How Could Such an Interpretation Seep Into Catholic Thinking?

When Pius XII gave Catholic scholars the go-ahead to experiment with the methodology of historical criticism for use in Catholic biblical studies (which originated with Protestant liberals as far back as the early 1800s), the floodgates were opened. Fueled by the ecumenical ties fostered by John XXIII and Paul VI, the main elements of Protestant liberalism seeped far and wide into Catholic scholarship. Using the same historical-critical tools they borrowed from liberal Protestants, Catholic scholars were coming to the same conclusion about the role of women - that Paul's injunctions against women (i.e., acquiring authoritative roles in government, church and family) were culturally conditioned, if not culturally biased. Rather than exegete the Pauline passages at face value, it was now time, so we were told, to reinterpret them in light of the advances in modern society regarding the status of women. Not surprisingly, we find Catholic liberal scholarship's premier biblical exegete, Fr. Raymond Brown, stating that Scripture not only contains errors in matters of history and science,(13) but also in "religious matters," that is, commands such as those which tell women to be subject to their husbands.(14)

In his 1975 book "Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church," Fr. Brown states:

...This may displease some who think that the Christian answer to the problem of ordaining women lies in a text like 1 Cor 14:33-34...or perhaps farther back, in the creation story of Genesis. But here we enter the realm of hermeneutics. Since the Bible contains the word of God in the words of men [emphasis his], these texts reflect the sociology of God's people respectively in the first century A.D. and the eleventh century B.C. They cannot be repeated as normative today in a different sociology without first investigating whether the change of social condition does not require a different expression of God's will for His people.

Fr. Brown goes on to prove my thesis in the next sentence:

It is precisely this question of hermeneutics that I shall try to grapple with, faithful to my title 'The Meaning of Modern New Testament Studies for the Ordination of Women,' by showing how the acceptance or refusal of NT criticism [i.e., historical criticism] shapes one's ecclesiology, and how one's ecclesiology or view of the Church is often decisive as to whether one thinks that women can or should be ordained.

In other words, Fr. Brown knows what the biblical text of 1 Cor. 14:33f actually says, but the question is whether we have to accept it as such. In an attached footnote he more or less proves that his intentions are to find some way to avoid Paul's literal words. Brown writes in the footnote:

It has been suggested that this text [1 Cor 14:33-34] is not genuinely Pauline but was added as a polemic against the Montanist movement where women prophets played an important role; if so, it would offset 11:5 which permits a woman to prophesy. The question needs more study.

In other words, Fr. Brown does not hesitate to entertain the proposition - brought to him by another historical critic - that St. Paul didn't even write the passage in question! Hence, whatever way he can, whether it is by claiming that Paul's "sociology" was primitive, or that Paul didn't write the piece in question, Fr. Brown will find someway to neutralize the clear literal meaning of the words to accommodate the modern appetite for innovation. That is what he calls "biblical exegesis."

Usually absent from such re-interpretation of Scripture is a recognition of the safeguards St. Paul and the other New Testament writers built into their texts to ward off such "sociological" interpretations. These safeguards are especially prominent in the New Testament's treatment of the role of women. For example, in 1 Cor. 14:34-38, there are about a half dozen such safeguards included in the text, none of which Fr. Brown, in all his verbosity on this topic, so much as mentions.

First, in verse 34, Paul makes it quite clear that the commands for women to keep silent in the churches is not a product of his culture or his own personal feelings, rather, it is "as the Law also says." Immediately following, he adds the phrase "the word of God" in verse 36 showing that "the Law" to which he makes reference is indeed God's law, not man's. As regards the "Law," Paul could be referring to any number of references in the Old Testament, including Genesis 3:16's injunctions against Eve, or Isaiah's lament in Is 3:12: "O my people! Their oppressors are children, and women rule over them. O my people, those who guide you lead you astray and confuse the direction of your paths."

So as Paul reiterates these commands to the churches, obviously it is his intent to tie together the divine commands from the past with his inspired teaching in the present to show that the command for women to keep silent is an all-pervasive truth that does not change with time. To reinforce this Paul goes on to say in verse 37 "the things I write to you are the Lord's commandment." That is, somewhere along the way, whether it was information Paul gleaned from the Gospels himself or received directly from the Lord (cf., 2 Cor 12:1-7), it is abundantly clear that the strictures regarding a women's role in the churches is not a product of Paul's "sociology," rather, it is a divine mandate that will never change. In accord with his usual practice of giving us "two or three witnesses" to a solemn truth (cf., 2 Cor 13:1), here Paul has given us three witnesses, the witness of "the Law," the witness of "the word of God" and the witness of "the Lord" to show that he had absolutely no intention of making his commands to women relative to the culture of the day.

In fact, Paul has a few choice words for people like Fr. Brown who think they know better than Scripture, or who think they can alter its words with their scientific theories. Immediately after Paul gives his command for women to keep silent in the churches, he then addresses those in the church who apparently had been ignoring the established rules regarding a women's role. In verses 36-37 Paul writes: "Was it from you that the word of God first went forth? Or has it come to you only? If any one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." Similarly, it is today's "historical critics" who think only they have discovered the true meaning of Scripture, and that because of this talent only they are the truly "spiritual" among us, yet all the while failing to realize that the very things they propose are directly against "the Lord's commandment."

John Paul II himself suggests that the injunctions against women were the result of a cultural conditioning in the time of St. Paul. He states in Mulieris Dignitatem:

'Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife' (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a 'mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ' (cf. Eph 5:21).

In other words, the statement "wives be subject to your husband" is said to be so culturally conditioned by the age in which he finds himself that St. Paul must bring forth a new interpretation to an otherwise common maxim. That is, St. Paul is said to be employing the clause "wives be subject to your husbands" not so much as a biblical command to wives, but as if he were quoting an outdated maxim of the past in order to reinterpret it or neutralize it in the present! As we have seen, John Paul II claims that St. Paul's new interpretation is one of "mutual subjection" between spouses, without distinction or qualification. Unfortunately, it appears from all the evidence we have gathered that John Paul is oblivious to the possibility that it is his own interpretation of St. Paul that may be culturally conditioned (i.e., by the modern women's liberation movement), since no Father, no medieval, no saint, no doctor or previous pope to him ever stated or even suggested that "wives be subject to your husbands" is to be interpreted as a "mutual subjection" between spouses.

Are we surprised to see these kinds of statements from John Paul II? No, not if one has been following his pontificate for the last 25 years. As I noted in one of my previous essays for The Remnant, already beginning in 1978, Cardinal Wojtyla quoted admiringly from all the top liberal Catholic and Protestant scholars of the day in his book Sign of Contradiction (e.g., Karl Rahner, Hans Kung, Henri de Lubac, Walter Kasper, Teilhard de Chardin, L. Feuerbach, Rudolph Otto, Martin Heidegger, Albert Camus, et al.), the landmark book that laid much of the groundwork for the Assisi Interreligious Prayer Gatherings occurring in 1986 and 2002, another innovation unprecedented in the annals of Catholic thought and practice.

The Impact of Genesis 3:16

Another possible reason for the pope's innovative interpretation of the "wives be subject to your husband" passages is his understanding of Genesis 3:16's clause "he shall rule over you." It appears to be John Paul II's view that the husband's rule over the wife was not originally intended by God, but was a result of Eve's sin. Thus, since the Gospel is specifically put in place to deal with sin, the pope reasons that a husband's rule over the wife should be set aside for the more gospel-oriented role of "mutual submission." He writes in Mulieris Dignitatem:

This statement in (Gen 3:16) is of great significance. It implies a reference to the mutual relationship of man and women in marriage.... But the words of the biblical text directly concern original sin and its lasting consequences in man and woman....The words of the Book of Genesis quoted previously (3:16) show how this threefold concupiscence, the "inclination to sin," will burden the mutual relationship of man and woman.

Here I think it is implicit that the pope's use of "mutual relationship" means, or at least leads to, "mutual submission," and the only reason he did not use the term "mutual submission" is that the section of Mulieris Dignitatem which uses the phrase had not been written until later in the apostolic letter where it was addressed more thoroughly.

John Paul then ties in Genesis 3:16 in the following paragraph:

If Mary is described also as the "new Eve," what [is] the meaning of this analogy? Certainly there are many. Particularly noteworthy is the meaning which sees Mary as the full revelation of all that is included in the biblical word "woman": a revelation commensurate with the mystery of the Redemption. Mary means, in a sense, a going beyond the limit spoken of in the Book of Genesis (3:16) and a return to that "beginning" in which one finds the "woman" as she was intended to be in creation...

What is John Paul referring to when he says "the limit spoken of in the Book of Genesis (3:16) and a return to that 'beginning'"? I think it is adequately clear that the pope believes the command "he shall rule over you" is the "limitation," and that this limitation was not intended from the "beginning." It was merely a consequence of Eve's sin. Accordingly, Mary is viewed as the New Eve, the liberator of women, since she will reverse the "he shall rule over you" punishment imposed on Eve and the rest of womenkind. That being the case, it is John Paul's plan that we implement this new state of affairs at the present time. It appears to be his view that the traditional Church, for the past two thousand years, failed to see this feminine liberation as a vital part of the Gospel until John Paul's "mutual submission" interpretation came to set the record straight.

To show that the above analysis of John Paul's view is endorsed by others, I will quote the words of Fr. Brian Wilson who, as you remember, was cited earlier in this essay as supporting the "mutual submission" view. Fr. Wilson writes:

On the one hand, there are certainly elements of domination in the relation between the sexes which, rather than a sacred part of God's plan, are evil and a result of sin. Commenting on Genesis 3:16 Pope John Paul sees this event as establishing a "form of inequality" in the relationship that contradicts God's plan.(15)

Then Fr. Wilson quotes from John Paul's General Audience address of June 18, 1980:

Does not the rule "over" the other - of man over woman - change essentially the structure of communion in the interpersonal relationship? Does it not transpose into the dimension of this structure something that makes the human being an object, which can, in a way, be desired by the lust of the eyes?