I don’t mean to revive this thread at all but I came across 1 Peter chapter 3. Doesn’t this mean that a wife is to submit to her husband no matter what, even if he is verbally/physically abusive? Protestants seem to hold this view, but I want to know what Catholics think of this chapter
That verse is referring primarily to wives of non-Christian husbands–“
so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see your reverent and chaste behavior”, so it’s always a bit odd when it’s applied to Christian husbands of Christian women.
(Bear in mind that in the classical world, heads of households traditionally had the power of life and death over every member of the household, so that there would be an element of prudence in not annoying them unnecessarily. See, for example, the Wikipedia entry on “pater familias”–a Roman father was traditionally able to kill deformed children at birth and he was able to sell his children into slavery if he wished to.)
His use of the word “submissive” is also explained later on by his use of the phrase “reverent and chaste behavior” later in the same verse. So, there’s a possibility that “submissive” might have largely meant to St. Peter, don’t commit adultery or act like you would be eager to do so.
There’s also the issue that just a few verses down St. Peter urges Christians to “Finally, all of you, have
unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, **a tender heart **and
a humble mind.” That applies to husbands toward wives, too.
Furthermore, you will often see the authors of the New Testament urging submission to civil authorities and they use the term “submit” there, too. Forgive the long quote, but here’s one from Romans 13:
“Let every person
be subject to the governing authorities.** For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.** 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.”
From Titus 3: “1 Remind them to
be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work.”
So, on the one hand, Christians are to be subject to and submissive to civil authority, but on the other hand, Christians (who we venerate as saints) were historically perpetually getting into hot water with the civil authorities for NOT obeying the civil authority in all respects. Which strongly suggests to me that just as there are limits to to parameters of civil authority, there are similar limits to authority within the family–neither form of authority is unlimited.
See also Acts 5 and the story of Ananias and Sapphira (another long quote):
"But a man named Anani′as with his wife Sapphi′ra sold a piece of property, 2 and
with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Anani′as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 When Anani′as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
“7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died.”
Very interestingly, the person who condemns Sapphira for cooperating in her husband’s fraudulent scheme is Peter, who presumably wrote 1 Peter 3…So, whatever he meant in 1 Peter 3 has to be understood in light of the fact that he thought Sapphira had done wrong in lying under her husband’s orders.
So, I don’t think an extreme reading of the submission verses makes sense.
Thanks.
