My fiancée is organist and choir director at two parishes south of Urbana, IL, both under the care of the same priest. At one we got the full version; at the other, we got the sanitized version. I don't think there was any rhyme or reason to the difference, and to my knowledge, Father prefers the full version.

We were rather disappointed, as we were going to have a bit of fun with it. Monsignor Swetland, late of the UIUC Newman Center, calls Ephesians 5 the "nudge-nudge" passage, because first the husbands nudge their wives, and then the wives in return elbow their husbands. We were going to illustrate the point for her choir, but we didn't get the chance.
Nicholas | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 3:46 pm | #

As I posted over at Dale's blog, we got the full text version, as well as a homily that, while starting out as an apology for the scripture reading, eventually made the same point you did about it being a "hard saying" and tying it into the Gospel lesson.
Jay Anderson | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 4:05 pm | #

We had some guest Sisters of Mercy as lectors on Sunday and the one who read Eph. 5 used the short version. As soon as Padre started his homily he said, "Chicken!" and expounded on the "This is a hard saying" bit. He didn't really address Eph. 5 that much, but he at least made note of the shortened text.
Brandon | 08.30.06 - 4:06 pm | #

We were blessed with the shorter version. I'm sure it was shortened b/c the mass is such a well-oiled machine that the extra few sentences a typical long version contains would throw off the whole works. I'm still waiting for the more accomodative Passion Sunday.
M.Z. Forrest | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 4:12 pm | #

short version. not even close to be mentioned in the homily.
c matt | 08.30.06 - 4:14 pm | #

Short version at the big mid-morning family Mass; long version at the 8AM attended by Clan Leonardi. No mention during the homily, which was rather good and focused on the last part of the Eucharistic discourse of John 6.
Rich Leonardi | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 4:17 pm | #

We got the short version. But that's not what really got my attention. One of our deacons got up and started his homily with a chuckling reference to the fact that he "wasn't even going to focus at all on the comments in today's reading about women submitting to men because he has a wife, and a boss, etc. who he has to answer to." There were a few giggles in the pews but mostly people gaping in confusion.

I suppose he prepared his homily based on the full version. But he didn't seem to have noticed that they didn't even read that part. It was weird.
NM | 08.30.06 - 4:22 pm | #

Long reading, and our deacon did a nice job in tying eph. 5 into our need for the Eucharist.
dpt | 08.30.06 - 4:27 pm | #

We received the shortened version, which made me, as a husband, a bit angry (can't think of a better word) since the truncated version starts by admonishing husbands to love their wives. So it's important for the husbands to be good, but not the wives?

I don't think there is any reason for embarrassment over the injunction for wives to be submissive to their husbands, either, as it is because the husband is supposed to be like Christ to the wife, and really if anything the passage places a MUCH larger burden on the husband - we all have to be models of Christ, the wives only have to submit.

I don't see it as being sexist at all, but a call for all spouses to order their married lives in the same way as the Church is ordered, each being faithful to the other, etc.
olddinosaur | 08.30.06 - 4:28 pm | #

By the way, I should mention that at our parish, the magnificent Fr. Bernhard Blankenhorn, OP, not only did the long version but then did a very careful exegesis of the passage.

I love Blessed Sacrament parish!
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 4:29 pm | #

Truncated version at my parish. I was cantoring at Mass, and when the reader was reading I thought maybe I'd dozed off or something, and just missed it. Just checked with DH, who has a most excellent memory, and he assured me the truncated version was read. Now I'm mad.
'thann | 08.30.06 - 4:44 pm | #

The problem is, the long version requires a lot of exposition. St. Paul was a victim of his time and of his heritage. So, when he directed wives to be subject to their husbands he failed to explicitly direct husbands to be equally subject to their wives. He came very close, but still not quite. Pope John Paul II filled in the blanks in Mulieris Dignitatem. That is quite a nuanced argument to make!
Morning's Minion | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 4:46 pm | #

We got the Revised Vasectomy Version.
iClaudius | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 4:47 pm | #

At our parish we got the short version, then when Father read the Gospel he changed "this is a hard saying, who can stand for it?" to this is hard saying, how can we understand it?" And then his homily focused on the word "Spirit" in the Gospel as being the "animating force of human life." Between the songs that were sung and the homily, it seemed very strange to me, but at least we did have Our Lord in the Eucharist.
Patricia | 08.30.06 - 4:54 pm | #

MM:

It is a magnificently provincial thing for you to say "St. Paul was a victim of his time". I look forward to further diagnoses of poor Jesus' inability to think like a 21st Century suburban American, who see all, know all.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 5:02 pm | #

Here in Arkansas I got the full verson accompanied by a long homily explaining it. I sat there and watched as a few women left outside the doors and returned when the homily was over. Father West, our parish priest is Orthodox in his ways.

Once he fully explained the passage it became apparent that women have it easy. All they have to do is just obey their husbands. The men have to be Christ-like, and when their wives look at them they should see Christ. Anyone who tries to be a saint knows it's hard, imagine trying to be a saint while raising children and being married. It is a challenging task indeed to be completely Christ-like. The burden is really on the husbands.
Nighthaven | 08.30.06 - 5:03 pm | #

Mark,

We are all victims of our time. What's your point? I am in no way trying to demean St. Paul. But JP did develop Paul's theme here.

And, by the way, I think 21st century suburban Americans can be particularly insular and deluded!
Morning's Minion | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 5:15 pm | #

MM:

You may not be trying to, but you are certainly demeaning St. Paul. What you mean, when translated, is that it is the task of modern exegetes to correct, not interpret, the apostolic tradition.

In fact, JPII does not correct St. Paul. Because he does not introduce the notion of mutual submission: St. Paul does. "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" is the keystone of the entire discussion of marriage. That is why it is so stupid to extirpate the verses addressed to women and address only men. It is to treat men alone as moral agents. When Paul writes these words, he is writing to a world in which it was assumed women were *not* moral agents. He calls upon them to be disciples and not drones. He also calls me to die for their wives.

He is not a blinded slave of his culture, but a radical thinker who is way ahead, both of his time and ours.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 5:27 pm | #

We got the full version and an homily much like the one gien by Father West mentioned above. We women have it easy. The onus is on the husband to be Christlike. Truly Christlike. Let's pray for all the husbands of the world, shall we?
C.C. | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 5:41 pm | #

We had the short version, which didn't bother me because 1) I had to read it and I didn't want all those folks glaring at me and 2) if you're not going to preach on it and explain it to people (our pastor did so three years ago, but not this year), it's likely just to leave people pissed off. I know, I know, they should remember the homily from three years ago when it was preached on, but some of them won't. I know, I know, they should be familiar with scripture and be able to interpret it, but many of them aren't. I guess I'm being condescending, but that's the way it seems to me.

Regarding Nighthaven's comment: Once he fully explained the passage it became apparent that women have it easy. All they have to do is just obey their husbands. The men have to be Christ-like, and when their wives look at them they should see Christ. I think it is interpretations like this that make people hate the passage. We're all called to be Christ-like; Women shouldn't want to "have it easy" in this regard. As Mark pointed out, Paul begins by telling us to "be subject to one another," so I think the intention of the passage is not to say that women are lucky that they get to obey their husbands.

By the way, Mark, I'm jealous year get to hear Bernhard Blankenhorn on a regular basis. I've never heard him preach, but his published work is very impressive.
F. C. Bauerschmidt | 08.30.06 - 5:44 pm | #

Mark,
I am interested in this exegesis. How is it that verse 21 is applied specifically to married couples? This is not obvious to me. It seems just as plausible that verse 21 is part of the general admonitions which make up the first part of chapter 5, and the specific application of this in regards to the family is addressed afterwards in the rest of chapter 5 and part of chapter 6.

That the "submission" called for is not meant in the sense of domination or tyranny is a given, but I think that verse 22 is stripped of meaning when it is asserted that the SAME submission is called for by the husband.

Rather, as is pointed out earlier, it is a much more difficult call which the husband has...think about it...who has the tougher job, Christ or the Church?
Dave Mueller | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 5:48 pm | #

It's always seemed to me that Paul is telling each sex what they need to hear. Men finding it easy to submit, love. And women having less of a problem loving, submit.
cricket | 08.30.06 - 6:01 pm | #

At our Franciscan parish in Portland, we got the long version - but I'm sure it was because our wonderful Mexican senior pastor, Fr. Armando, insisted on it, contradicting the liturgy committee.

The lector had a terribly pained look on her face while reading it in a sad and apologetic tone.

The homily was great, focusing on "hard sayings".

I think we can stay here as long as Fr. Armando does.
Kathleen Lundquist | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 6:04 pm | #

Cricket,

That's how I've interpreted it too. Cool!

--Noah
Noah Nehm | 08.30.06 - 6:07 pm | #

The short version. And the deacon did not allude to the excised text. Very irritating.
Ed Graham | 08.30.06 - 6:10 pm | #

I just moved to Michigan not two weeks ago, so I'm still searching for a parish. This week was a trip to the UM student parish (I'm in law school at Ave Maria, so thought I'd give a college-oriented parish a try). Long version of the second reading (yeah!). Father started his homily by saying "I first want to address the second reading" (yeah!!!). "I want to assure everyone that, unlike our protestant brothers and sisters, we do NOT interpret scripture literally" (WHAT?!?!). He emphasized that the passage was calling us to be Christ-like, but not without calling Paul's treatment of the subject "sexist."

Also, the "hard sayings" that drove the disciples away was apparently Jesus' call to more closely follow Him. No mention of the Eucharistic discourse we heard in last week's gospel and that immediately preceded the line "this is a hard saying." Must be one of those instances where we Catholics, unlike our protestant brothers and sisters, don't interpret the Bible literally.

The parish search continues next Sunday.
Stephen | 08.30.06 - 6:38 pm | #

I was on business in Aspen, CO and -- Aspen being a well-known playground of the liberal jet set -- I was expecting an "Oh, Lord you're going to have to help me through this one" Mass.

To my great surprise, we received a tremendous homily tying together all three readings. While the priest did not mention the "text in question", I did not have the feeling that he was attempting to avoid it.

His theme was submission to Christ. If we are to accept the unfathomable gift He has given us through his death and resurrection, we must submit to him fully or be like the disciples who left him because of the "hard saying." There was so much more, and he did a wonderful job (even if he did preach a bit longer "than the seat can endure").

It dawned on me late in the Mass that even though I was in Aspen, I also was in the Archdiocese of Denver. Archbishop Chaput is sending his seminarians to very good seminaries! The people of Aspen (St. Mary's) are being well served!

P.S. While there I noticed Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D) (my governor) and his wife in the congregation. Governor Kaine is an unfortunately typical Catholic politician: See: Kennedy, Cuomo, Leahy, Schwarzenegger, etc. Let us pray that the homily touched his conscience to help him renounce his views on abortion, stem cells, etc.
Suibhne | 08.30.06 - 6:45 pm | #

Dave Mueller:

I think you're right on. I don't believe that verse 21 refers to the relationship between husband and wife but fellow members of the community. He then goes on to address the marital relationship in which he gives Husband and Wife each a unique command. Wives be subordinate, Husbands Love as Christ Loved. There is no, "And vice versa" to it.

Why do certain people always want to act like the fact that we are all EQUAL IN THE SIGHT OF GOD, means we must also be THE SAME IN THE SIGHT OF GOD?
Chris-2-4 | 08.30.06 - 6:57 pm | #

Dave, Chris:

John Paul II's letter to Families reads Eph 5:21 as referring to spouses:

Saint Paul, after having said: "Husbands, love your wives" (Eph 5:25), emphatically adds: "Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, because we are members of his body" (Eph 5:28-30). And he encourages spouses with the words: "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21).
Mark Shea | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 7:10 pm | #

We got the long version. The priest focused on the Eucharist & the John 6 passage 7 how it related to the Joshua passage. I thought he'd bring in the St Paul epistle - he got so close a few times, thematically - but he never did.

But the teaching on the Eucharist was wonderful & always needed.
Gene Branaman | 08.30.06 - 7:17 pm | #

We had the short reading (at which my wife and I exchanged pained glances). This is unusual for our fairly orthodox parish, so I think it was the decision of that particular lector (who was a young man). We had a guest priest who had obviously assumed the longer version would be read. He didn't spend a whole lot of time on it (the homily was of the general hard-sayings type), but neither did he pooh-pooh it or avoid it.
Vince C | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 7:50 pm | #

We had a young priest, the long reading, and the priest started his homily by remarking he'd been waiting for years to be able to preach on the Ephesians passage. And went on to do a good job of explicating Christian submission in all three readings. A friend and I congratulated him afterward.
Elaine T | 08.30.06 - 8:18 pm | #

I got the long version at the chapel of the Little Sisters of the Poor but the sermon was about unbridled choice as the sickness of our age, tied into Joshua's faithful choice in the OT reading.Marriage isn't an issue for most of the congregation there.

But once upon a time in our former parish, the pastor melodramatically whispered the "wives be submissive" line, then shouted the "husbands love your wives." As I said, at our former parish.
Sandra Miesel | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 8:32 pm | #

"Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her..."

Yikes......considering what Christ did for his Church it appears the guys got a pretty tough task.....
Tom | 08.30.06 - 8:49 pm | #

We got the long version at my NY parish. And the sermon by a rather liberal Redemprist visiting priest was better than average.
Mary | 08.30.06 - 8:57 pm | #

I never read that commentary of your's, Mark (apparently from last year).
It was wonderful and brilliant -- thank you for it.
Brandon | 08.30.06 - 9:09 pm | #

Stephen, try Christ the King parish. I just did a little quick Mapquest research to confirm my recollection of the relevant Ann Arbor layout (haven't spent a lot of time there), and it looks like it's quite close to Ave Maria.
Kasia | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 10:16 pm | #

+J.M.J+

Long version here. The homily was mostly about the other readings, but the pastor did mention the "controversial" second reading in some opening remarks toward the beginning of Mass.

In Jesu et Maria;
Rosemarie | 08.30.06 - 10:29 pm | #

Of course, the simple way out, (and, BTW, the way St. Paul recommends) is to stay single.
Donna Marie Lewis | Homepage | 08.30.06 - 10:58 pm | #

I was called on to pinch-lector in my parish (Rockland county NY) and made sure that they got the long version.
PMcGrath | 08.31.06 - 12:04 am | #

Yes, John Paul insists that Ephesians 21 applies to spouses rather than a general introduction to the several kinds of submission characteristic of Church household codes. The problem here is that the overwhelmingly majority of exegetes, both Catholic and Protestant, would disagree with this. Before we immediately jump to the conclusion that the exegetes are being corrected by John Paul, we should remember that one of the reasons that the Holy Father selected the genre "Apostolic Exhortation" rather than "Encyclical Letter" is that he wanted to be free to speculate rather than simply expound established teaching. His speculation is quite venturesome (especially his remark about the logic of redemption). It breaks new ground and is in discontinuity with the treatment of this subject found in virtually all the moral manuals in the modern period. The notion that Paul is expecting husbands to submit in obedience to their wives (as opposed to sacrificial self-donation) is absolutely novel - not wrong - just new!

The exhaustive evidence for my conviction that 5:21, according to the most competent exegetes, both Catholic and Protestant, does NOT refer to spouses can be found in Stephen Clark's MAN AND WOMAN IN CHRIST.

My own opinion is that John Paul's speculation is rich and suggestive, but completely unsupported by exhaustive exegetical studies of the passage. Of course, I don't share my opinion about this with my wife - who has her own theological views on this! LOL
Tom Haessler | 08.31.06 - 2:03 am | #

We got the long version, but then WOW!!! A full blown, pull no punches, hard hitting homily on John 6, the "heart of the Church"... Imagine! "Mortal sin" and "missing Sunday mass" in *one* sentence! "How can you say there is just a cookie in that box over there...how can you say that?" was another. The last sentence of the sermon read "Are you going to walk away too?"
Boat Guy | 08.31.06 - 3:51 am | #

Tom: I agree with what you're saying about the views of most exegetes. I'd add, though, that for JPII, it isn't simply a question of figuring out what 5:21, taken in isolation, or only in the context of the chapter, means - it's a question of figuring out what the implications would be of its broader context in the Pauline corpus (and its even broader context in the NT as a whole). I think one has to consider especially the implications of the fact that we're all (men and women, husbands and wives) members of the one body and bride of Christ - we all (men and women, husbands and wives) have Christ as our head and bridegroom. This doesn't by any means obliterate distinctions between men and women. And JPII doesn't say that it does. But it does, I think it can be plausibly argued, entail a certain relativization of things like human "headship"/"submission," including within marriage - such that while the husband's headship is real, it has to be exercised in the context of a significant listening to and learning from the wife (which I think is probably the content of the husband's part of the "mutual submission" of which JPII speaks).
Kevin Miller | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 6:39 am | #

At our parish in MA we got the incomplete version.
The homily attempted to incorporate the roles of husbands AND wives with reference to the truncated text alone. The is was noticably odd to anyone who i) knew the text or ii) had listened to what was read and noticed that the role of wives was never mentioned. . . .

Of course, it was printed that way in the missal. Who makes those decisions?
Peter | 08.31.06 - 8:38 am | #

We heard the full version of the Esphesians 5 passage, and an outstanding homily from our visiting priest (Fr. Kevin Barrett, the Apostolate for Family Consecration's chaplain). Father Barrett talked about the consequences of the rejection of such 'hard sayings' throughout the Bible and Sacred Tradition (schism, the reformation), and specifically about the rejection of St. Paul's words in Ephesians 5 (broken families, loose sexual mores, etc.). In other words, it was brilliant.
djrakowski | 08.31.06 - 10:25 am | #

Tom said: "Yikes......considering what Christ did for his Church it appears the guys got a pretty tough task....."

Indeed.

I used to be a religion teacher at an all-girls Catholic high school. In the Scripture classes I taught, I always particularly enjoyed talking about this passage because it gave me an opportunity to expose my students to the richness of the theology of the body. Whenever we would discuss this passage, I prefaced the discussion by saying that what we were about to read might sound upsetting to them at first, but that there was a deeper meaning that we would talk about afterward.

While I can't say that all of my students were always mollified by the type of explanation Tom summarized, by and large they did give an impression along the lines of, "Hmmm...I never thought of it that way before."
John Jansen | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 10:57 am | #

We got the long version, and a homily by our new pastor.

First, he explained that the disciples who left Jesus over the gospel's "hard saying" were giving an impatient response, where they didn't understand, jumped to conclusions, decided they didn't have time for this, and left. He contrasted this nicely with Peter's act of faith.

Then he moved on to Ephesians. He said we were often tempted to make impatient responses too. The first impatient response he called the "Ralph Kramden" response: "You hear that, Alice?! Wives should be submissive....as to the LORD! See, it says so, in the Bible..."

The second impatient response Father referred to as the "Helen Reddy" response, as in "...hear me roar." "What? Submissive? I don't think so! Book my passage to the Lilith Fair, and tell the Kabbalah Center I'm coming..."

For those of us who hadn't laughed ourselves into unconsciousness yet, Father then offered this third impatient response. This one, he said, is "...when Father looks ahead to the readings for next Sunday and says, 'Oh, dear. It's that pesky reading from Ephesians again. Hmmm.....I know! I'll have the DEACON preach this Sunday...."

Best homily on this passage I've ever heard, especially since Father's use of the phrase "impatient response" put these attitudes toward the Ephesians passage in the same category as the response of those disciples who left Jesus in the Gospel reading.
eCurious | 08.31.06 - 3:14 pm | #

Morning Missile, pardon me, but u r stoopfid. To wit...

St. Paul was a victim of his time and of his heritage..... We are all victims of our time. What's your point?

Chesterton replies: "The Catholic Church is the only think that saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

Quit wasting our time, Morning Missile.

We got the long version, and an excellent homily by our pastor, Fr. David Hoefler (Blessed Sacrament* Church, Springfield, Ill., Mark!). Fr. Hoefler started with reminding the congregation of the passage's opening sentence: the call to mutual submission in Christ. He then gave historical context for the epistle: that it was written to a community in which wives were little better than slaves.

The Fr. Hoefler then explained how husbands being called to "love your wives, as Christ loved the Church..." requires a much greater sacrifice from men than from women. Finally, he said the passage cannot be fully undersood without examining the bit at the end where Paul refers to marriage as a "great mystery," reflective of the nuptual relationship of Christ and the Church. Brilliant stuff.

*Blessed Sacrament, where I go, was the parish of of Sen. Durbin until a couple of years ago, when our former paster (who is now the bishop of Forth Worth) publically announced that Durbin would no longer be permitted to receive communion there until he returns to Church teaching regarding abortion. Fr. Hoefler has maintained the ban.
Sean P. Dailey | Homepage | 08.31.06 - 4:38 pm | #

Interesting discussion of this, from a Priest's view, at http://ragemonkey.blogspot.com/, August 27, 2006 entry.

Chris
Chris Parks | 08.31.06 - 8:01 pm | #

Hello, Kevin Miller,

Your excellent reading of both John Paul's intent and its application to traditional teaching makes possible a reconciliation between John Paul's development of traditional teaching on the explanation of Pius XI in CASTI CONNUBII which takes into consideration cultural aspects and also carefully distinguishes wifely submission from a child or servant's submission to parental or employer authority. I think this is an important topic that, when explored in depth, will reveal the important distinction between Christian feminism (which works with communitarian and personalist categories) and secular feminism (which is really, imho, a species of bourgeois individualism despite certain socialist pretensions).

I've noticed that in those Catholic circles that take this matter seriously the "submission" seems to be a softer, more humane, variety than the harder, more legalistic, variety that one finds in many evangelical circles.

The upshot of all this is that we once again see the greatness of John Paul II who was able to combine fidelity with theological creativity.
Tom Haessler | 09.01.06 - 12:49 am | #