He also calls men to die for their wives. He calls, in short, for mutual submission in love.
Mark:
Yes - Paul does call men to do this. But - as I've argued before/elsewhere - when JPII speaks of "mutual submission," I think he means more than this (regarding the husband's role). Why? Because - Christ did this too - Christ died for his bride. But - JPII says that the husband-wife relationship is unlike the Christ-Church relationship in involving mutual rather than one-sided submission. Ergo, dying for one's bride doesn't equal submission, in JPII's view. Ergo, to make the submission mutual, something else has to be going on.
I've put it in terms for the need for listening/learning on the husband's part. Christ doesn't need to learn from the Church what it needs - he knows infinitely better already. But the husband, in order to exercise his headship, does need to do that listening/learning.
Good discussion on this, Mark, except you should have included that tricky bit that immediately follows the "wives, be subject..." bit: Paul's command to husbands: ..."love your wives, and give yourselves up for her, as Christ gave himself up for his Church..."
I.e., freely offer your whole life as a loving holocost for the sake of your wife, every day of your marriage. The "Paul was a victim of his times" crowd always conveniently ignores that, which imposes on men to a far greater degree of sacrifice than that imposed on women.
My own pastor, Fr. David Hoefler of Blessed Sacrament Church here in Springfield, gave an excellent homily on this passage on Sunday, in which he said that in the community to which Paul was writing, women, including slaves, were little more than chattel. Telling them that husbands and wives were to submit to each other -- and that husbands were called to a degree of sacrifice beyond even that, was a radical departure from what they were used to.
(My parish, btw, was the parish of Sen. Richard Durbin until our former pastor publically announced that Durbin would no longer be allowed to receive communion here.)
I agree with all of this but there is still something missing. Sure husbands and wives are both called to love and submit. Still there are different words addressed to husbands than there are to wives. Man is compared to Christ. Woman is compared to the church. There are differant roles described. Most people don't reflect on that for fear of being labeled a chauvanist. Some latch onto the word respect in verse 33. It is an easier sell than the word submit.
It is a hard teaching in a very personal area. I know I am fearful of messing up a very good relationship with my wife by suggesting she be more submissive. Still I wonder if John Paul II missed something. Maybe it is as much truth as the church can accept right now.
Christ is submissive to his Bride. Why else do we pray?
The husband is the proper head and leader of the family. But I think what JP2 was trying to get across is that married life is a collaborative effort to accomplish the will of God. The two are not separate, but compose one entity before the Lord. The wife submits to her husband by acknowleding his headship and supporting him in that role, while the husband submits to his wife by deferring to her own gifts and talents and graces. Because they are one flesh, her wisdom is his wisdom. If he ignores her wisdom, and does not submit especially when it comes from the Lord, he is being prideful and it is the same as ignoring his own gifts of wisdom.
Jason:
JPII himself says that in the Christ-Church relationship, the submission is one-sided.
We pray for our sake - not because Christ needs us to.
Not that the emphasis is misplaced by any means, but a lot of people focus on the Cross in thinking of the relationship between Christ and the Church in this passage. The relationship is much deeper. Christ gives Sacraments and graces to help the Church fulfill its task of leading souls to salvation. Similarly husbands are to provide for their wives those things that will aid her in providing a home.
The odd thing is that my wife is not Catholic, but she has no problem asking for indulgences from me.
JPII himself says that in the Christ-Church relationship, the submission is one-sided.
We pray for our sake - not because Christ needs us to.
In one sense, yes, it is one-sided, because God is God. Unlike a husband, he knows all and so everything he says is right and true, which is why he doesn't need our input.
However, in another sense, and I don't think this would conflict with what JP2 was saying, Christ is submissive to the Church. Not because he needs our input, but because he loves us, and listens to us, and ordains his providence in view of our prayers and our desires.
I just wanna know who gets to pick the movie.
Mark,
First, I don't really like this pre/post conciliar division. My reading of the Council is that it went back to the fathers of the church to shed new (old!) light on matters that had been dulled by neoscholaticism. That was what de Lubac etc were all about.
To the matter at hand: I don't necessarily disagree with you. Yes, as you and others point out, Paul was way ahead of his time in the way he treated women (he followed Christ in this regard). This is especially astounding given how male-centred middle eastern mediterranean culture was (and indeed still is to some extent).
But still, St. Paul was in some sense constrained by his culture. I don't think he saw women as truly equal to men, as they are (I remember one of the prayers during my wedding last year which stated clearly "she is your equal"). Paul came very very close to calling for mutual submission, but he didn't take the final step that John Paul did. At the time St. Paul could not distinguish the one-way subjection of the Church to Christ from the two-way subjection of husband and wife, despite the fact he said, “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.” God the Holy Spirit made the point clear to Pope John Paul II.
Even today: how many American protestants think that Paul's injunction for women to be subject to their husbands operates in one direction only? Many!
I just wanna know who gets to pick the movie.
It depends. If you are a conservative Bill, the wife gets to choose as long as it isn't a matter of faith and morals. As a conservative Christ-like figure, what falls under faith and morals is quite limited, so there is nary a film you won't be forced to see. Breakback Mountain you won't have to endure for instance.
If you are a liberal Bill, as long as the film respects the social justice teachings in its content and creation, you are stuck going. An ASPCA endorsement will generally suffice. Any sin and depravity you will have to suffer through, because that is part of the human condition. You might have to be veto films such as Die Hard, but that depends on how much the teaching has evolved.
Hope this helps!
Why is that when someone critiques something MM has written, she merely repeats herself, as though what we really need to do is memorize the passage like a section from a progressive catechism? It's the same pattern in virtually every thread.
In any event, wise thoughts, Mark and Kevin; thanks for sharing them.
Morning,
I think I might agree, to an extent. Perhaps we could say Paul was "constrained" in the same way he was "constrained" from saying "All slaves should be set free". That doesn't mean he supported slavery, but he did accept the reality, and chose to tell slaves to obey their masters in humility until God redeems them. We wouldn't speak the same way today, after the civilized world has rejected slavery. Maybe, in the same way, St. Paul's teaching reflected the emphasis on male authority in marriage in a way that we wouldn't speak today. But, I would stress that Paul wasn't wrong or in need of "correction", but perhaps the Church has rounded out and "developed" his teaching.
But still, St. Paul was in some sense constrained by his culture.
Oh, the rhetorical contortions some people will endure to appease fevered-brow feminists.
However, St. Paul's teaching does have great importance, because man IS the head and leader of the family. Mutual submission does not abolish his headship, and the special submission of wife to husband, but rather, it illuminates how that headship should be lived out, in harmony.
I think it is simplistic to think that EVERYTHING JP II wrote was ipso facto inspired by the Holy Spirit, as MM writes.
Certainly, it deserves our utmost respect and careful study, but an "Apostolic Exhortation" is not close to the same level as an "Encyclical", much less an infallible pronouncement.
It remains to be seen how/if this new idea can be fit in with previous Church teaching. Kevin has some good ideas in this regard. I reiterate, though, that a plain reading of the passage would not give a person any reason to believe that verse 21 specifically applies to spouses as opposed to all Christians in general.
Making verse 22 simply a repeat of verse 21 doesn't attribute much intelligence to St. Paul. Rather, the verses following 21 specify exactly HOW the universal principle of "putting others first" is played out in the specific arena of familial relations.
Perhaps we could say Paul was "constrained" in the same way he was "constrained" from saying "All slaves should be set free".
WHAT? So, was Jesus himself constrained because he also failed to say, "All slaves should be set free"?
If you believe in biblical inspiration (that each book has God as its author)how can you pretend like the human author was somehow constrained.
I'll annoy Rich Leonardi and repeat myself, or at least quote from the Nuptual Blessing A from the wedding mass:
"Look with love upon this woman, your daughter, now joined together husband in marriage. She asks your blessing. Give her the grace of love and peace. May she always follow the example of the holy women whose praises are sung in the scriptures. May her husband put his trust in her and recognise that she is his equal and the heir with him to the life of grace. May he always honour her and love her as Christ loves his bride, the Church."
This is the mutual submission, the two-way submission. In this, hubands and wives are equal.
Why is this considered "progressive'?
Again, I agree with Dave Mueller. I think that JPII's letter to families does not interpret verse 21 as referring specifically to husbands and wives, but that JPII himself borrows the phrase himself and applies it to the couple. This is not the same as interpreting Paul to say that.
A different example. It is popular to use the passage from Deuteronomy 30:19 "I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live" in teaching about Abortion.
But the use of this passage and it's message does not mean that the passage ITSELF was referring to abortion, which it clearly was not.
Dave:
It's worse than you think. In fact, *nothing* JPII wrote was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Pope has a charism of infallibility, not inspiration. He is protected from error, not given the power to reveal new truths from God.
That said, there's a reason Bob Sungenis is all worked up about JPII relating Ephesians 5:21 to the teaching on marriage that follows it: he does.
Actually, if the liberals really wanted to change things, just talking is pretty darn useless. I'd recommend they use the "Lysistrata" strategy - get as many women as possible to deny sex to their husbands until Ephesians, or possibly all of St. Paul's writings, are cut out of the Bible. (I believe it was Chuck Colson, in his Nixon administration days, who said, "Get them by the *****, and their hearts and minds will follow." )
I'm not saying it would work,(or even that I'd be in favor of trying it ) but it seems to be, humanly speaking, more practical than just repeating the mantra "St. Paul was culturally conditioned " over and over. Actions speak louder than words.
WHAT? So, was Jesus himself constrained because he also failed to say, "All slaves should be set free"?
If you believe in biblical inspiration (that each book has God as its author)how can you pretend like the human author was somehow constrained.
Jesus didn't write any Scripture, as far as I know. And he was Divine. Small but important fact.
That the Bible was inspired doesn't mean it didn't reflect the circumstances and limitations of the Sacred Author. Moses wasn't in a position to give a scientific treatise in Genesis, and he didn't intend to. He talked about the creation of the earth as best he could, guided by the inspirtation of the Holy Spirit.
*So, yes, St. Paul was constrained from solving the problem of slavery. So, he accepted the institution as a fact of life, and addressed slaves appropriately, telling them to bear with their slavery for the time being, knowing that God is a patient rewarder.
If someone were enslaved today, we wouldn't tell them to bear with it. We would consider it an egregious abuse of human rights, and expect their government to put an end to it. The Pope would denounce it with the harshest words.
Rich Leonardi: MM is hardly the first comboxer to seem a bit repetitive when arguing her point. Nor will she be the last. And at least she is arguing a point, not just slamming somebody.
So, since Jesus didn't write any scripture and all the human authors are constrained by, Well, being human, then you must take the entire bible with a few grains of salt, then eh? I mean, now that we're so enlightened these days and unconstrained by some of the things that human writers were constrained by.
Someone needs to send Mark's comments to our friends at SJA in MN. They find this reading too horrible to even consider preaching on it.
Chris,
No, not with a grain of salt, but I do try to put Scripture in context. Why is there hardly a mention of explicit Marian piety in the New Testament, but she takes such a huge role today in our spiritual lives as Catholics? If we never progressed from Scripture, we would barely mention Mary ever. Some might try to put it in context and say the early Christians were worried about pagan converts who might take the Saints and make them new Gods, and so they didn't emphasize them as much. Is that true? I don't know. But it's as good a theory as any. It's better than saying "The Bible was wrong and knew nothing about Mary", or "The Church has corrupted the message of the Bible". Maybe there was a historical reason why the cult of the Saints wasn't as explicit in the first Christian communities?
One clarification, folks, I am a man, not a woman! Thank you!
M.M.
Why so emphatic on that point? They're both equal and the same, right? 
Chris,
Indeed! I should have added (in classic Seinfeld form): "not that there's anything wrong with it"!
Change of thought here if any one can answer my question: Why do women no longer wear head coverings at Mass? I was raised Catholic but am a post Vat II woman and am curious about this esp since St Paul says women should wear head coverings in Church (and for that matter, never speak in Church)....
Lily,
This is why I said St. Paul (visionary though he was) was still constrained by the culture of his time. The injunction that women cover their heads out of respect was a purely cultural one. Of course, Paul himself knew all about distinguishing between moral laws and cultures, evidenced by his approach to cicumcision. I am surprised this point seems so controversial!
MM, I am confused,too, bc growing up in the US I have never worn a hat, yet I read and note that Traditionalists insist that women cover their head in Church, note that the Blessed Virgin (who I dearly love) is always pictured with her head covered, note the tradition of women wearing hats in Church (only dropped after Vat II) and often worry that I might be offending God in Church without a head covering. My husband, who I asked in a spirit of submission :>, said he thought it would look silly for me to wear something that isn't a part of our culture, but he, too, admits to know little about this issue having grown up in the post Vat II Church with little catechesis.
I wish the Church would clear this up for if I was directed to wear a head covering, I would. I guess it sounds silly but when St. Paul directs women to wear head coverings and we don't .....and the Pope sees women all the time at the Vatican masses without head coverings, so if it were imperative to wear one, wouldn't he direct the people in that direction?
Random thoughts, if anyone could help me out?
It seems to me that Americans assume the phenomenon of head-covering to be something imported from the surrounding culture, thus dispensable. (They also beg the question in assuming that to eliminate it is a net plus to the Church.) But the relevant question here to me is, what customs and disciplines are phenomena that the Church ought to be exporting to the culture for their teaching value, or even for their own sake? After all, your mother told you (or should have) to act right and use manners even if the other kids don't.
True Craig, and yet the Pope sees women at the Vatican masses with no head coverings and doesn't say anything about it and I've never heard JPII teach on this....
I personally think the Church should influence the culture (!), but I haven't heard a homily or direction in this matter (save from Traditionalistic web sites) in my entire life.
So, what am I to think? Did the head coverings drop because of our culture? Then why don't the Romans wear them? I see the Spanish still wear them at times....
Lily:
Perhaps you might consider being a Catholic in the fullness of your Church's history, instead of being constrained by your time?
There are reasons for everything in the bible, don't let anyone tell you to write something off based on the author being "constrained by their time". The lessons are timeless, the application is different. It is always most appropriate to display humility and submission in the Church. Woman at the time of St. Paul wore a head covering out of humility and submission, so they always followed that code in Church. At St. Paul's time men did not wear a hat out of humility and submission, so they always followed that code in Church.
How can you apply this teaching today? Men still do not ever wear a hat in Church, it would be disrespectful. What should women do to show humility and submission?
Hi Lily,
This discussion might help answer your questions:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/
answe...s_in_church.htm
You are right that the Church should influence the culture, but the Church also follows the example of Paul in "being all things to all men." One can see this general approach in the existence of multiple rites, ways of administering the sacraments, religious orders, theological approaches influenced by philosophy, etc...that exist in the Church. Inculturation has been important in Church history.
Thanks Matt and Ryan C.
On this topic I have often thought of Chesterton when he said (paraphrase) "Break the conventions; Keep the commandments."
If something is a convention, it is not sinful to break with it, but it seems in this area it is difficult to determine what is convention, what a commandment, meaning what is honorable to God. I guess what I'm saying is I wish the Church would state clearly: women wear head coverings or not, instead of leaving it to lay persons to read canon law (the EWTN link states the law, no longer in effect, it looks like) which might as well be written to me in ancient Aramaic....
(and of course you all know rights to the remote and the picking of movies fall into the area of convention.....;>)
'That the Bible was inspired doesn't mean it didn't reflect the circumstances and limitations of the Sacred Author.' ! God is the author of the Scriptures; see Vatican I, Vatican II, and all of church tradition. He doesn't have any circumstances or limitations. The human author (who in the case of Ephesians probably isn't St.Paul) undoubtedly has limititations, but you can't hold that the biblical text reflects these limitations - at least in the sense of these limtations leading to false teaching - since the notion of divine inspiration rules out this possibility. This fact has been underlined by many popes, notably by Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus 18-21, Benedict XIV in Spiritus Paraclitus 16, and Pius
XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu 3, and is the constant and explicit teaching of all of Catholic tradition (including Vatican II, which refers to the papal texts of Leo XIII and Pius XII in Dei Verbum, 11). The comparison with the teaching on head coverings is a good one. This is plausibly seen as directed to the particular individuals to whom the letter was originally addressed, and not as being meant for all Christians. The teaching on submission, though, is meant for all Christians, since it is related to the central mystery of our salvation. So you can't explain it or parts of it away as not applying to people today.
He doesn't have any circumstances or limitations. The human author (who in the case of Ephesians probably isn't St.Paul) undoubtedly has limititations, but you can't hold that the biblical text reflects these limitations - at least in the sense of these limtations leading to false teaching - since the notion of divine inspiration rules out this possibility.
Who said anything about "false teachings"? I specifically rejected that St. Paul was in error or needed correction.
What I said is that St. Paul's letter can be put into the context of his time. Why did he speak the way he did? Is his way of speaking the only way of speaking? Does the Church not have a right to round out what he said, and put it in a larger and fuller context? St. Paul wasn't a narcissist. He wasn't trying to give the last word forever. The Bible isn't the Koran. It's not a transcipt of God's dictation to man. It's an inspired human document, and we musn't forget either, the human or the divine.
So, getting back to the point, St. Paul's emphasis can very easily be seen against the backdrop of his culture, where a man's authority in the family (and in society) was much more strict and concentrated than it is today. There's nothing wrong with that. St. Paul addressed the Church of his time, and John Paul addresses the Church of his time. Times do change, and thankfully, we have a Magisterium to help us process revelation so that we don't fall into either extreme of ignoring what Scripture is saying, or not putting Scripture into its own context, as well as the context of 2,000 years of doctrinal development and reflection.
*The essential point St. Paul is getting across is that man is the head of the family, because he is a leader by nature, and woman is his body. They are one flesh. Someone has to take the role of leadership, and that role falls to the husband. But in exercising their respective roles, there is a certain mutual submission, because they are both on a journey to discern the will of God. The wife should look to her husband for leadership, and he should look to his wife for her gifts and talents. Together, they share what the Lord works through them, and do the will of God. If the husband does not submit to his wife's gifts and wisdom, then he fails in his duty as husband. And if the wife does not submit to her husband's gifts and wisdom, and accept his leadership, then she fails in her duty as a wife.
But, how this relationship takes form will differ in every age, as Pope Pius XI says in "Casti Connubii":
"Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time."
The degree and manner of subjection in the Church of St. Paul was very different than today, and that's fine. But our language today will reflect the development in society, and the development in the theology of marriage and sexuality (thanks in large part to JP2's theology of the body).
I first thoroughly appreciated these verses from Ephesians after reading more about JPII's Theology of the Body, which I understood to imply that "be subject to" is to be an agent acting, as in verb-subject-object grammar, not an object of subjugation.
If I may, permit me to express it thus,
"Wives wife your husbands"
"Husbands husband your wives".
Interesting to note that in linguistic typology while English (and Arabic in modern usage) is SVO, Gaelic, Aramaic, biblical Hebrew (and Arabic originally) were VSO. In Old Norse hus - bond means householder, priveleged to freehold his family members. So the human meaning is "husbands do all in your power to provide an abode free of bondage for your wives" and thus "Wives do all in your power to hold-free your husbands" from Old Gothic freo, wife, related to German freude/friede or joy-peace.
The masculine burden, that of the sacerdotal office, is to provide an abode free of bondage for us, the members priveleged to be part of the Universal Church family, through the sacraments that loose the bonds of sin [householding-priest-flock].
The feminine burden, that of the members of the Church, is to promote a priveleged state of grace, by adherence to the sacraments [freeholding-flock-priest].
The genius of John Paul was to express this insight in ecclesiological terms, where the first term in the grammatic syntax of salvation is the verb LOVE, the communio of the Holy Spirit, eternally householding us so we can be freeholders of the gifts of creation. As powerful as this revelation was, Benedict XVI recognizes that the challenge for evangelizing the culture is to identify what chains of misunderstanding retain our separated brothers and sisters as vassals in serfdom, outside the household of conjugal unity in freedom (wifedom), tilling the fields but not inheriting the harvest.
He resognizes that the slavery of secularism is even more abject. Here we are called to proclaim the dignity of man, sever the bonds of attachment to false idols, and carry mankind 'over the threshold' so to speak in uxorious devotion into the home of our heavenly Father. "Behold I stand at the door and knock Rev 3:20"
To be a Christian then, in my understanding, means to be priveleged to fall into his arms and be carried faithfully into freedom, regardless of gender. I believe its always been that way. Nothing threateningly pre- or post- about it, in my mind. As 'imago dei' male and female human beings then, are equally free to be agents/abodes of Love in trinitarian communio. We are free to pursue freedom - the eternal embrace in perpetual light. Freedom is not a political term, it is escatological.
The trick is to help young ladies understand that "wiving" means being VERY selective about whose 'freehold' you're going to offer the privelege of wifedom to, and then understanding how to truely hold free, by abiding by the tenets of faith not fancies of flattery, longings of lust or surges of sentiment.
Much the same advise could be profered to modern day Church-goers also:
Abide by the tenets of faith not fancies of flattery, longings of lust or surges of sentiment!
Another interesting point of syntax, for missionaries and evangelizers, SVO and SOV word orders account for more than 75% of the world's languages, elevating the human being to primacy, whereas "in the beginning was the Word" the Bible's authors wrote in the minority VSO word order where Divine Action precedes human existence, the Word is love, Deus Caritas Est!
Great posts Clare.
Very thoughtful, illuminating posts, Clare. Thanks much.
Mark,
The url is:
http://www.catholicintl.com/
epol...dignitatem1.htm
Lovely Clare.
I printed that to save for my daughters.
Clare, I think you would enjoy this quote of GK Chesterton which I thought of when I read your post:
"I would give a woman not more rights, but more privileges. Instead of sending her to seek such freedom as notoriously prevails in banks and factories, I would design specially a house in which she can be free." - What's Wrong World
And the pastor of St. Joan's in Minneapolis made his decision and explained why in the bulletin!:
This is kind of a special day in the church calendar. It is the day on which all good Catholic Churches must decide whether or not they are going to read Ephesians 5:21-32 or an alternative reading. We have opted for the alternative. Ephesians 5 is the chapter where it says ‘wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.’ If this was read at St. Leonard’s at least one person would get up and leave church. I can’t imagine what would happen at St. Joan’s.
Of course, the problem with the reading, besides the fact that no American can ever envision themselves as being subordinate to anyone, is the concept that there is a perfect man, or for that matter, a perfect woman. If you were subordinate to the perfect person, who would know it? It would be a relationship of mutuality, faithfulness and sharing, not one of dominance and abuse, which is how we mainly translate subordination.
As a confessor, I still have people, mainly women confess they did not give their spouse their ‘marital rights’, meaning sex. When you explain that is your choice not their right, you usually have an explosion. “Well Father _____ always said I had to,” and he probably did; he was an imperfect man. So much of the hurt in the Church is based on the misuse and misunderstanding of power.
In another e-mail someone suggested I was returning St. Joan’s to archaic times. I’m pretty sure that is the controversy over the ‘lord I am not worthy’ phrase before communion. I know to some people that sounds like a surrender to power based on a fear of abusive dominance. I admit if it was me saying this to the church governance I would be reticent to say it, but to me it is admitting am not perfect before God. I can be the abuser, the breaker of the community. I need the help of God. It heartens me to know the pope, the cardinals and the archbishops have to say it too.
Commenting by HaloScan
