The first thing that drew my attention to this piece was 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. As we will see shortly, perhaps the reason Mr. Drummey didn't cite anyone else in the Catholic Church is that he knows they all, collectively, teach something quite different about the wife's submission to her husband than what John Paul II states in Mulieris Dignitatem.

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. That command is summarily dismissed from the discussion and subsumed under the more general category of "mutual submission," all without a word of explanation to the reader. Knowing Mr. Drummey as I do, I know he is old enough to realize that the traditional Church would answer the reader's question quite differently (i.e., it would answer the question by stating that the wife is to submit to her husband). But since Mr. Drummey, along with The Wanderer and many other modern Catholics, has decided to be indiscriminate of any papal word or deed disseminated to them today, he has no qualms overlooking 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 liberal-leaning publications. For example, in a recent 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. (1)

Is "Mutual Submission" a Correct Teaching?

Irrespective of Mr. Drummey's and Fr. Wilson's intentions, let's get right to the heart of the matter. Did St. Paul intend to teach "mutual submission" between spouses in Ephesians 5:21-22 when he told the wife to submit to her husband? The rest of this essay will be devoted to answering that question. Suffice it to say for now, however, that giving the answer "mutual submission" to the question of the wife's role in the marriage is at best confusing and evasive, and at worst an utter novelty 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 which 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 doesn't 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 our 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 but relieves Christ of the same, shows that he has understood and applied 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.

We also see in n. 24 that, in light of his understanding of the relationship between Christ and the Church, John Paul II deduces that husbands and wives do not have a "one-sided" arrangement. Even though the remaining context of Ephesians 5:23-33 compares the church's subjection to Christ with the wife's subjection to her husband, as well as 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." In John Paul's estimation, Ephesians 5:21 has the same legal requirements for husband as Ephesians 5:22 has for the wife, and thus can be placed in opposition to, superior to, or the sole interpreter of Ephesians 5:22. In effect, Ephesians 5:21 and 5:22 balance (or cancel) each other out, and thus the submission between spouses is to be understood as "mutual."

That the above is indeed John Paul'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's analysis which we will discuss in the remainder of this essay. Notice first he asserts Ephesians 5:21 is speaking directly to husbands and wives, and gives no indication he understands the verse as speaking to the Church at large. Second, he says that love makes the husband subject to the wife, and thus posits a 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 mutual subjections.

Interestingly enough, in the September 18 issue, The Wanderer published an op ed column by James K. Fitzpatrick which deals precisely with the same issue of wifely submission in Ephesians 5:22 that James Drummey and Fr. Wilson had addressed. Fitzpatrick takes quite a different tack than both of them. 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.(2)

Notice that, unlike Mr. 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 to the neo-catholic 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 a culturally conditioned demand that needs to be reinterpreted for modern man. In the words of Mr. Fitzpatrick, this is the "essence of modernism." Is he correct?

Scripture, the Fathers and St. Thomas Regarding the Wife's Submission to Her Husband:

From all the evidence available to us, it appears that John Paul II's "mutual submission" interpretation is in direct conflict with what the Fathers, the Tradition, and Scripture declare on this issue. These three 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 "mutual submission." There are over a half-dozen passages in the New Testament that require the wife's submission, some under pain of discipline if she refuses. 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 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).

The Greek exegete, Severian of Gabala writes on 1 Cor 11:3:

Since man did not make woman, the question here does not concern the origin of woman. Rather it concerns only submission. (Pauline Commentary from the Greek Church, 15:260).

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. (3)

1 Corinthians 14:34-35

Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

For the record, the phrase "to be subject" is from the Greek word hupotasso, the same word used in Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5 and 1 Peter 3:1, 5 in the command for the wife to submit to her husband. Additionally, we notice in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 that St. Paul uses "the law" as his precedent and authority. This means the wife's submission to the husband is not a new teaching being forced upon the churches, but one that has come directly from the precepts of the Old Testament, and which apparently is still in force. Again, this shows the legal undergirding of her obligation to be in submission. In addition, in verse 37, St. Paul adds: "the things I write to you are the commandments of the Lord." Thus St. Paul gives two legal witnesses to his testimony concerning a woman's obligation to submit to her husband, the same two or three witnesses he requires of himself (cf., 2 Cor. 13:1).

The Church Fathers had no qualms about this either. In fact, so precise was their interpretation that they insisted on prohibiting women from ever speaking in Church. As representative of their teaching, we will cite a relatively early Father, Origen, on 1 Cor 14:34:

First, if our prophetesses have spoken, show us the signs of prophecy in them. Second, even if the daughters of Philip did prophesy [Acts 21:8-9], they did not do so inside the church. Likewise in the Old Testament, although Deborah was reputed to be a prophetess [Judges 4:4], there is no indication that she ever corporately addressed the people in the way that Isaiah or Jeremiah did. The same is true of Huldah [2 Kings 22:14]. (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4, 74, 6-16).

1 2 3 4 5 6