1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

In the last issue of CFN we discussed Galatians 3:28 and Vatican II. We found that neither of these sources give any directives, whatsoever, concerning new functionary roles for women in the Church.2 In this present installment we are going to analyze another Scripture passage abused by the post-conciliar modernists, Ephesians 5:21. The verse reads: “Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.” As of the mid-twentieth century, post-conciliar modernists apply this passage to husband and wife, that is, they teach that spouses are to be “mutually submissive” to one another. Although this interpretation never saw the light of day in Church tradition, one will find it saturating modernist theological literature, both Catholic and Protestant. It is one of the best examples how a simple and straightforward Scriptural passage can be twisted and distorted to such a degree that it is made to say exactly the opposite of what it intended and what it was interpreted to mean in centuries past. This upheaval of traditional understanding is made even more egregious since John Paul II has reiterated this new and erroneous interpretation in his apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem. It is just another example of how far afield Wojtylian modernism has attempted to move the Catholic Church. In fact, we will see that the teaching of tradition is so clear on this issue we wonder how anyone with even a modest theological background could have missed it.

Before we get into an analysis of this crucial passage we will look at one of the best examples of pre-conciliar understanding not only of Ephesians 5:21 but of the whole area of the role of women in our modern era. We don’t have to look far. Pius XI wrote a beautiful and comprehensive summation of traditional teaching on the subject of the woman’s role in society and Church in his famous encyclical Casti Connubii. I will underline Pius XI’s more pertinent statements. In the section titled “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery (74-77)” he writes:

The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away the with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further an assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs, and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological psychological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion an mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman, even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband, maybe at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the whole family of an ever-watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as among the pagans the mere instrument of man.

This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of family life.

As, however, the social and economic conditions of the married woman must in some way be altered on account of the changes in social intercourse, it is part of the office of the public authority to adapt the civil rights of the wife to modern needs and requirements, keeping in view what the natural disposition and temperament of the female sex, good morality, and the welfare of the family demands, and provided always that the essential order of the domestic society remain intact, founded as it is on something higher than human authority and the wisdom of God, and so not changeable by public laws or at the pleasure of private individuals.

As we can see, Pius XI mentions nothing about “mutual submission,” and neither did any pope, council, saint, doctor, Father or theologian before him. For Pius XI and the rest of the traditional Church, the wife is to be in submission to her husband and the husband is never said to be in submission to his wife. Moreover, in his last paragraph, Pius XI is careful to balance out the issue, teaching that women are to be given the utmost respect, but a respect that is in keeping with their God-given role as wife, mother or single servant of God.

Unfortunately, Pius XI’s teaching has all but been emasculated today. The buzz phrase among modernists and neo-conservatives is “mutual submission.” Let’s take a gander at some of the neo-conservative literature. In the August 28, 2003 issue of The Wanderer, editor of Catholic Replies, James J. Drummey, received a question from a reader regarding the biblical passages that state that a woman is to be in submission to her husband. The reader referred to 1 Peter 3:1 (“In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands”) and Ephesians 5:22 (“Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord”) and asked: “Please explain how the Catholic Church interprets these statements.” Mr. Drummey then wrote three paragraphs of explanation, all of which made reference to the teaching of John Paul II in the 1988 apostolic letter Mulieris Dignitatem (“The Dignity of Women”).

The first thing we should notice here is that the reader asked: “how the Catholic Church interprets these statements,” but Mr. Drummey quoted only from John Paul II. Whether intentionally or not, this certainly gives the impression that Mr. Drummey considers only John Paul II’s writings as representative of the Catholic Church on this particular question. Unfortunately, the reader was deprived of the entire tradition of the Church which holds a wealth of knowledge on this very topic, and something quite opposed to the pope’s opinion.

In his opening sentence, Mr. Drummey gives a synopsis of John Paul’s teaching:

Pope John Paul has explained that these passages are to be understood as a mutual submission of both spouses since Eph 5:21 says: ‘Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.’

Notice that the answer contains no word about the meaning or application of the specific command for wives to submit to their husbands, which appears in the next two verses, Ephesians 5:22-23: “Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord. Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church,” the very verses that the inquirer to Drummey’s forum posed to him. Drummey summarily dismisses that verse from the discussion and subsumes it under the more general category of “mutual submission,” all without one word of explanation to his reader. Unfortunately, Mr. Drummey, along with The Wanderer for whom he writes, have decided to be indiscriminate of any papal word or deed, and thus they have few qualms in overlooking over 1900 years of Catholic tradition for one sentence in an apostolic letter that doesn’t even purport to give the definitive or binding teaching on the meaning and application of spousal submission.

The same type of interpretation can be found in other neo-conservative publications. For example, in a 2003 issue of Envoy Magazine a woman sent the following question (note the reticence she has in accepting the biblical command):

I recently read an excerpt from a forthcoming book by a Catholic woman in which she used the word “submission” to refer to a woman’s position toward her husband as the head of the family. I think the word submission is inappropriate...the word “submission” has a painful edge to it...

The following answer was given by a Fr. Brian Wilson of the staff of Envoy:

Okay, fine. Now, have you noticed that he [St. Paul] in the same passage that husbands should love their wives? Yes? All right then, do you think that means that wives don’t have to love their husbands? Well, no, don’t be silly; of course not. So then, what makes you think that by the same token husbands shouldn’t be subject to their wives? Love is not a one-way street, and neither is subordination, or “being subject to.” Both the subordination and the love are mutual.3

If this is what is appearing in neo-conservative circles, you can just imagine the horrendous interpretations that are popping up among the ultra liberals. Suffice it to say, these interpretations are utter novelties in the annals of Catholic thought and practice. A thorough examination of the patristics, the medievals, other papal encyclicals, and last but not least, Scripture itself, reveals that “mutual submission” was never taught or intended in the tradition of the Catholic Church, either officially or unofficially.

Continuing with his answer, Mr. Drummey provides the reader with a quote from Mulieris Dignitatem that confirms his understanding of the pope’s teaching:

However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the ‘subjection’ is not one-sided but mutual (n. 24).

On the one hand, the above statement recognizes that the Church’s subjection to Christ is mandatory and is not reciprocal. That is to say, the Church is obliged to submit herself to Christ. If she does not submit, Christ will judge her (cf., Apocalypse 2-3). On the other hand, Christ is not obliged to submit Himself to the Church, since He is in the superior position in the relationship. If and when Christ did submit Himself to the Church, it would not be on a mandatory basis, but, as happened, for example, when He washed the apostles’ feet, His submission would be completely voluntary, and thus would not be the same as the Church’s compulsory submission to Christ. It would be for this reason, perhaps, that John Paul stipulates the Church’s submission to Christ is “one-sided.”

For the purposes of this discussion, it is important to note two related facts about John Paul’s above statement in “n. 24": (1) his use of the phrase “one-sided,” since it requires the Church’s submission to Christ but relieves Christ of submission to the Church, shows the pope has understood and is applying the legal definition of submission; and (2) he has established the premise that Christ’s love for the Church is not a submission to the Church. These two points will be very important as we proceed in this discussion.

We also see in “n. 24" that, in light of his understanding of the relationship between Christ and the Church, John Paul II erroneously concludes that husbands and wives do not have a “one-sided” arrangement. Even though the remaining context of Ephesians 5:23-33 teaches a “one-sided” relationship as it compares the church’s subjection to Christ with the wife’s subjection to her husband (and only Christ’s love for the Church with the husband’s love for his wife), John Paul II insists that the husband is required to be in subjection to the wife because of Ephesians 5:21's clause “be subject to one another.” Hence, in John Paul II’s estimation, Ephesians 5:21 has the same legal requirements for the husband as Ephesians 5:22 has for the wife, and thus Ephesians 5:21 is placed in opposition to, superior to, or the sole interpreter of Ephesians 5:22. In effect, John Paul II makes Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22 balance (or cancel) each other out, and thus he concludes that the submission between spouses is to be understood as “mutual.”

That the above is indeed John Paul II’s intention is confirmed by a General Audience address given on August 11, 1982. He writes:

The author [St. Paul], addressing husbands and wives, recommends them to be “subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (5:21)....The husband and the wife are in fact “subject to one another,” and are mutually subordinated to one another....Love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife, and thereby subject to the Lord Himself, just as the wife is to the husband.

Allow me to point out a few items about John Paul II’s analysis, which we will discuss in the remainder of this essay. Notice first he asserts that Ephesians 5:21 is speaking directly to husbands and wives, and gives no indication that the verse could possibly be speaking to the Church at large. This will become important, since it is not the way traditional exegesis has understood the passage.

Second, John Paul II says that love makes the husband subject to the wife, and thus posits a cause-effect connection between love and subjection.

Third, he says that the husband’s subjection to the wife is “just as” the wife’s subjection to the husband, thus concluding that there is no distinction between the subjection of one to the other.

Compared to traditional teaching, John Paul II’s opinions are very radical, but before we analyze them further, interestingly enough, in the September 18, 2003 issue, The Wanderer published an op ed column by James K. Fitzpatrick which deals with the issue of wifely submission in Ephesians 5:22 that James Drummey and Fr. Wilson had previously addressed. Fitzpatrick takes quite a different tack than Drummey and Wilson. Commenting on the passage, Fitzpatrick writes:

...during Mass when the epistle is read...I have heard fellow parishioners at social gatherings joke about the lines, as if they are not to be taken seriously. Over the past decade or so, I have noticed that most priests who deal with this theme in their homilies treat it as an example of a culturally determined concept that should be interpreted in light of the modern understanding of the dignity of women, as if St. Paul’s thoughts were shaped by the same forces that denied women the right to vote. Or they skirt the topic entirely, much as they would his call for slaves to be obedient to their masters, which pop up just a few paragraphs down in this same epistle. The dangers implicit in this reaction should be obvious. Picking and choosing and reinterpreting the Bible based on the cultural biases of our time, is the essence of modernism. Betty Friedan and Cosmopolitan magazine do not deserve a veto over Sacred Scripture. St. Paul deserves to be treated more seriously on this topic. If not, why treat him seriously elsewhere? Or any of the Gospels for that matter. If they become outdated when we decide that they are, everything is up for grabs.4

Notice that, unlike Drummey, Mr. Fitzpatrick does not whittle down the issue into one of the “dignity of women.” He lays it right on the line. To him, those who dismiss St. Paul’s words as “culturally biased” are imbibing the “essence of modernism.” I genuinely appreciate and applaud Mr. Fitzpatrick’s candor and honesty. However, I question whether he or the The Wanderer fully comprehended the profound ramifications of such a position before printing it. For it is precisely the “dignity of women” (the very meaning of “Mulieris Dignitatem”) that serves as the foundation for John Paul II’s teaching that spouses are to be “mutually submissive.” Moreover, as we will see later in this essay, it is John Paul II’s belief that St. Paul’s demand for wives to be submissive to their husbands is indeed a “culturally conditioned” demand that needs to be reinterpreted for modern women - the same interpretation today’s self-professed liberals give to St. Paul’s injunctions. In the words of the Wanderer’s Mr. Fitzpatrick, this is the “essence of modernism,” and indeed it is.

Scripture, the Fathers and St. Thomas on the Wife’s Submission to Her Husband:

John Paul II’s opinion that Ephesians 5:21 teaches “mutual submission” between spouses is in direct conflict with the Fathers, Tradition, and Scripture. These witnesses are quite clear that the Pauline command for a wife to be in submission to her husband is a separate, legal command for the wife; and is not to be modified or reinterpreted with respect to any kind of voluntary service spouses may give toward one another.

In order to see this clearly we shall do a survey of the patristic testimony on the over half-dozen passages in the New Testament that require the wife’s submission, some including prescriptions for discipline if she refuses to comply. Conversely, there is no command in all of Scripture stating that a husband is to be in subjection to his wife, or anything even close to it. The Tradition of the Church has confirmed this fact. Let’s examine the pertinent passages.

1 Corinthians 11:3

But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God.

The first and most obvious question a good Catholic would want to know about this passage is: What was the Church’s traditional understanding? We don’t need to go far to establish it. St. Augustine writes on 1 Cor 11:3: “For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man” (Against the Manichaeans 2, 12, 16). As it is stated clearly in Ephesians 5:22-33, Augustine uses Christ’s headship over the Church as the model for the husband’s headship over the wife. He makes no reference to “mutual submission” or anything of the sort, either here or in any of his other writings. In another place he writes:

Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man;’ and, ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.’ So also the Apostle Peter writes: ‘Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord’” (On Marriage and Concupiscence, Bk 1, Ch 10).

For the name of Christ is on the lips of every man: it is invoked by the just man in doing justice, by the perjurer in the act of deceiving, by the king to confirm his rule, by the soldier to nerve himself for battle, by the husband to establish his authority, by the wife to confess her submission, by the father to enforce his command, by the son to declare his obedience, by the master in supporting his right to govern, by the slave in performing his duty... (Letters, CCXXXII)

St. Clement of Alexandria expresses the same sentiments regarding 1 Cor 11:3:

The ruling power is therefore the head. And if ‘the Lord is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman,’ the man, ‘being the image and glory of God, is lord of the woman.’ Wherefore also in the Epistle to the Ephesians it is written, ‘Subjecting, ourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the body. Husbands, love your wives, as also Christ loved the Church. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies: he that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh.’ And in that to the Colossians it is said, ‘Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as is fit in the Lord’ (Stromata, Bk 4, Ch 8).

St. Thomas Aquinas says the same on 1 Cor 11:3, even using Augustine as further witness to this truth:

For though the wife be her husband's equal in the marriage act, yet in matters of housekeeping, the head of the woman is the man, as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 11:3). (Summa Theologica, Treatise on the Theological Virtues, Question 32, Article 8).

For the higher reason which is assigned to contemplation is compared to the lower reason which is assigned to action, and the husband is compared to his wife, who should be ruled by her husband, as Augustine says (De Trinitate xii, 3, 7, 12). (Summa Theologica, Treatise on Gratuitous Grace, Question 128, Article 4).

Not only are these witnesses straightforward about the wife’s obligation to submit to her husband, notice again that none of them refer to “mutual submission” (or any similar term) in interpreting the wife’s responsibility to her husband or in the understanding of the spousal relationship in general. Moreover, the Fathers and Aquinas understand “submission” in the legal sense (i.e., the wife is obligated to submit; the husband is not) and apply that sense to the Scriptures they are interpreting.5

To be continued next issue.

End for CFN 11-10-04

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8