Sunday, August 27, 2006
On mutual submission
This Sunday's second reading, Ephesians 5:21-32, generates discussion and controversy as no other reading does. Fr. Cantalamessa, preacher to the papal household, offered a reflection on the passage that is reproduced by Zenit. In his reflection, Fr. Cantalamessa, while recognizing that St. Paul's words are written in the context of his culture's rules for women, highlights the underlining truth of the words. Dom objects, calling Fr. Cantalamessa's opening words apologizing for St. Paul. We've been friends for a long time, so I'm sure he won't mind if I disagree with him on this one.
Here is the passage in question:
Reading Paul's words with modern eyes, one immediately sees a difficulty. Paul recommends to husband that they "love" their wives (and this is good), but he also recommends to women that they be submissive to their husbands, and this -- in a society strongly (and justly) conscious of the equality of the sexes -- seems unacceptable.
In fact, it's true. On this point St. Paul is conditioned in part by the mentality of his age. However, the solution is not in eliminating from relations between husbands and wives the word "submission," but, perhaps, in making it mutual, as love must also be mutual.
In other words, not only must husbands love their wives, but wives must also love their husbands. Not only must wives be subject to their husbands, but also husbands to their wives, in mutual love and mutual submission.
However, if these words are an apology for St. Paul, then John Paul II is as guilty as Fr. Canatamessa. John Paul II writes that some of the concepts in the passage are “characteristic of the mentality and customs of the times.” But, he goes on, “Nevertheless, the fundamental moral principle which we find in Ephesians remains the same and produces the same results. The mutual subjection ‘out of reverence for Christ’ . . . always produces that profound and solid structure of the community of the spouses in which the true ‘communion’ of the person is constituted.”
To those people who complain that talking about "mutal submission" is just a way to dilute St. Paul, I have a question. The husband is commanded to love his wife. Does a wife not have to love her husband as well? I don't think that anyone would argue that it's not necessary for a wife to love her husband, but St. Paul does not tell wives to love their husbands; instead he tells them to be submissive. The entire passage starts with the line, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). It all starts with "mutal submission". St. Paul then goes on to explain how that submission is expressed through the love of the spouses for each other. This "mutal subjection" is found in the different ways in which men and women express their love for each other. Jennifer Ferrara, in the April 2003 issue of First Things explains the difference in this way:
Men have the more active role in the relationship: the husband is the one who loves while the wife is she who is loved and in return gives love. This special capacity to receive love is what is meant by feminine submission and is the basis of the image of the submission of the Church to Christ. Submission here means to be subsequent or responsive, not necessarily obsequious or subservient. For the man, a love modeled upon Christ’s self-sacrifice leads to a desire to provide and protect to the point of a willingness to give one’s life, both literally and figuratively. Men represent Christ in a way that women cannot because men’s relationship to creation is one of detachment and distance. They cannot fully share in the intimacy that women have with their children. Therefore, they better serve as an image of transcendent love, a love that is wholly other but seeks only the welfare of the other. As primarily relational beings, women are images of immanence and ultimately of the Church, which is prepared, at all times, to receive Christ’s love. The result is a mutual submission, even mutual dependence, that does not undermine the role of men in church or home.
In this reading of the passage, the submission of women to men does not mean that a woman gives up her capacity to think and make decisions when she marries, or even as is commonly touted, that a man always makes the final decision, especially when the couple has a disagreement that seemingly cannot be reconciled, but that the woman is second in the "order of love," receiving love from the man and returning it to him.
Here is the passage in question:
Reading Paul's words with modern eyes, one immediately sees a difficulty. Paul recommends to husband that they "love" their wives (and this is good), but he also recommends to women that they be submissive to their husbands, and this -- in a society strongly (and justly) conscious of the equality of the sexes -- seems unacceptable.
In fact, it's true. On this point St. Paul is conditioned in part by the mentality of his age. However, the solution is not in eliminating from relations between husbands and wives the word "submission," but, perhaps, in making it mutual, as love must also be mutual.
In other words, not only must husbands love their wives, but wives must also love their husbands. Not only must wives be subject to their husbands, but also husbands to their wives, in mutual love and mutual submission.
However, if these words are an apology for St. Paul, then John Paul II is as guilty as Fr. Canatamessa. John Paul II writes that some of the concepts in the passage are “characteristic of the mentality and customs of the times.” But, he goes on, “Nevertheless, the fundamental moral principle which we find in Ephesians remains the same and produces the same results. The mutual subjection ‘out of reverence for Christ’ . . . always produces that profound and solid structure of the community of the spouses in which the true ‘communion’ of the person is constituted.”
To those people who complain that talking about "mutal submission" is just a way to dilute St. Paul, I have a question. The husband is commanded to love his wife. Does a wife not have to love her husband as well? I don't think that anyone would argue that it's not necessary for a wife to love her husband, but St. Paul does not tell wives to love their husbands; instead he tells them to be submissive. The entire passage starts with the line, "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21). It all starts with "mutal submission". St. Paul then goes on to explain how that submission is expressed through the love of the spouses for each other. This "mutal subjection" is found in the different ways in which men and women express their love for each other. Jennifer Ferrara, in the April 2003 issue of First Things explains the difference in this way:
Men have the more active role in the relationship: the husband is the one who loves while the wife is she who is loved and in return gives love. This special capacity to receive love is what is meant by feminine submission and is the basis of the image of the submission of the Church to Christ. Submission here means to be subsequent or responsive, not necessarily obsequious or subservient. For the man, a love modeled upon Christ’s self-sacrifice leads to a desire to provide and protect to the point of a willingness to give one’s life, both literally and figuratively. Men represent Christ in a way that women cannot because men’s relationship to creation is one of detachment and distance. They cannot fully share in the intimacy that women have with their children. Therefore, they better serve as an image of transcendent love, a love that is wholly other but seeks only the welfare of the other. As primarily relational beings, women are images of immanence and ultimately of the Church, which is prepared, at all times, to receive Christ’s love. The result is a mutual submission, even mutual dependence, that does not undermine the role of men in church or home.
In this reading of the passage, the submission of women to men does not mean that a woman gives up her capacity to think and make decisions when she marries, or even as is commonly touted, that a man always makes the final decision, especially when the couple has a disagreement that seemingly cannot be reconciled, but that the woman is second in the "order of love," receiving love from the man and returning it to him.
The Documents in the Case:
<< Home
In this reading of the passage, the submission of women to men does not mean that a woman gives up her capacity to think and make decisions when she marries, or even as is commonly touted, that a man always makes the final decision, especially when the couple has a disagreement that seemingly cannot be reconciled, but that the woman is second in the "order of love," receiving love from the man and returning it to him.
It's not that I disagree with this, but I believe what ruffles a lot of people's feathers is that they see a husband's headship as a domineering role rather than a responsibility. This is a mistake.
Another mistake is to assume that Pope John Paul II repudiated the teachings of previous popes. As Fr. Paul Check points out in his survey of magisterial teaching the burden of proof is on those who assume this:
Although there are some who may argue that John Paul II has set aside the Church's traditional teaching on the authority of the husband, the burden of proof rests on them to demonstrate that this is the case. In fact, the presumption must be quite the opposite. Through the papal Magisterium, a Pope may elect to emphasize or highlight some theological or practical aspect of the Church's teaching that in his prudential judgment needs emphasis during his pontificate. Yet short of clear statements to the contrary, we cannot move to the conclusion that the teaching of one Pope stands in direct opposition to another Pope or other Popes.
Fr. Check also quotes from C.S. Lewis's The Four Loves: "the sternest feminist need not grudge my sex the crown offered to it either in the Pagan or in the Christian mystery. For the one is of paper and the other of thorns. The real danger is not that husbands may grasp the latter too eagerly; but that they will allow or compel their wives to usurp it."
Lewis's quote rings true. Quite a few of society's problems stem from from men relinquishing the headship role, and women find themselves taking up both the headship and the feminine role of caring for the children. That's the real scandal these days.
This is not to say that men must never take care of children, nor that women can never assume authority. What it does mean is that there is a natural order to the family. Order is sometimes a dirty word in our culture especially considering that the ideology of individualism permeates throughout.
While it's true that the authority of the husband is been taken to mean domination, this false reading of roles does not take away remove the role of headship. Christ is King, but our understanding of His rule is not one of domination.
Both husband and wife are to submit to each other and to love one another. But this mutual submission and love does not reduce their differences nor their distinct roles.
Post a Comment
It's not that I disagree with this, but I believe what ruffles a lot of people's feathers is that they see a husband's headship as a domineering role rather than a responsibility. This is a mistake.
Another mistake is to assume that Pope John Paul II repudiated the teachings of previous popes. As Fr. Paul Check points out in his survey of magisterial teaching the burden of proof is on those who assume this:
Although there are some who may argue that John Paul II has set aside the Church's traditional teaching on the authority of the husband, the burden of proof rests on them to demonstrate that this is the case. In fact, the presumption must be quite the opposite. Through the papal Magisterium, a Pope may elect to emphasize or highlight some theological or practical aspect of the Church's teaching that in his prudential judgment needs emphasis during his pontificate. Yet short of clear statements to the contrary, we cannot move to the conclusion that the teaching of one Pope stands in direct opposition to another Pope or other Popes.
Fr. Check also quotes from C.S. Lewis's The Four Loves: "the sternest feminist need not grudge my sex the crown offered to it either in the Pagan or in the Christian mystery. For the one is of paper and the other of thorns. The real danger is not that husbands may grasp the latter too eagerly; but that they will allow or compel their wives to usurp it."
Lewis's quote rings true. Quite a few of society's problems stem from from men relinquishing the headship role, and women find themselves taking up both the headship and the feminine role of caring for the children. That's the real scandal these days.
This is not to say that men must never take care of children, nor that women can never assume authority. What it does mean is that there is a natural order to the family. Order is sometimes a dirty word in our culture especially considering that the ideology of individualism permeates throughout.
While it's true that the authority of the husband is been taken to mean domination, this false reading of roles does not take away remove the role of headship. Christ is King, but our understanding of His rule is not one of domination.
Both husband and wife are to submit to each other and to love one another. But this mutual submission and love does not reduce their differences nor their distinct roles.
# posted by 
: 8/28/2006 3:17 PM
: 8/28/2006 3:17 PM << Home
