catholics use ABC, but the Church still has her position. A lot of Catholics believe in abortion on demand, but the Church still has her position, etc.

Why do you equate submission (or even to defer or to obey) as the Church defines it with abuse?

 

[ChiRho]

I have asked this question more than once but have got no answer from anyone who takes your position - Why does the Church not require a bride to vow to obey her husband if you are sure your position is the position of the Church please?

Catholic wedding vows also do not tell husbands to “love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her
to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,
that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.”, so does that mean that this isn’t the position of the Church? Obviously not.

However, I am interested in the usage of wedding vows over time, would like to learn the history of them.