How Could Such an Interpretation Seep Into Catholic Thinking?

A Rebuttal:

Even if the pope's contention that Eve's submission is caused by sin, does that mean we on this present earth are now supposed to be rising above and alleviating the divine mandate that a wife is to be in subjection to her husband? No, there is no such command in Scripture or in any Church teaching. As we have noted, the New Testament passages which speak of the wife having to be in subjection to her husband make no attempt to extricate women from the injunction of Genesis 3:16. In fact, they base their teaching directly upon Genesis 3:16, a divine truth which the inspired authors see as perpetual.

We see this perpetual basis, for example, in 1 Timothy 2:11-14, which states that the woman is to be in silence and subjection to the man precisely due to the fact that Eve was the one who sinned. St. Paul gives no indication, either in the context of 1 Timothy 2 or elsewhere, that the silence and subjection is a temporary state of affairs, or one that is waiting for the enlightenment of future theologians (e.g., 20th century historical-critics) to show us that a literal interpretation of Genesis 3:16 is "culturally biased." No, St. Paul is clear that as long as this present earth exists the original roles of man and woman stemming from Genesis 3:16 will abide.

We see the same thing in 1 Cor 14:34-35. St. Paul told the women "of the churches" to be in silence (NB: the plural, that is, the injunction applies to ALL the churches), so much so that if they have any questions they should ask their husbands at home, not in church. St. Paul contends that the commands to women are not merely his personal opinion, rather, they are from "the law" and the "commandments of the Lord." Similar to 1 Timothy 2:11-14, he gives no indication that these injunctions are someday going to be relaxed as the Gospel progresses before the return of Christ.

What Does Genesis 3:16 Really Teach?

All the above analysis, however, is based on the pope's contention that Genesis 3:16's clause "he shall rule over you" is a deviation from what was supposed to be practiced by husband and wife from the "beginning." But we need not view Genesis 3:16 in that light at all. The clause "he shall rule over you" should not be viewed as a consequence of Eve's sin, for the simple fact that Adam was already given headship of the family and authority over Eve before sin entered the picture! St. Paul assures us of this fact as he states that Adam's authority over Eve was granted to him because "Adam was created first" (1 Timothy 2:13). Thus, his rule over Eve is based primarily on the order of creation. Unfortunately, John Paul fails to mention this fact.

Consequently, the aftermath of Eve's sin is to be deduced from the clause "And your desire shall be toward your husband." In other words, because of her sin, and the subsequent proclivity to sin which became a punishment for the human race (i.e., concupiscence), Eve will desire to rule over Adam, but God will see to it that Adam continues to rule over her. Prior to sin, Eve's motives would be untainted by a desire to usurp Adam's authority, and thus she would naturally assume her designated place as wife, helper and subordinate. Sin, however, would tempt her to see otherwise. Projecting this into the future, we can safely say that whenever we see women assuming authority over men and seeking to supplant them as God's rulers, it is due to sin. This was exactly the state of affairs in ancient Israel when that nation began to apostasize. As Isaiah laments:

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 (Isaiah 3:12).

We have sufficient evidence within the context to support the above understanding of Genesis 3:16. The Hebrew word for "desire" (teshuqah) does not refer to some sort of overwhelming affection Eve would have for Adam. It denotes something far more serious. We see a more precise understanding of its lexical meaning in the next and final time this particular phrasing is used in the Old Testament, Genesis 4:7, regarding Cain's plight right after he murdered Abel. God says to Cain: "If you do well, is there not acceptance? If you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door and its desire is toward you, but you shall rule over it." Here we see that sin's desire is to rule over Cain, but God tells Cain to rule over sin.(16) Thus, Genesis 4:7 helps explain the relationship in the Hebrew grammar between the "desire" and the "ruling." In this light, the consequence of Eve's sin is not that Adam would suddenly be put in authority over Eve. It was just the opposite. Adam was already in authority over Eve and sin would tempt her to desire to rule over Adam. But God would frustrate her desire and see to it that Adam maintained his God-given rule over her. If God ever relaxes that rule, it is not because He wishes women to be liberated from their husband's rule, but because He is allowing sin to multiply for the purposes of judgment (e.g., 2 Thess 2:7-11), as we saw was also the case in Israel (Isaiah 3:12).

What are the consequences of "Eve's" desire to rule over Adam and God's withdraw of restraint from her? We see many of them in our society today, just as Isaiah saw in the time of Israel. Women leave the home and put their children (if they have any) in the care of paid-providers, while they compete with the man in all the areas of leadership, including government, church and employment. Their children grow up lacking the care and sensitivity known traditionally with motherhood. They turn to drugs, sex (including homosexuality), rock music, peers or anything that will relieve the gaping hole they feel inside. The unwanted children, of course, are eliminated through contraception and/or abortion, since otherwise they would get in the way of the woman's pursuit of leadership outside the home. When the women are home, the society has conditioned them to compete with the husband for authority. When decision time comes, their wills clash. If not repaired, divorce ensues. In the wake of "women's liberation," the sad fact is that over half of all marriages end in divorce, and over sixty percent of second marriages have the same fate. Moreover, since married women are now more accessible in the work force, the military and government leadership, the incidence of adultery among them is staggering. Unfortunately, many of today's women find out too late that they are happiest when they respond to their maternal instincts and are compliant with their husbands. The typical family today has two or less children per household across America, Europe, Russia and China. Many countries cannot even replace their dying populations. Husbands, because they have been brainwashed by a media which stereotypes them as weak and cowardly misfits, fail to assert their God-given role of leadership, and the family becomes highly dysfunctional. This malaise begins to perpetuate itself through successive generations until the family and society are so weak they cannot function any longer. They are replaced by single-family homes, orphanages, or even same-sex parenting. Essentially, many of the problems we are experiencing in modern society can be reduced to one problem: a confusion in the roles of the sexes. Men want to act like women, and women want to act like men, and unfortunately, their children suffer the worst consequences. These are just a few of the things that happen when "Eve" is allowed to fulfill her desire to rule over Adam.

Final Thoughts:

Although after a complete reading of Mulieris Dignitatem it is apparent that John Paul II's heartfelt desire is to elevate women past the incidents of barbarism and domination they sometimes sustained in past cultures, we can also say, based on the above exegesis and historical research, that the way to accomplish this is not by reinterpreting the Scriptural teachings concerning wives being subject to their husbands. Reinterpreting them will just create bigger problems. Those passages are fixed in stone and their truths will never change. As we have seen, neither Scripture, Tradition nor the traditional Magisterium teach that the husband is to be in subjection to his wife based on some type of "mutual submission." Rescuing women from unfair domination can only be accomplished by accentuating the command contained in the second leg of St. Paul's teaching: "husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church." It is love, not submission, that men so desperately need to be taught. Men know all about submission. Their whole world is governed by the pecking order, and the competition out there is rather fierce. Likewise, men know when someone is trying to usurp their authority under the pretext of establishing equality or mutuality, and so-called "women liberators" fill that bill precisely. The quickest way to household unrest and eventual divorce is for the wife to threaten the man's authority over his own household. He will naturally resent it and rightly fight against it. Rather, men need to learn the art of loving. That is why St. Paul tells them so often to love their wives, for they often find it hard to do. When husband's do love their wives, submission to his gentleness is a pleasure for the wife, not a competition to be won by seeking his equal submission to her.

As St. John Chrysostom stated so wisely many years ago, and still remains true today:

Observe again that Paul has exhorted husbands and wives to reciprocity...To love therefore, is the husband's part, to yield pertains to the other side. If, then, each one contributes his own part, all stand firm. From being loved, the wife too becomes loving; and from her being submissive, the husband learns to yield." (Homilies on Colossians, NPNF1 13:304)

Robert A. Sungenis, M.A.
President of Catholic Apologetics International
9-29-03

Endnotes:

1) Envoy Magazine, Volume 5.4

2) The Wanderer, "Submissive Wives," September 18, 2003. Emphasis in italics mine

3) Some try to evade the clear message of these Scriptures by suggesting that the word "head" (as in the husband is the "head" of the wife, cf., 1 Cor 11:3; Eph. 5:23) may not refer to the husband's rule over his wife but merely his position as the "source" of his wife's being, as in the "head" of a river being its source. As one can see from the patristic commentary on these passages, none of the Fathers saw it that way. As often as they refer to the husband being the "head" of the wife, they insist that headship refers to rulership. According to the meaning and usage of "head" in the original Greek (kephale), the Fathers are quite correct in their understanding. Although kephale might possibly include the meaning that the head is the "source," this meaning in no way excludes, in any case, that the head is in authority over the subordinate (cf., Eph. 1:22; 4:15; Col. 1:18; 2:10).

4) Greek is "en panti," which literally means "in all" or "in everything." This, of course, would mean all things that are godly and lawful, not sinful.

5) To get around this, some assert that "be subject" in Ephesians 5:21 introduces a nominative absolute, so as to mean "while subjecting yourselves to each other, the wives are to be subject to their own husbands." But not only does this not solve the problem, it is an unwarranted imposition on the text, since the wives are to subject themselves to their husbands, and not as others subject themselves to the rest. Suffice it to say, no bible translation existing has rendered it as a nominative absolute.

6) There is a Greek textual variant here. Some manuscripts are missing the verb "be subject to" (Papyrus 46, Codex Vaticanus) and thus the words are put in italics in the ASV (1901) and NAS (1995). Most Greek manuscripts, however, contain the verb (Aleph, A, I, P, D, F, G, 6, 33, 81, 104, and many minuscules). It is followed by the majority of translations, e.g., KJV, DR, NIV, RSV, NAB, et al, including the 1550 Stephanus translation housing the Majority text.

7) Many today have made such conclusions, based mainly on one passage, Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus"). The pope himself makes reference to Galatians 3:28 as a supporting argument for his "mutual subjection" thesis. He writes in Mulieris Dignitatem:

"This is a call which from that time onwards does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. St. Paul not only wrote: 'In Christ Jesus...there is no more man or woman,' but also wrote: 'There is no more slave or freeman.'"

No doubt, this is the reason the requirement for a head covering for women (cf., 1 Cor 11:4-16) was allowed to pass into disuse, as well as the reason women are now permitted to speak in church (e.g., reading the epistles, saying "body of Christ" to the communion recipient, leading in hymns, giving "reflections" on the gospel, etc). These innovations symbolize the post-conciliar church's new interpretation of Scripture. But this kind of interpretation ignores the context of the passage. The context of Galatians 3 has nothing to do with authoritative and functionary roles or their application; rather, it is dealing only with who is eligible for the grace of God in salvation. The only thing St. Paul is teaching in Galatians 3:28 is that, in regards to salvation, God is no respecter of persons. He saves men, women, masters, slaves, Jews and Gentiles (e.g., Acts 10:34-35). Interestingly enough, when Scripture does put the roles of man and woman in contexts of authority and function (cf., 1 Cor. 11:3-16; 14:34-35; 1 Tim. 2:11-15; 1 Pet. 3:1-7), liberals casually dismiss these texts as culturally biased or historically archaic.

8) Dictionary definition

9) Accordingly, "mutual submission" does not mean "mutual love," or "mutual cooperation" or "mutual respect," "mutual communication" or "mutual deference," which represent the various attempts at redefining "mutual submission" in order to make the novel teaching palatable. None of the aforementioned terms have a legal foundation. "Submission," on the other hand, has a primary legal and/or canonical basis, since it refers to the authority that one person or group has over another, such as the government having authority over its citizens, bishops over priests, employers over employees or husbands over wives. If one does not submit to these authorities, then he/she will suffer the legal or canonical consequences.

10) Taken from Pope Leo's encyclical Arcanum divinae sapientiae.

11) The only other possible place is a textual variant in 1 Peter 5:5 ("Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility" - KJV). The words "submit" and "be subject" are from the Greek hupotasso. The first appearance ("ye younger submit...") has no variants. The second appearance ("be subject") appears in the Majority Text (followed by the KJV), but the manuscript evidence includes it only in codex P and three minuscules. All other major manuscripts do not include a second usage of hupotasso, and neither do the Latin translations (subditi, and its variations). Rather, the texts reveal the emphasis on each Christian to "be clothed with humility" from the Greek tapeinophrosunen, of which there are no textual variants. If it is insisted that the Majority text be followed here, still, the command for "submission" is a general command to all Christians, in a context of generating humility, not a cause for establishing legal submissive reciprocity between husband and wife.

12) As Canon 212:2-3 states: "The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons."

13) The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, p. 1169.
14) Fr. Raymond Brown writes: "If one has an a priori view of inerrancy that forbids a religious error, one will have to argue insistently that Job (14:13-22) did not mean what he seems to say" (Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), pp. 16-17. Raymond Brown was appointed the head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission by John Paul II.

15) Envoy Magazine, Volume 5.4. Emphasis mine. Later Fr. Wilson admits that the husband should enjoy a "certain leadership," since a man "especially needs to feel that his ability to protect and provide for his wife and family is respected." Notice that Fr. Wilson is not interested in what the husband's role really is, but only that he "feel" like he is the leader.

16) The Hebrew waw-consecutive can be translated as "and" or "but" in both Genesis 3:16 and 4:7, since that is the contextual meaning of the phrase in these instances - a contrast between one proposition and another.

END