Today’s second reading from Mass was Ephesians 5:21-32, which happened to be our second reading at our wedding Mass last year. Zenit reproduces a short reflection on the reading by Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher to the papal household.
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.
I’m afraid Fr. Cantalamessa falls into the same trap that so many homilists do, making apologies for St. Paul (and the Holy Spirit evidently). In this new age of equal rights for men and women, we are embarrassed by those seemingly misogynist bits and pieces of Scripture and Tradition. But is St. Paul conditioned by his age and proposing something that we must now disregard or re-interpret for a new age? No!
What St. Paul is saying: bridal imagery of Christ and His Church
Technorati Tags:Catholic, Ephesians, liturgy, marriage, Mass, Scripture
Scripture and magisterial teaching is quite clear. Wives owe obedience to their husbands and husbands do not (normally) owe obedience to their wives. This is certainly not the end of the story about Christian married life but it is a fact that few priests today are willing to preach.
They read the short version in my church today.
Is the “short version” an accurate version?
Where does it come from? It seems that the “offensive” part is summarized in the short version.
What is the authority for creating a short version of a reading?
I understand when there really is a long version (more sentences) and a short version (less sentences with essentially the same points) but this short version seemed like a summary sentence and then the rest of the non-offensive sentences. My understanding is that the readings at mass are to be direct bible interpretations and not summarized in any way. So is the short version that we were read today proper in terms of the order/rules of the mass? It was listed in both ways in our mass booklets.
The “short version” only addresses the duties of husbands. It seems even more lopsided.
This is why we listen to the Magisterium (who gave us the Scriptures to teach us) in order to teach us what it already knows. St. Paul doesn’t make the Catholic teaching; he is clarifying it. If the teaching is not clear in Ephesians, go to the Catechism to explain it.
I think a couple of people missed he first line of the passage, which must be taken into account. Along with wives submitting to their husbands and husbansd respecting their wives, Saint Paul also says in verse 21, “Be submissive to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
There is mutual submission, and as others have pointed out, the way in which husbands and wives submit to eachother is different. There are different gifts and different weaknesses, so different kinds of submission. But you just as you can’t forget what St. Paul says about wives submitting to their husbands, just so can’t forget about verse 21, as a couple of you seem to want to do.
That being said, there are other posts here which I have enjoyed reading very much, and which have given me good food for thought. Thank you.
It seems to me the “mutual submission” point is valid, insofar as the lection begins, “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.”
Further, set in the context of Paul’s theology, and NT theology, of kenosis—God’s self-emptying—then the point is even stronger.
I.e., once you get past the “power” thing, and talk instead about looking at Christ, and forgetting who has the power, then I think the “submit” word loses its sting.
We read the longer reading, at least at the Masses I celebrated (I don’t know what the other priests do, but I suspect they left it alone. Since it’s a licit option, this isn’t a case where I restrict the other priests, particularly since I see little need).
Given that I was planning a homily on the latter part of Mass—last part of a five-part series—I was tempted to use the shorter reading, so that this power thing didn’t distract. Instead, I found a way to include it, and I’m glad I did. (You can see my homily at my website if interested.)
Kate:
I realize you were probably being facetious, but my reading of John 2 is not that Mary was in any way pushy. I think there’s a tremendous dialogue going on between Mary and the Lord that is unspoken, yet hinted at in what is written. Fulton Sheen took the Lord’s response as a question—i.e., do you want this to begin the new phase of my ministry—i.e., do you want “my hour to come”? This sign would commence it.
The brilliant scholar at my seminary argues that the Lord’s response isn’t to refuse the miracle (since he doesn’t), but to indicate to his mother that the time is not yet ripe for her full role to unfold; it will come, soon, with the arrival of his hour. Hence, his response isn’t to the miracle, but to Mary’s readiness to be the mother of the Church; and to that Jesus replies with an encouraging, “not yet.” (This is the significance of the “Woman” usage, which recalls Eve, and hence casts Mary as the new Eve, mother of all the living.)
Either way, I don’t see the Lord refusing, or even reluctant, and somehow “overriden” by Mama. It makes far more sense to me that Mary was so tuned into her Son that no words needed to be exchanged for her to say, “Do whatever he tells you” with confidence. A great depiction of this being “tuned in” is in Mel Gibson’s The Passion; Mary is perfectly in sync with her Son’s program; no one else in the movie is.
man with black hat: Ephesians Five
“So when they have selected, do not accuse local priests of wanting to delete truth.”
That the option exists to use a “short version” is not in contention here. The discussion is based solely on the merits of applying that option, in terms of getting the message across. There are those who contend that Paul’s call for mutual submission is lost in the short version.
Are you prepared to contend otherwise?
Except that Cantalamessa did apologize for St. Paul.
Don’t worry ladies. When Islam finally takes over our crumbling secular, post-Christian society and sharia is imposed, you will all be soundly beaten by your husbands.
St. Paul will seem like a fond and distant memory.