I’m fifty-three; I’ve been married for more than twenty years, and we’ve done our best to raise three children. I’ve been a Catholic since 1997; as I’ve moved in and beyond different Catholic communities, I’ve experienced different perspectives on men and women, on marriage. The roles of women seem to be a flash point in many Catholic communities, whether these groups are ultra-traditional and fighting for a return to more traditional roles, or ultra-liberal and still on the revolution train, and every iteration in between.
So, I suppose it is an important question: why is everyone so very sensitive—including myself, at certain points in my life?
Marriage as a sign
I think there are very good reasons for this sensitivity; the roles of men and women in marriage must be a hinge or support point of Christian community. Indeed, marriage and family are highly political: if the Church and the world both start in the family, the organization of that family has tremendous influence.
Also, a marriage is meant as a sign for Christ and His Church, for the love of the Trinity; the sexual act is a nexus of the physical and spiritual; phenomenologically, the attacks upon marriage and the family, both from powers and principalities and human forces, indicate that the family, beginning in marriage, is much more than preference—it is the heart of human civilization, and one nexus of God meeting persons.
Most of us first know God in the persons of our parents: they show us this love in their marriage as well in their roles as individual parents. In my lifetime of experience it seems true that a father’s leadership in spiritual practices has a tremendous influence on a child’s later faith, and this leadership goes so far as to make a facade of faith one of the strongest “lessons” for a child to drop faith. A mother’s influence: many, many people will express the beginning of their personal interest in the faith, their heart’s movement, to their mother’s model and encouragement.
This doesn’t mean that children without ideal fathers, or fathers at all, or mothers, are doomed—but they will sustain a wound requiring grace and incarnational healing to overcome. Therefore, there is a layered order inherent in marriage: biologically, socially, spiritually, these human orders echoing the relationship of Christ and the Church, the relationships of love in the Trinity.
The more subtle, implicit lesson about God from the family is the marriage itself; this is a sign both for the children and for the outside world: it is a sign, as St. Paul says, of Christ’s love for His Church. John Paul II, in Dignitatis Muleris, said:
The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “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). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. 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.
Two issues must be understood before particular judgments about how this should happen on a day-to-day basis in particular families as a sign for those around them, children or community. First, the fundamental anthropology of a woman versus a man, because upon this definition rests any conclusions we can make: only when the essential nature of a being is understood can we make judgments about particular actions and or details. Second, the arrangement of St. Paul’s passage here in Ephesians 5: what is he saying within the context of the argument itself?
Equality and hierarchy
By nature, are men and women equal in dignity before God? I mean not an equality of “sameness” but rather of essence. Are both sexes equally endowed with the image of God? Are each capable of a personal relationship with the Lord? Are each fundamentally responsible for responding to grace?
I think the answers are clearly “yes” on all counts. It is worthwhile to note, however, that this fundamental equality in nature is not a Western pagan idea; rather, the early philosophers played with the ideas that women were not capable of the highest practical rationality (that of political prudence), nor does it seem they were thought capable of contemplation either. This is the highest human activity according to Aristotle, but he didn’t think it a possibility for women, due to the erroneous assumption that they had an inferior ability to moderate their emotions.Therefore, women were not thought equal companions to men, leading to the allowance of male homosexuality as a “more fitting, higher form of love between equals.” Likewise, Cicero never spoke of friendship between a man and a woman, because it is implicit in his Greek philosophical foundation that women cannot be as comprehensively virtuous as men.
Women were thought even to be the completely passive, surrogate element in the foundations of life, conception, which is a fundamental human power: the power to pass on life. This all places women, in the Western collective history, as a secondary essence, without rational or conceptual authority. I believe this was partially driven by the Aristotelian concept that where we see more than one thing we encounter hierarchy.
The Christian understanding of the Trinity, an apparent paradox to human reason, counters this idea of “differences necessarily mean hierarchy” at the very source. And the Judeo-Christian understanding of women versus men—in comparison to the whole of early Western philosophy and faith—is revelatory. Fundamentally, though, the order in a marriage cannot both follow God’s order and dehumanize or infantilize anyone. It must reveal and uplift that which God has created, individual souls with equal dignity, the chance for each to have authority in proper measure, because to be an author is to give life, which is one of the fundamental elements of being imago Dei.
In this reality of imago Dei, Jewish tradition seems, from Genesis, to counter the pagan ideas of “human degrees of essential rationality and equality” from the beginning. God creates both sexes directly, and asks of each obedience to His law. And each are punished, held responsible, and the corrective punishment for the woman is the rule of the man over her. This tells us that the original state of perfection was not one of political hierarchy between them, but a relationship of unity and companionship: love and friendship, which can only happen between those who have been given a certain equality.
Thus, men and women are complementary iterations of the same essence, and pace Aristotle, they can be equal and yet different. The actions and words of Christ in terms of the women in His life also speak volumes about the essences of men and women. In a culture hostile to feminine involvement in religious or public matters, He often spoke directly to them, related to them much as He did the men he encountered, held them accountable in the same way, and even chose one as His mother and one (in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas) as the “apostle to the apostles”. He spoke of no marriage in heaven, indicating individual souls in direct relation to the Trinity, rather than women as relating to Him only through a man.
St. Paul also indicates this radical equality in the Body of Christ:
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Gal. 3:27-28)
All of this indicates the way God orders us: each as His children, in unity, in an essential equality.
Submission and marriage
Why do I spell out the obvious here? Because this is the context in which St. Paul’s statements about submission must be made: the submission of a wife is not an essential submission, one that comes from her personhood, or even from her womanhood. Not all women are submissive to all men. It is a particular submission in a certain relationship, and so it has a special, limited reason.
Furthermore, both men and women have parts of their lives, responsibilities, areas of authority not directly part of their role in marriage. Even in traditional medieval Christian communities, as Regine Pernoud shows conclusively in Women in the Days of the Cathedrals, women (including married women) held great authority in political and social life. There are also many saints who held authority in areas beyond their marriages: The mother of St. Therese of Liseux ran a successful lace business; St. Gianna Molla was a doctor; there are queens and artists, musicians, teachers, and the list goes on.
As Dorothy Sayers stated in “Are Women Human?” a woman, as a fully human person, cannot be limited to one or two roles in life, or treated as a child without full agency, without the opportunity to be “life-giving.” God gave women gifts, abilities, calls—similar to men—in various areas, and St. Edith Stein calls for women to bring the feminine genius into all areas of life.
A Christian marriage, nonetheless, seems to create a special sign, a stage space, so to speak, a certain drama in which something slightly different is played out. It is a dynamic reality, not a static sign. Christ first sets that stage by reminding us of the state of perfection in Genesis: the two are one flesh, in this life. Marriage is a sacrament, a sign, a nexus of nature and super-nature.
John Paul II speaks of this beautifully as he relates that the masculine and feminine physiques are also signs of the complementarity of marriage, the perpetual “overcoming of original solitude.” And implicit in this unity and complementarity of physical and emotional, mental, and spiritual, is the definition of the sexes as fundamentally equal in essence—for that which is essentially unequal cannot be yoked together in unity, in “one flesh.” A man cannot marry a sheep; we also recoil at the idea of child marriage.
Marriage requires rational consent, an indication of this fundamental dignity and equality between man and wife, the fundamental agency and authority of both over their own persons. The sign, the drama of marriage is where a unity of the flesh is achieved, but it goes farther: eros is meant to be expanded to other forms of love, such as family love and friendship, but also selfless love, agape. John Paul II speaks of this fundamental “gift of the self” as signified on the lower level by the very physiques of men and women, and signified on a higher level by children and family life, and over a lifetime, that selflessness required for a long-lasting marriage.
Christianity also raises marriage to the sign of sacrament because it deals with eternal souls, and also because it is a sign of supernatural forms of love: to the children of a marriage, the first lessons in love are given within the home, from the marriage itself. They are then tilled soil ready to receive the supernatural analogues of these love: the eros of God, the family of the Church, the friendship with Our Lord, all made possible by the supernatural agape of Christ on the Cross, a selfless love we are meant to embody for others as part of Christ’s Body.
Therefore, any submission in Christian marriage must be understood within this structure of essential agency, authority within one’s own person, equality and dignity, and the call for each soul to a supernatural life of selfless love. The marriage, like the Church, is a sign of the servant economy of Christ, that “right-side up” kingdom as opposed to the “domination” that runs the world. Submission, then, is a dynamic, ever-flowing movement, a perpetual gift of one soul, one authority to another, and back again. One must first have something to submit; one must first have a self, an authority, out of which to love and to sacrifice as Christ did.
“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ”
Here, then, we turn to the second important issue to understand before we can make particular judgments about how submission in marriage is lived out: the arrangement of St. Paul’s exhortation in Ephesians. St. Paul is speaking, in Chapter 5, of how those within Christ’s Body should relate. He then turns, and states, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21). Many people could read this as the end of the first section, with the next starting with “”Wives, submit to your husband as to the Lord.” However, if one reads the section “Submit to one another” as the generic “submit,” then the next passages are species of submission: wives have one kind, and the husband another kind.
“To submit” or “to regard” or “to respect” all have similar meanings, perhaps getting at the original language: to allow oneself to be under another’s authoritative gaze. This seems to explain St. Paul’s directly following ideas of the husband nourishing, cherishing the wife. The key definition to unpack, then, is Christian authority. Unlike a worldly understanding of authority as rule-giving and domination, Christ tells us quite clearly that it is about service. True, life-giving authority is exercised in deep humility, in the washing of another’s feet. “Do not rule as the Gentiles do, dominating each other; you lower yourselves to the role of servant,” Christ tells his astonished disciples, those who wished for the position of greatness, of domination, at Christ’s right hand. Christ’s question, “Can you drink the cup I will drink?” indicates the definition of the great in the Kingdom of Heaven: it is the epitome of selfless love, a deep pouring out of the self in humility, for the good of the other.
Thus, the husband’s submission is quite literally a lowering of the self into a position of servitude, and the wife is to regard this, to respect it, to accept it and receive it as a means to be cherished and nourished and empowered in the faith. In turn, her regard and respect for his humility and his gift of self is empowering to him, and answers the deep call in his nature to be heroic. She must allow him to serve her, she must respect and respond to any legitimate, moral way he does this. This also answers the call in her nature to be able to feel secure to nurture others.
Therefore, what does this look like in real life? I believe that this is going to be different in each marriage, because marriages are between individuals, not stereotypes. And there are different stages of life that a marriage must adapt to as well as individual needs, strengths and weaknesses, and various crises.
However, there are some general marks of this mutual submission: again, the father is the spiritual leader. He will set the tone with the help of his wife, and though they must make spiritual decisions together, his witness will generally be one that is more a bridge for the children into their own independent lives; he will be the proto-father for the Father, just as the mother can be the prototype for the action of the Holy Spirit, or the tenderness of God, and of course, a link to the role of the Theotokos in the lives of the children. The spousal mutual self-gift, regard, submission (one accepting the service of the other, the other given regard in decisions in appropriate areas) is the most powerful witness to their children and the outside community.
Does this mean that a wife has to leave all money matters in her husband’s hands? Or that she should never work outside the home? Or that the woman has no authority over issues at work or in her own work at home with the children? Or over her own bodily needs and what she should do health-wise? These are questions that the Church wisely does not answer, because they are too particular. Neither should other, lesser voices seek to claim ethical and moral and dogmatic authority over others in these areas. This is best left to the spouses themselves and at times of need, counselors, spiritual directors, and pastors, who should refer to the Magisterium.
It seems to me that better questions (leading to principles of action in particular situations) for husbands and wives are, “How can I best act out selfless love in whatever situation we find ourselves?” and “How can I best serve you and regard your gift of self so that you may one day be unified with the Lord?” and “How might I respect your area of authority (servanthood)?” Then, each is loving God through submission to the other, and as St. Augustine says, in the case of a holy, complete mutual submission—different, but equal—that is love of God in action, “Do what you will.”
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I will choose just one point: [However, if one reads the section “Submit to one another” as the generic “submit,” then the next passages are species of submission: wives have one kind, and the husband another kind.]
There’s no evidence that St. Paul intended to remove the strict boundaries separating non-related men and women; everything we think about the early Church is a projection of our own egalitarian and casual mindset towards such interactions into the past.
“Submit to one another” should be understood according to the social separation of the sexes.
On the one hand this is a classic not to be lost, but rather should be a staple of marriage prep throughout the Church. On the other hand it is also what the Spirit has been saying to the Church and its married couples down the ages.
When we married 45 yrs ago I was strongly under the influence of an exaggerated view of male headship, but events, the Holy Spirit and my wife clarified my thinking in fairly short order. Undoubtedly the Sacrament of Matrimony plays a huge role in rightly ordering the family dynamic. This is not to say that my role as head of the family was minimized, quite the contrary but it was refined and illuminated. My supposition is that this sort of interior instruction is far from uncommon within the Church, but the thoughtful analysis offered here could do nothing but speed the process.
If there can be one ‘boss’ that is probably better in a marriage. But the boss is not always right, and like work, it’s good to be consulted at times before a decision is made. When a marriage is ‘working’ it’s one of the best gifts ever bestowed on humans, but when it heads the other way, it can be very miserable.
The two sexes are wired differently, that is for sure!
“And each are punished, held responsible, and the corrective punishment for the woman is the rule of the man over her. This tells us that the original state of perfection was not one of political hierarchy between them, but a relationship of unity and companionship: love and friendship, which can only happen between those who have been given a certain equality.”
That is not quite true and ignores the creation account.
God created man first. And out of man’s rib God fashioned the woman.
He could have created them at the same time but He did not. Eve was GIVEN to Adam as helper and not the other way around.
Gen :19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name
Notice how dominion was given to Adam to name the animals and whatever he named them, that’s how it was.
Gen 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.”
Just as Adam named all the animals signifying his dominion over them, he also named Eve signifying in his authority over her.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
Man named the woman and not the other way around.
Adam’s authority was from the beginning and not just after the fall.
Because of Eve’s disobedience and Adam’s failure to prevent, they both get punished but interestingly their punishment are not quite the same.
Interestingly, the Lord addresses the culprits in a hierarchically in ascending order.
He first addresses the serpent, then Eve then Adam
Interestingly, they both get punished with labour pains (she with childbearing, he with toil in the land)
But Eve’s punishment also has an different dimension: the clinging and obedience to Adam. “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
And while Eve get’s punished for her outright disobedience, Adam was punished “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife”
Eve did not get the command to not eat of the fruit directly from God. The prohibition was only passed on to her by Adam. So Adam was in fact punished for his failure to exercise his authority.
The punishment then was a kind of resetting of the order that was broken. Eve should have listened to Adam (interestingly the etymology of obey is to listen), and Adam should have obeyed God and exercised his authority over Eve. And now this hopefully will be effected with the Lord telling Eve “”your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” The desire for her husband is supposed to help with her acceptance of his rule over her.
Good thoughts, Cory.
My intention, if you read to the end of the essay, is not to say that men are not to have any authority, but that fundamentally, men and women are both created directly by God: Adam does not create Eve. This indicates, against the Greek philosophers, that Eve was fully rational and fully human, at the same level as a man (otherwise she could not be “flesh of his flesh” and a “fit companion.”
A punishment can be a “resetting” of order, or it can be a corrective for a certain kind of transgression, or it can be both. Adam must eek out his living “by the sweat of his brow” and the ground will not readily give its fruit to him. So his punishment is a corrective, a consequence of his behavior, a kind of penance. This was not the way it was for him before the fall. Therefore, it seems possible that for the woman, the same applies. It is a difficult theological question.
Hi Tami,
Yes, very true. The punishment is a corrective. But inherent in that word is that there was a right order and the corrective is to get it back into its right order. What needs to be noted as well is that this corrective was put in place for his “listening to the woman”
Cory – Eve was given to Adam as a helper because men need help in ways that women don’t. The sin isn’t “listening to your wife”; clearly husbands need to listen to their wives. His sin was choosing to act upon what she was asking him to do and disobey God when he knew better. Also God addressed Adam first, then Eve then the serpent. And the punishment that Adam would rule over her was descriptive of what would happen now that they had original sin. It was in no way a direction from God or reflective of what he wanted.
Hi Carol,
I think you need to read the Genesis account.
You said: Eve was given to Adam as a helper because men need help in ways that women don’t.
Exactly in what way is that? Adam was looking for a helper among animals and no animal was found suitable.
You said: clearly husbands need to listen to their wives. His sin was choosing to act upon what she was asking him to do and disobey God when he knew better.
This is what it says in verse 17:
17 And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
If he had not listened to his wife, He would not have disobeyed God. The etymology of obey is to listen. So in listening to his wife, he obeyed his wife instead of obeying God.
You said: Also God addressed Adam first, then Eve then the serpent.
Actually that is wrong again. When God was meting out punishment, He addressed the Serpent first (verse 14),then Eve (verse 16) then Adam (verse 17).
You said: And the punishment that Adam would rule over her was descriptive of what would happen now that they had original sin.
Actually no. The authority of Adam was from the beginning. God created Adam first then later on created Eve out of his rib. Eve was GIVEN to Adam as helper not the other way around. Adam named Eve, not the other way around.
Hi Cory,
I see what you mean now. I was referring to the bit before that: The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”
13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
About the helper role, here’s a simple explanation “God created the woman as an ezer. The word ezer occurs twenty-one times in the Old Testament. In two cases it refers to the first woman, Eve, in Genesis 2. Three times it refers to powerful nations Israel called on for help when besieged. In the sixteen remaining cases the word refers to God as our help. He is the one who comes alongside us in our helplessness. That’s the meaning of ezer” So I understand the desire by some men to ‘helper’ into ‘personal assistant’ but that’s clearly not the case given the definition of the word used. I understand the desire to interpet the story in the most self-serving way possible, but that’s not how God works. Women are called to help her husband bring the family to God with her unique gifts He created her as a helper knowing what would need to be accomplished and how she can contribute. Finally, I feel like I must underscore to you that listening to your wife ***IS NOT A SIN***. Husbands need to listen to their wives. Adam made a *choice* first to let the devil chat is up with his wife *and do nothing* and then follow her direction about committing a sin. He made more than one choice and to blame the woman means he won’t *own it*. It’s very telling that you want to assert that men are and should be in charge of everything but somehow when things go wrong it’s always *women’s* fault. Men and women fell together and we will redeem ourselves together. Stop trying to assert that women are inferior and beneath men. It’s not true and has nothing to do with our Catholic faith.
Also Cory, regarding this: You said: And the punishment that Adam would rule over her was descriptive of what would happen now that they had original sin.
Actually no. The authority of Adam was from the beginning. God created Adam first then later on created Eve out of his rib. Eve was GIVEN to Adam as helper not the other way around. Adam named Eve, not the other way around.
It’s not Church teaching that Eve was created so Adam could rule over her. It’s also not Church teaching that husband’s get married so they can rule over their wives. Sorry, it’s just not. It’s clearly a consequence of original sin and describing the disorder of what was once in harmony. I’ve heard the talking point that you assert here but you need to distinguish between authority and ruling over someone. If you think authority means just ruling over someone, you’re sadly mistaken.
Hi Carol,
There is no reply button on your response so I am responding to your original post in reply to your post on MARCH 21, 2022 AT 10:17 PM and MARCH 22, 2022 AT 7:54 AM
Regarding helper. Yes, God ultimately is our helper. But it does not detract from the fact that Even was GIVEN TO Adam as helper because as the text says there was no animal found suitable. That is what scripture says.
Also, the Genesis is very, very clear. The reason Adam was punished was because he listened to the voice of Eve. That is what was Scripture says.
As I explained before the etymology of the word obey is obedere – to listen. So here, Adam listened to his wife and because of this listening, he obeyed Eve who was telling him to disobey God. If he had not listened to (obeyed) Eve, he would not have disobeyed God.
And nowhere did I say that Eve was given to Adam so he can rule over her. He was given to Adam to be his helper because there was no one among the animals who could be his helper.
You said:It’s clearly a consequence of original sin.
Yes, but what is this origin sin? Isn’t this original sin Eve’s eating of the fruit when they were strictly forbidden not to? Isn’t original sin a matter of listening, of obeying? Even listened to the serpent and obeyed the serpent, Adam listened to Eve and obeyed Eve. Both of them disobeyed God. That is original sin which started with Eve. But Adam had the greater responsibility because he should have stopped Eve that is what he was given the authority but he failed to exercise his authority instead he became subservient to her instead of the other way around.
You need to read the actual scripture account. It is very clear
So here it is again. God was speaking here
17 And to Adam he said,
“BECAUSE YOU HAVE LISTENED TO THE VOICE OF YOUR WIFE,
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’.
Because Adam listened to his wife, he disobeyed God. That is quite telling.
Cory, You just keep repeating yourself and dismissing my very valid points. I’ll try to be briefer.
1) Temptation and sin are two very different things. No one can *make* you sin, not even the devil, you have to *choose* to sin. Eve sinned when she *chose* to give into the doubt presented by the devil. She listened to what the devil was saying to her (temptation) and then chose to not trust in God and eat the fruit (sin). Likewise Adam listened to Eve (temptation) and then chose to also eat of the fruit (sin). A couple of things worth pointing out here: 1) Eve sinned after being tempted by a creature of superior intellect and Adam sinned after listening to Eve. And 2) Adam was there when the devil was talking to Eve and he *chose* to do nothing to protect her (arguably also a sin) so in a certain sense and I’ve heard this preach this from the pulpit, that it was actually Adam who sinned first by not protecting Eve from the devil. Adam and Eve fell together – they were both tempted and both *chose* to sin. We will also be redeemed together and can help each other to heaven.
2) I guess I don’t know what you’re getting at when you say this:
“You said: And the punishment that Adam would rule over her was descriptive of what would happen now that they had original sin.
Actually no. The authority of Adam was from the beginning. God created Adam first then later on created Eve out of his rib. Eve was GIVEN to Adam as helper not the other way around. Adam named Eve, not the other way around.”
When you say, actually no the authority if Adan was from the beginning in conjunction with refuting my statement that the woman was not created for the man to rule over, but that statement from God is descriptive of what will happen because of the fall, I conclude that you must assume that the authority of Adam (husbands) to ‘rule’ was from the beginning. Hence my conclusion that you are saying that from the beginning that from the beginning that Adam was created to rule over Eve. Maybe I’m missing something.
3) I have no idea why you keep repeating this talking point that Eve was given to Adam. I very genuinely and sincerely have no idea why you keep pressing on this or what you even mean by it or what you’re getting at. Women are not the property of men. Marriage is a equal partnership where both men and women give of themselves as husband and wife. The focus need to be on the kids and shielding them from all the crap in the world, educating them and raising them to be faithful Catholics. I don’t know if you’re married or have kids but I’ve been married for over 17 years and the one thing I’ve learned is that generally, it’s not about me. When you want to insist on a certain position it might be wise to remember that (Matthew 23:12) “For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” It’s why I never want to insist one anything. My only focus in any of this is to make sure that women who in their physical vulnerability are not abused or mistreated by men who would use anything to do so. And as someone who has worked in prolife work for decades I’ve seen enough to insist that women have a way to have boundaries and stand up for themselves against men who would mistreat them.
Hope that makes sense.
Hi Carol,
You said: You just keep repeating yourself and dismissing my very valid points. I’ll try to be briefer.
1) Temptation and sin are two very different things.
Me: I never said otherwise.
You: No one can *make* you sin, not even the devil, you have to *choose* to sin. Eve sinned when she *chose* to give into the doubt presented by the devil.
Me: Agree. And I never said otherwise either. Eve fell because she listened to the serpent. She chose to OBEY the serpent.
You: Likewise Adam listened to Eve (temptation) and then chose to also eat of the fruit (sin).
Me: Which is exactly what I said. Adam listened to Eve. But this listening is not merely a matter of hearing. It is not just a matter of being tempted by Eve or God would not have made a big deal of it. Listen in this case was obedience. That is why I gave you the etymology for obedience – obedere – to listen.
You have to start reading and engaging with the actual scripture text. You keep coming up with theology but never did you actually address what the actual verse of Genesis said.
The words of the Bible are very clear which is why I gave it several times but you are evading the exact words of God as it is written in Genesis 3.
God said : Because you listened to your wife.. It can’t be any clearer than that. Adam’s listening to his wife is why he sinned. His listening to her resulted in Adam obeying her. Which is why he sinned. He obeyed (listened to) Eve rather than obeying (listening to) God.
Please engage with the ACTUAL TEXT of the Bible. This is why I gave it several times so that you will read the actual text.
God did not simply say “because you have eaten of the tree”. He was clearly admonishing Adam for listening to Eve by FIRST saying THAT: “BECAUSE YOU LISTENED TO THE VOICE OF YOUR WIFE” and then He added “and eating of the fruit”.
There was a choice indeed and the choice was to obey (listen to God) or to obey (listen to) someone else. Every sin is always a case of who do you listen to.
Yes, and those who would hold this view would have to say that the analogous relationship of Christ to the Church is based on this punishment — it is not. Christ loves the Church to the point of laying down His life for Her but She is obedient to Him. Period. Because obedience is conformity to His will.
“He could have created them at the same time but He did not. Eve was GIVEN to Adam as helper and not the other way around.”
Created not at the same time?
St. Pope John Paul II takes another look at “the same time” thing. In fact, he proposes that Genesis also takes a second look at this. He looks at the two different creation stories of man and woman: Genesis 1:27, 2:18-24, and 2:5-7…then offers this:
“If we admit, moreover, a significant difference of vocabulary, we can conclude that the man (adam) falls into that ‘sleep’ in order to wake up ‘male’ and ‘female.’ [….] Perhaps, therefore, the analogy of sleep indicates here not so much a passing from consciousness to subconsciousness, as a specific return to non-being (sleep contains an element of annihilation of man’s conscious existence), that is, to the moment preceding [!] the creation. In order that, through God’s creative initiative, solitary ‘man’ may emerge from it again in his double unity as male and female.”
John Paul II adds a footnote, part of which reads: “Tardemah (Italian ‘torpore,’ English ‘sleep’) is the term that appears in Holy Scripture when, during sleep or immediately afterwards, extraordinary events are to happen (cf. Gn. 15:12: 1 Sam. 26:12, Is. 29:10: Job 4:13: 33:15). The Septuagint translates tardemah with ekstasis (ecstasy).”
So, maybe simultaneous creation rather than chronologically separate? There’s more: “It is interesting to note that for the ancient Sumerians the cuneiform sign to indicate the noun ‘rib’ coincided with the one used to indicate the word ‘life’.”
(From the General audience of Sept. 19, 1979, and Nov. 7, 1979, in “Original Unity of Man and Woman: Catechesis on the Book of Genesis,” part of The Theology of the Body.)
Hi Peter,
All that JPII opining does not in anyway negate sequential creation. Whether sleep is when important things happen or whether it is ecstasy, what is clear is that there was man, and after that there was woman and scripture says that woman was GIVEN to man.
The idea of passing from being to non-being is almost heretical. Does God uncreate?
JPII is doing verbal somersaults here. Perhaps to appease women? Perhaps to be politically correct? Who knows.
The same JPII said that for a woman to work outside the home is wrong.
Actually, John Paul ll said this, “Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of “mystery”, to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.” https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women.html
Cory I’m an agnostic interested in Catholic thoughts, what has been Catholic position on patriarchy, submission and feminism ? Would you say the author has some feminsitic underpinnings in her arguments here ?
The only reason we have any confusion is because there is no shepherd leading the flock because the Church has abandoned the natural family in this era and surrendered to modernity
John Doe – Actually it’s because some men insist on a position of privilege over their wives and put the weight on their wives to submit instead of embracing servant leadership.
God does nothing that is not for our highest good. When He gives advise it is to bless us, when He puts a stop sign it is to protect us. The world is chaotic, God’s word is a panacea and roadmap for a more fulfilling and helpful life.
Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
Acts 2:38-39 And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”
Philippians 2:13 For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
Romans 8:27 and he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
Acts 17:11 Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Thank you. I am glad that we, as a church, are open to such insights. It would be easy to dismiss this topic by making it what we want it to be, rather than trying to learn from deeper understanding of what it means. We are blessed to have the graces from God to understand his word.
“21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Because of this verse, many mistake it to mean mutual submission.
But if – as Kozinski opines – this is a general submission, then this must cover the passages that relate to the children and slaves as well which would mean that parents are also being told to submit to their children and masters to their slave.
But that is not the case.
The submission as we define submission – one having authority over another- is one way and in this case it is wives to husbands, children to parents and slaves to masters.
In fact, with regards wives, St Paul’s adds that this submission must be “in everything”.
We can do all sorts of somersaults, string together so many words, but this verses are clear – wives submit to their husbands and St Paul even goes so far to say “in everything”
The husband does not submit to the wife but instead loves his wife as his own body, and loves her as Christ’s loves His Church.
Christ DID NOT submit to His Church. Christ died for His Church. As He said in John 10: I lay down my life of my own accord, no one takes it from me.
Christ had authority over His Church not vice versa.
Essentially, husbands and fathers must be willing to die for his family as Christ did. There is not a hint of “empowerment” at all in these verses but quite the opposite, the relinquishment of power. One must not confuse power with authority. Empowerment cannot be inferred from any of these passages. Like Peter Kreeft, I do not get this obsession with power by feminists.
It is quite telling that St Paul addresses wives FIRST telling them to submit. In everything.
Then he addresses the men telling them to love their wives like Christ. How did Christ love His Church? To death. Sacrificial love.
The way Kozinski describes husbandly submission smacks of husbands who are dormats. The lowering into a position of servitude is not asked of husbands alone but applies to both. If we are all disciples, then we are all called to serve. If the wife is to submit to the husband in everything then that means she serves him. In everything. How this service is manifested is what differs: wives tend to the home, husbands bring home the bacon. Or lamb if you want is kosher 🙂
You can see this same dynamics in the address to the children and parents. Children obey your parents. Parents do not provoke your children to anger. The two are not interchangeable.
And this format repeats in his admonition to the slaves and masters.
It is like Bishop Barron’s loop of grace: the wife who submits, the husband loves her so much he is willing to die for her and because of this sacrificial love, submission on the part of the wife is a joy and round it goes.
There is an order to how God created the world and there is an order to how He designed our relationships. Following His design leads to human flourishing.
Ephesians 5:21-35 can be summarized thus: Wives, submit to your husbands as you would submit to Christ. Husbands, act like Christ.
Yes, it could be that St. Paul is extending the category of “mutual submission” to all of those categories, and this creates what could be a problem—or, it could be that this changes the way we see natural hierarchies in the light of Christ’s servanthood and humility: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.…” (Phil. 2:6). My point about husbands is that, to be like Christ, they must take the form of a servant. This is the authority, the “giving of life” that is not “like the Gentiles.” If the husband is to be like Christ (St. Paul is not saying that the wife has to worship her husband so the analogy is limited), then he has to be a servant. This is the authority of the Christian leader. Servanthood unto death. Does this create doormats? Was Christ a doormat?
I actually don’t think the wife serves the husband in the exact same way; he is ready to die for her, because she is the person in the family that needs the most care (during years of childbearing). She needs to be protected and given scope to nurture children in a much more intense way. However, her regard for his service to her is often manifested in his leadership vis a vis the outside world. However, again, this changes as marriages go through different stages. A woman no longer raising children is a full human being with a variety of interests and gifts, and so to make hard and fast rules about what women can or should do in particular situations, or to ignore the fact of human imperfections and differences, can end up dehumanizing people…but the idea of “service” and “regard for that service” on the part of both in “mutual submission” means that each is looking for the telos of the other. This fundamental, Christ-like attitude seems to me to be the most successful, Christ-like relationship.
[or, it could be that this changes the way we see natural hierarchies in the light of Christ’s servanthood and humility: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.…” (Phil. 2:6)]
Christ’s servanthood and humility is to be understood primarily with respect to G*d (the Father); while the Son is equal to the Father, the Son receives everything from the Father and is dependent upon the Father. And hence our own filial relationship with the Father, made possible by Christ.
Hi Tami,
St Paul IS NOT extending the “general” submission in verse 21 to all.
The succeeding verses actually clarifies what he meant with “submit to each other”. In the case of wives, children, slaves he is specific that they must submit, obey.
But in the case of husbands, parents, masters the counsel is quite different – they must love, be just, not grieve others. To ignore the clarity in these succeeding verses is to “proof text”.
It is important to read in full what St Paul had to say about what this Christlikeness means: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
St Paul is clear that it is the saving, sanctifying act of Christ that he is referring to when he tells the husband to be like Christ. The man must be willing to give up his life for his wife and children and be a source of their sanctification. This is also why the husband/father is the priest of the domestic church – the household.
He could have used the same words but he did not because he understands that there needs to be hierarchy and one is over another in authority. What he is telling wives, parents, masters is to exercise this authority in love so as to avoid the will to power that authority can bring.
Christ indeed tells us to be servants one of the other. The title of the Pope is Servant of the Servants of God. But he is nonetheless the Pope who is the prime authority. We talk of the college of the cardinals but the See of Peter is prime.
Note too that St Paul does not address wifely submission only in Ephesians. He also does this other texts. I write here his letter to Timothy but he said similar things in Corinthians as well. You can find more citations in Tim Gordon’s you tube channel.
1 Timothy 2: Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
Understandably, the modern woman bristles at the thought of the man having authority over them in marriage, they’ve been raised in the lie of “equality” in all things. We all have equal dignity before God but He did not create us the same way as He did Adam. He did not give us authority the same way He did Adam. God clearly gave Adam authority over Eve.
One could argue that this bristling is because of bad men who failed to act as Christ to their wives and children. And for sure there are many who are like that.
But as I said in another forum, the answer to abuse is not to become an abuser yourself. We don’t get rid of bullying by “empowering” the bullied to become bullies.
The last 50 years has shown us the carnage that “feminist empowerment” has brought.
Women thought that if men can “f…” as they please without consequences of a pregnancy, they should be allowed to do so as well. So comes contraception.
And yes I use that vulgar word because what they want is not marital sex in all its beauty but the debased selfish act it becomes outside of marriage.
But since contraception is not fool proof, there needs to be a backup plan. One must be allowed to murder one’s own child in the event of the condom, pill, IUD failing to achieve its objective. And the world has been home – and will continue to be home – to millions of dead babies murdered by their mothers; home to millions of women murderers.
But of course, evil has consequences and sometimes the immediate consequence is of the mother dying during the killing process. So they move to make the murder of their child safe and legal for the mother. And isn’t that a laugh? Heaven forbid that I should die or be maimed while I kill my baby.
And THIS is female empowerment.
Feminism is not really feminism because that would assume that it is a celebration of what it is to be woman. It is in fact a hatred of what it is to be a woman. It is a hatred of what is truly femiNIne. in short, it is self hatred.
The feminist is in thrall to the male. You can go to war? So can I and I am willing to leave my children behind in order to do what you do: fight like you do on the battle field, kill like you do on the battlefield. What that says is hooray for maleness! I am only empowered and completely when I become and behave like a male. But not just maleness at its basic but maleness at its worst. We decry absent fathers so we become absent mothers.
I pose a challenge to all women who bristle at the thought of taking St Paul at his word (I very much did too). Behind all this is the will to power.
You wrote that the submission that man is asked to do is service. Servitude.
If that is what is Christlike, then the feminist admits that she doesn’t want to be Christlike because behind all the words in defence of feminism are just two words: Non Serviam.
‘ This is also why the husband/father is the priest of the domestic church – the household.”
I will quibble with this one point in your good response. In so far as all are Baptized (and Chrismated) they are priests — the priesthood of Christ is not reserved to men alone, though the minsterial orders (e.g. the Presbyterate) may be. So while all in a family are priests insofar as they have been reborn in Christ, it is fitting and proper that the father lead in the worship and prayer life of the domestic church.
Hi Sol,
The reason we ended up with the ministerial priesthood was back in Exodus when they made the Golden Calf. Because of that idolatry, there no longer was the priesthood of the father but instead the Levites of the line of Aaron became the priests.
In the recapitulated household, the father is the priest of the domestic household because he is the head of the household and so must lead the spiritual life of the family.
And yes, I know, it usually falls on the mother because women tend to be more religious. But it should be the father who does this.
But yes, there is the general priesthood of all believer. The purpose of the priest is to offer sacrifice. The general priesthood means that everyone must offer sacrifice and it is their lives that they offer.
There’s a study I think in the US that in households where it is the father that leads spiritually, the chances of the children retaining the faith throughout their life is higher.
Cory,
The Leviticus priesthood is superseded and replaced by the priesthood of Christ. A father can be a Christian priest only because he has been reborn in Christ, but all who participate in Christ participate in his 3 offices – Vatican 2 is clear and correct on this point. So all in the family who are initiated into Christ are Christian priests. The father leads not because he is the only priest in the family but because he is the father.
Correction to my response to Tami par 6
“What he is telling wives, parents, master” should read “What he is telling husbands, parents, master
Most of us have read hundreds of articles on these matters, but this is the first I’ve read which inspired me to receive and digest rather than to exclaim yea or nay on any part. This deserves careful re-reading and long pondering. At least, I vote it the most thoughtful article I’ve read on CWR in years. Many thanks!
I think she did a great job too.
The creation account narrated by Bl.Emmerich can be of help to bring more clarity to some of the issues facing us , esp.in the questions raised by the German Church .
The role of ‘eros ‘ being one such area ; agree that the above writings are private revelation , yet her gift of knowledge related to House of Mary , her being from Germany – all these might have relevance .
The Divine Will revelations that aligns with some of the above mention that Adam was blessed with the Divine Will , lost it in The Fall, that we are in the times of same being restored more in a spiritual manner, after the Fiats of Redemption and purification .
http://annecatherineemmerich.com/complete_visions/volume_1_the_old_testament/volume-1-the-old-testament/
Interesting mention that if not for the Fall , children would have been brought forth more by power in the mystery of the Spoken word , without carnality .
The so called eros thus ? an effect of The Fall , even as our bodies carry the remnant of the rebellion as hairs that are no longer shining beams as was in Adam .
Adam , blessed with the Divine Will , to have been guarding and tilling the Garden – ? to have kept the enemy out and prevented The Fall ..
? had he been influenced by heeding the voice of the enemy who would have been around , waiting and watching , projecting evil thoughts even , as a spirit
? of subtle envy against Eve , letting him become lukewarm in his role ..
that ‘the voice of the wife ‘ that he is admonished for is not of Eve , since it seems he is the one who picked the fruit and gave to Eve ..
? Adam could have spoken to the Tree of knowledge of good and evil, to let it wither to the root , as our Lord does for the fig tree that does not bear fruit ..
The remedial penance of multiplying the labor pains given as a means of mercy , to instill deeper trust amidst the evils that were to come from the rebellions of the self will , to help us to trust that there would be goodness of new life after the trials and sufferings ..
The New Adam and Eve gloriously fulfilling that role ..
Letting the carnal traits wither to the root , on all occasions except in its rightful place in marriage – would it that much of the cultures over the centuries have given same the idolatrous roles through the fallen spirits , the flood waters from same that at the root of the evils against women through out cultures .
Thus , even the so called civilized ones to go astray, as far as to consider the degradation of seeing the fallen trait that deny the dignity of manhood and fathers as being better than the God ordained order in relationships ..
St.Joseph ,through The Lord would have been blessed to see/’ know’ with awe , the holiness and role of Bl.Mother and in The Lord , the glory in the Divine Will , to see with profound joy the blessed role he has been chosen for …
Thank God that as Patron of families , well invoked by our Holy Father ,the blessings and graces of our tender , powerful Father can do much to undo errors and fears , to let the rivers of holy love flow as in the Holy Family , to be the blessing in our lives too .
FIAT !
Remarkably, both essaysists Renee Kozinski, Abigail Favale reference the masculine feminine dynamic instrumental to the essence of man and woman and their interrelationship, Kozinski once as the complimentary physical features John Paul II attributes to marriage, Favale once, only that the “feminine virtues are [presumed] tailored by nature for homemaking [housewifery]”.
If there’s a tragic flaw in both essays it’s that denigration of the divinely ordered spiritual depth of the feminine and the masculine, not simply practical features for convenience by one author. A pejorative inconvenience for the other.
Let’s look at it this way, if it were simply practical man could have conjugal relationships with another man, if they possessed the means to transmit and receive life. But that’s exactly what’s occurring today with transsexuality. When we effectively dissect this dimension from man and woman we’ve already settled for the premise that guarantees a perpetual, unresolvable conflict between the sexes.
Femininity and masculinity speak respectively to the receptive submissive woman’s femininity and the implementing ministerial male’s masculinity. Renee Kozinski touches on the surface of this, mentioning the spiritual physical reality of the conjugal act. What’s missing is the value, in itself, of both unique to the other yet complimentary far more than the physical. Because, as indicated in their perennial nature for the person, we remain masculine or feminine in heaven or in hell [although homosexuals will not enter the kingdom of heaven] feminine and masculine are that vital dimension of God’s creation that reveal his wisdom and his goodness.
We look to the feminine beauty of the Blessed Virgin, submissive to Joseph yet a decision maker when Giving a motherly scolding to the boy Jesus in the Jerusalem temple, and directing him [indirectly by suggestion] at Cana. As we look to Joseph as both manly leader and protector.
I agree with you—although I’m not quite sure I’m understanding you, so let me phrase what I’m hearing: You think that the higher realities (soul, heavenly, etc) of gender are missing from both essays, and that this impoverishes the understanding of how marriages should be perceived.
If that is right, I think you have a real point. Like a good medieval thinker, I think that God’s cosmos is perfectly echoed and balanced in all the levels of existence, and we experience these connections to higher levels of meaning best in our experiences of beauty in the physical world; Socrates explains it well in his “Ladder of Beauty” in the Symposium; CS Lewis talks about it in his great essay “Transposition” and if I remember rightly, John Paul II also explores it in various writings, specifically on gender: the relation of human, physical gender with spiritual gender, the analogues on the spiritual planes.
I think Dr. Favale and I were trying to focus on the realities/questions about marriage in Christian community, but you are right that the higher definitions of gender are essential for understanding lower levels.
Yes Tami. That corresponds to that inherent spiritual dimension of the soul.
I had a wonderful marriage until my husband’s untimely death. Married more than 25 years.The key is that BOTH parties need to love and respect each other. In that mind-set you can accomplish anything together. If you are in a relationship with a person who ALWAYS has to have the final word, run far far away if you are not yet married to them. An awful lot of women have issues with this passage of St. Paul. I am not one of them. If you have a strong sense of your own identity, you know who you are, and allowing your spouse the final word at times, is no big deal, nor does it diminish you in any way. Too many women have fallen for the libbers lines about what constitutes equality and a woman’s role.Too many women are too touchy about all sorts of issues. There is strength in knowing who you are, and no one can take that from you. I personally, am tired about the whining on this subject. And of priests who feel a need to alter the prayer during Mass by dropping the word MEN from “for us MEN and for our salvation” in the creed. Its pandering to the mob. A REALLY strong woman doesnt need petty affirmations.
Good meditations about Divine Will, how Bl.Mother lived in same , good for the Feast of Annunciation ( day 19 ) and for the Consecration , blessings of same to bless all God ordained relationships , to protect from discords and deviations –
http://www.preghiereagesuemaria.it/DV-inglese/THE%20BLESSED%20VIRGIN%20MARY%20IN%20THE%20KINGDOM%20OF%20THE%20DIVINE%20WILL%20%20FINAL%20EDITION%202014.pdf
The biblical guidelines on marriage being more or less elaborations of the words of our Lord on same – ‘a man shall leave his father and mother, be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh ‘ – the responsibility of the couple to focus on helping each other to discern and live in God’s Will , seeing the seriousness of that commitment being like accepting the impossibility of not replacing the given birth parents ( except for reasons that make the marriage invalid )
focusing on pleasing The Father of both , by fulfilling the Divine Will ..to be blessed with the grace to thank The Lord for the gift of our lives, getting transformed by submitting to Him, His Mercy , in accepting and requitting The Love , with His own His Will and Love , such as given in the Eucharist ..to fulfill the promise as to how in seeking same as the Kingdom , all else shall be added ..
http://www.comingofthekingdom.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/73-Corpus-Christi.pdf