My reason being that I know what it's like to have a deep awareness of and longing for something that you don't quite (or at all, even a little bit) know how to achieve. Due to an unfortunate erasure of the collective memory, many of us have been in the position of recreating something, the form of which we hardly can conceive. And some of us are seriously impaired and could use a lift from someone who's gone down the road before.
Part of the struggle is utterly practical. And part of it — the part where we have to fight through early indoctrination and latent, subconscious habit — is theoretical.
It's the theoretical that I decided to tackle with this reading of Casti Connubii (so quaintly called Chaste Marriage in plain, 19th century — because Pius XI, writing in 1930, was a 19th century kind of guy — English). I would put it to you that it's well worth it to figure out how the unbroken tradition of the Church interprets Scripture in the light of current problems, which is essentially the definition of an encyclical, LMLD-style.
Not to shy away from the tough bits, I would like to expand on a few points that are going to be stumbling blocks for your average 21st-century gal.
1. … as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife. (50)
As dear Jenny said in a comment, this seems to be the harshest statement in the document. He's talking about redefining marriage and taking the procreative act out of the context of marriage. The whole encyclical is directed towards women. He's taking feminists at their word and giving his answer to what they propose, which is nothing less than a tectonic shift in human relations — one based on power rather than love.
You might wish that he would talk directly to men, and maybe someday there would be an encyclical about men: Husband, Father, Leader. I would like to see that.
You can't have it both ways, though — getting upset that everything is about men, and then getting upset that everything is about women.
This is how I read this passage: There is an honor that is specifically reserved for the woman when she bears a child in wedlock, and, given the magnitude of what the sexual act means to the woman — the long-term consequences for her and her child, should she conceive, and the ultimate difference it makes in her life and the lives of her children whether she is married or not — it is only justice to acknowledge that.
It's a mercy to state it plainly. The effects of not doing so are all around us, and I won't belabor them.
2. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. (74)
and… for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man. (75)
Don't let your reaction to this one be, at bottom, a question of style, one way or another. The whole notion of submission, or subjection, or obedience — and, conversely of leadership and headship — is not about changing your personality or essential way of grappling with reality.
The problem is that we all have the tendency to confuse equal with same.
So, when, for instance, John Paul II comes along with Familiaris Consortio (another document of lesser stature than this one that should, nevertheless, be read!) and speaks of “mutual subjection,” we forget that two people can be equally devoted to each other, but not in an identical way.
The wife's being subject to her husband is about two things, one really big thing and one really little thing. The big thing is that she be willing to go where he goes. As the Irish say, that she hang her washing up with his, that she be buried with his people.
Their relationship won't last long and their children will suffer if an extreme case arises that threatens to separate them, and it can't be resolved by whatever means they normally employ.
The little thing is that she be willing to respect him and to show him that she respects him. I call that one little because it has to do with her tone, her attention, and her fundamental bonding to him as a person whose state — not necessarily personality or qualifications — bestow on him the right to be called the head of the family. It's something she gives to him, freely, willingly.
So do you see how those two things are connected? One big, one little. One macro, one micro, let's put it that way.
In between is the whole range of human activity and decision-making that can go lots of different ways, depending on how two people are constituted — and that no one is saying anything about how you should handle!
This is another effect of thinking “sameness”: We women get anxious thinking that all women should be the same — that you are going to impose your way of interpreting something on me, and make me go around as quiet as a mouse, never to be able to speak my mind again!
And that is just not going to happen.
If you are by nature compliant, that's you! True, you might try to be a little more assertive, in charity.
If you are by nature someone who pushes back, who speaks out (not that I know anything about this), you might try to soften a little.
And of course, there's the personality of the husband as well. And then there is the way the two personalities mix. Only God could sort it all out! And He does, by being very encouraging of our freedom, contrary to what most people think.
In Scripture, as in these documents, it's abundantly clear that the husband has to be just as devoted as his wife — possibly more so, unto death.
The fact is that most men in America are afraid of women, and women in our day have been trained to be, well, obnoxious — specifically towards their husbands. So that is why reading this sort of thing is a good corrective. But you have to know yourself.
And as time goes by in a marriage, experience shows the wisdom of this “division of labor” — husbands love your wives/wives submit to your husbands — because the characteristic fault of the husband is to treat his wife in a loveless manner (even if he really does love her), exerting his power over her — and the characteristic fault of the wife is to complain about and boss and nag her husband (and really not to respect him much).
A little secret? Wives even sometimes overtly submit to their husbands but in a particularly over-tolerant and uncharitable way! They make their husbands feel stupid, while pretending to be submissive!
Oh, it's a tricky business! No one wants your submission if that's what it's going to be like!
Be free, be real, be kind.
The same spirit of freedom and devotion goes for working or not working. Can't you see that circumstances make all the difference? A woman to whom God has given say, one child, may have much more opportunity to work outside the home than one who has many children. She may not. But, depending on their attitude, each may be equally “enthroned” in her home as its heart and queen — or, sadly, not.
That is why Pius XI says this:
As, however, the social and economic conditions of the married woman must in some way be altered on account of the changes in social intercourse, it is part of the office of the public authority to adapt the civil rights of the wife to modern needs and requirements, keeping in view what the natural disposition and temperament of the female sex, good morality, and the welfare of the family demands, and provided always that the essential order of the domestic society remain intact, founded as it is on something higher than human authority and wisdom, namely on the authority and wisdom of God, and so not changeable by public laws or at the pleasure of private individuals. (77)
Unfortunately, we have more than realized his prophecies. The “emancipation” way isn't working. It's led to a war of women against men, with children as the collateral damage.
That can't be. It's worth overcoming our anxieties to find out what God's plan really is, and submit to that, men and women alike.
Here is Part II of our discussion: God has no grandchildren.
Here is Part III of our discussion: “You are building something.”
Mary says
Auntie Leila – I am so enjoying this discourse on Casti Cannubii. I am not one to run to the internet and read an encyclical. I prefer something a little less trying for my brain cells. However, when you suggested the idea several weeks ago I decided to rise to the challenge and actually expand my mind.
I am so glad I did. What a rich and beautiful document Mother Church provides for us as women. What an incredible road map for marriage. I only wish I had read it sooner. It has encouraged me 25 years into this marriage journey of mine, to challenge myself to live in a more selfless and sacrificial way. To fully embrace my husbands mission for our family and to follow this wonderful instructional manual.
Thank you for reminding me of the beauty of my vocation. Thank you for gently prodding me to reach for something greater than myself. Thank you for making my brain hurt and my heart soar. Thank you for the imperfections you share as well as the wisdom of your experiences.
Thank you…for being you…blessings and grace from my home to yours…
Melissa says
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Kathy says
Again and again I find your writings and thoughts on Cast Cannubii to be inspiring and thought provoking, it has opened the doors on so much great discussion and discernment for my husband and I – at a very critical 'fork in the road' sort of time in our family's life. I do not find this ironic, I find the Holy Spirit directing this coincidence. Your writing about Casti Cannubii has not only thrilled me, but pricked my conscience as well – I actually like that, it's balanced…thank you!
Lauren says
Wow, thank you for your clarity and wisdom. This is a really neat study, I love reading your comments and explanations and you truly say what needs to be heard. I've never understood what “submissive” means because it is so taboo to talk about and no one lives it anymore so there are no examples to model, but I loved your explanation! Thank you again!
Pippajo says
Well said, so very well said! The Viking and I have been learning much about this very thing and God has richly blessed us and our marriage through it. What joy we miss when we fight against what God has planned so perfectly!
gretchenjoanna says
I never had occasion to read the encyclicals you refer to, but now that I read the excerpts and your comments I am very blessed to have them together in one place – so much wisdom is here, and your explanations and examples from real life are eloquent and loving. I will save this – thank you!
Cathy says
Yes, yes… but what about that delicious looking maple syrup you are boiling down in those pictures!!
Patty says
So well said. I think many if us need the vision (the theory!) to inspire us to press on in the day-to-day work of raising our larger-than-average families. I know I do! Thank you for providing that! I'm actually waiting on the edge of my seat for each new installment! Thanks for taking on this mighty task.
Wanda says
You are just so wise! Am loving this!
Catherine says
Thank you for this series and sharing your wisdom! I just have to echo others here that this is giving me lots to think about , and work on! I have discovered that I am not where I need to be in my views of my husband… and I was one who knew and believed in and accepted the passage in scripture and the Church's teaching on the whole submission thing and headship of the husband!! I find I didn't really, fully understand what it meant after all, so thank you for explaining.
Leila, you are doing such an important work here. I really need this (your blog and advice) and you! I hope you realize this and never stop sharing/helping/guiding us young women out here.
Blessings, Catherine
Donna L. says
That's it! You're expanding my mind and helping me to be a better wife, and subsequently, a better Mommy!
I have learned so much through the posts, and your well-thought out responses to this encyclical…thank you for challenging us to read this.
I have/had trouble with the word 'submissive' for many years in my marriage. I still love my husband, but semantics stood in the way. DOGS were submissive…not wives — in my brain. But with your explanation~I get it! I can be submissive and it's a *good* thing…!
Kara says
I find it interesting how much Friedman's work overlaps with this encyclical, though from different underlying frameworks. People forget that Friedman also warned of women becoming wage slaves. Both the encyclical and Friedman are arguing against the notion of a woman as arm/house candy whose only valuable role is as a consumer, rooted in Victorian middle-class notions of womanhood that were hyperdeveloped post-WWII. I can't help feeling that people would be better off if they got past the individualism and actually started respecting the effect of their actions on others. In other words, people need to start acting like adults (ahem).
Elizabeth says
“The fact is that most men in America are afraid of women, and women in our day have been trained to be, well, obnoxious — specifically towards their husbands.”
That for me as a longtime Dutch reader, is SO very true. Ik have been in the US and have quite a few friends from the US living here and I can't for the life of me, wrap my mind about the attitude of American women towards their husbands. Of their fathers, of their brothers, for that matter.
If I am unhappy with something my husband does (or my brother, or my father) I would NEVER tell them this in public. And why would I? It would completely crush their ego's and make them feel very much embarrassed and since I love them, why would I want that? For me, that would be the opposite of loyalty. You don't need to be a catholic to believe that, or a christian in general. It's a matter of good manners to me.
The things grown up women tell their spouses out loud, belittling them as if they are small children, made me feel so awkward and embarrassed in their place that I didn't even know where to look.
The problem is, these women seem to think it's a perfectly normal and respectable thing to do, they seem to think that's what they're here for… to correct their male family members. And the men in turn have this submissive, sheepish look when they are being scolded.
Let me tell you, I have a hard time respecting these men. But I have an even harder time liking these women.
Holland is by no means a country were things are more traditional compared to the US, but even though it's a very verbal culture, such things are 'not done'.
Melissa Diskin says
As a devout Protestant, I'm really loving this series! And everyone's comments.
I wonder if the topic of mutual submission in marriage is hard to swallow these days because submission to *anything* is seen as anathema, especially in modern American society. (Or at best, deemed quaint.)
julie says
Leila,
Thank you for your post. There have been numerous articles in the “atlantic” recently about the exhaltation of women at the expense of men. My husband has been the recipient of this bias when on hiring committees etc. The trump card for anyone seems to be womanhood, whether this woman is a nice person to work with or not, or even good at her job, seems to be secondary to the sex of the person being interviewed, or the constituancy involved. This does not bode well for my son. Thank you for your post. I can now see that often I am part of the problem, as my respect for my husband is lacking in certain areas of our marriage. I love that you verbally admonish us for our part, especially for the fact that any man saying it would be thought as a whiner,or a bigot simply by pointing out the faults we seem to hold as a banner over our feminism. Thank you.
Glenda Childers says
I like your summary …Be free, be real, be kind. Sounds perfect to me.
Fondly,
Glenda
_Leila says
Ah! that makes my day 🙂
Fondly!
Leila
Cammy says
I have struggled with “submission” in St. Paul for years, and only recently have begun to come to an understanding of it. You stated succinctly what has been swirling vaguely in my mind: St. Paul tells men to love their wives because their characteristic fault is not to be loving enough, and wives to be submissive, because their characteristic fault is to be too bossy. Another way to think about it is that St. Paul is simply asking us to respect each other: men need to show their wives respect by treating them with love, and women need to show their husbands respect by letting them be men.
CatherineTherese says
Gratitude first of all to Holy Mother Church for her proclamation of Truth in season and out of season.
And then gratitude to you, Auntie Leila, and to the other women of this online Casti Connubii community.
This week's post is truly an answer to a specific prayer made in desperation yesterday about wifely submission. God loves me. 🙂
I still wonder, though, about proper wifely submission in a marriage in which the husband does tend to exercise his authority with vigour and without much finesse.
I have my part which I need to live better and I'll entrust the rest to His Loving Providence.
Thank you for leading us along this path. And for inviting us to share in your life.
Laura says
another thought i had this morning, in light of the effects of the feminist movement, is that really, at its heart, feminism is really a smoke screen and blame shifting for the sinful state of womens' hearts. While it may be true that in the past, men did slack in their responsibilities at times, they have become the scapegoat for all feminists to blame for all their own personal dissatisfaction with themselves and life…And I'm not sure I've ever met a humble feminist, willing to admit wrong-doing…willing to confess the sin of her heart…and in reality, it is that sin and depravity that makes her miserable, regardless of how much she spouts about “equality”…but admit it? She won't…one of the many reasons why feminism is not compatible with Christianity…it is at its heart about rebellion rather than submission…both outwardly and inwardly.
_Leila says
Laura, I do think that seeking equality as power is never going to lead to anything good. It's not that men \”in the past\” did bad things — men have their way of being bad and always will, and women have our way. All I can say is that destroying the family, which is a God-given institution, is not going to solve things!
Lindsay says
Laura with all due respect you are wrong, feminism was and is about giving women the right to vote, making spousal rape a crime rather than a right, allowing women to own property in their own names, to be safe from husbands who would gladly kill them. At its base it ensures the rights and freedoms that all humans should be afforded. For centuries, the deck was stacked against women in every way. In the courts, in the home, even in the marital bed we weren't safe. Now thanks to the work of early feminists we are persons under the law and entitled to the protections therein. And I will never call that a “smoke screen”
Sukie says
Well, I do think that it's a mistake to say that there is no such thing as a humble feminist. For one thing, the fact is that many women define themselves as feminists, all with different definitions.
On the other hand, at what time in this country was it legal for men to blithely kill their wives? Nor do I accept the claim that women have always and everywhere been oppressed “in every way” up until a few decades ago. Again, women have always had the right to speak their minds in this country (with the exception of slaves).
Meanwhile, those working for “women's rights” in the U.S. right now ARE working to preserve the “right” to kill the unborn. They do enormous damage in the objectification of women. When speaking amongst themselves, they admit that their objective is to gain power at all costs.
Personally, I wish we could move on from the term “feminist.” I don't want to define myself by the idea that women need more power. Power is the problem. The sexes are equal, each uniquely ordered to serve God here on earth and in Heaven. Without that understanding, both men and women are stuck in a constant power struggle, with women and children bearing the brunt of the damage.
Jenny says
I like your take on the rights reserved to married mothers. I suspected I was reading the word “rights” in an overly American way, but I could not figure out what else it could mean. Rereading in that light makes me think of the stigma of having children out of wedlock. In some communities there is no stigma at all and they are reaping terrible consequences.
It makes me again remember a theme I have pondered for years. How do we show compassion and charity to an individual in a bad situation (even perhaps of his own making) without destroying society? A concrete example would be the baby showers for unwed mothers. How do we give an unwed mother support without incentivizing her situation? I really don't know.
Jenny says
Oh, and I forgot…maple syrup! YUM!
Nancy says
Thank you so much for bringing this writing to our attention !
Jenny says
First, thank you very much for this series. It has been very informative. I am a convert to Catholicism from Presbyterianism, and must admit that my early days in the Church were filled with much wonder at how very un-submissive many Catholic wives seemed to be. It has been a real delight to read this along with you and others, and now that I'm not the only Catholic wife with this desire to be a submitted housewife.
Second, I'm a mother with only one child who didn't choose to be the mother of an only. I'm content with my situation, but would be delighted with more children. I don't know when I'll ever have the time to work outside of the home, though. Honestly, I've never had the desire! Managing a home to my and my husband's liking is a very time consuming endeavor. Even when my little one has flown the nest, I hope to have more time to devote to my husband and potential daughter-in-law and grandchildren.