29/5/2016

ChristianOrderReadFeaturesJune/July2002

Howtoreadfootnotes...

June/July2002

Current
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1990s
1980s

The idea of a divinely instituted hierarchy in family life, the embodiment of

naturallaw,hasbeenallbutdestroyedbyfeminismandthecatastrophichyper
egalitarianismofneoEnlightenmentthinking.IntheDecember2001edition,Mr
DilsaverlaidouttheconstantteachingoftheChurchonthepatriarchalhierarchy
of the family. In this important sequel he considers John Paul II's personal,
innovative view of this teaching and how it might be integrated into the
traditionaldoctrineofChristianpatriarchy.Itisimportantthat a distinction be
madebetweenthatwrittenasaprivatetheologianandthatasPopehencethe
useofhisgivennamewhendiscussingprivatewritingsandtheuseofhispapal
namewhendiscussingpapalwritings.

KarolWojtylaandthe
PatriarchalHierarchyoftheFamily
HisExegeticalCommentonEphesians5:2133andGenesis
3:16
G.C.DILSAVER
The intent of the following study of Karol Wojtylas writings is to
locate certain innovative and, as such, controversial aspects of
them within the corpus of magisterial teachings on familial
patriarchythatis,toattempttopositionthemforintegrationasa
legitimate development of doctrine. Indeed, it is this integration
that will give rise to the further development of the doctrine of
Christianpatriarchy.Inattemptingtolocatethefollowing passages
within the corpus of previous Church teachings, it must be
recognized that there is no charism inherent in the papal office,
much less that of the function of a private theologian, that would
guarantee that all theologically progressive utterances of a pope
are in fact a valid development of doctrine. Since it is not within
the competency of this study to make any conclusive judgments
concerning specific issues of valid development of doctrine, an
attempt will be made to present arguments that support the
possibility of such an integration. For, finally, only that which can
be construed in harmony with the doctrine of Christian patriarchy,
that which leaves intact the singular headship of the Christian
husband and father, has the possibility of being a legitimate
development of doctrine. Since the discussion of the roles of men
and women is bound to touch on social and political issuesissues
not of a spiritual naturecertain observations of Wojtyla may not
be by their nature admissible to the body of Church doctrine, but
rather prudential applications tied to time and place. Such non
doctrinalapplicationsareunliketheteachingson familial hierarchy
itself,whichhavebeentaughtoverthespanofChurchhistoryasa
spiritualdoctrineattheveryheartofthesacramentofmarriage.
Finally,ifthefollowingstudyweretounderminetheveryprinciples
whichitsoughttouphold that is, those of Christian hierarchy it
would be a senseless exercise. To avoid such an undermining, the
critique only compares the present pontiff's writings with previous
pontifical writings or established teachings of the Church, and, as

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_junjuly02_bonus_1.html

1/9

29/5/2016

ChristianOrderReadFeaturesJune/July2002

such,doesnotchallengetheauthorityanddignityofthepapacyas
a whole, or the pontificate of John Paul II specifically. To this end,
onlythemostessentialpointsofcriticismhavebeenincluded.
EPHESIANS5:2133
PopeJohnPaulIIhasusedhisWednesdaycatechesisconferenceto
read much of his private theological works. Among these is The
Theology of Marriage and Celibacy. In this work, Karol Wojtyla (as
a private theologian, since this work was completed prior to his
ascending to the papacy) introduces the novel concept of "mutual
submission" in his exegesis of Ephesians 5.(1) The scriptural
passagereads:
"Give way to one another in obedience to Christ. Let
women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord,
because the husband is head of the wife, as Christ is
theheadoftheChurch"[Eph5:2124].
Wojtyla takes the first sentence, which at face value simply gives
the ultimate reason why one is to be submissive, and gives it a
specific prescriptive meaning: "The author speaks of mutual
subjection of the spouses, husband and wife, and in this way
explainsthewordswhichhewillwriteafterwardsonthesubjection
of the wife to the husband."(2) From this first premise, Wojtyla
deduces that "the husband and wife are in fact 'subject to one
another,' and are mutually subordinate to one another."
Furthermore, he states: "Love makes the husband simultaneously
subjecttothewife,andtherebysubjecttotheLordHimself,just as
the wife to the husband"(3) [emphasis mine]. This novel premise
of"mutualsubmission"isproperlyviewedasaninterpretation
rather than as a translation of the passage for the author of
Ephesians does not explicitly "speak of mutual submission of
thespouses,"nordoesthisconceptappearintherestofHoly
Scriptureoranypreviousmagisterialorauthoritativeexegesis
ofthispassage.
Wojtyla's"mutualsubmission"inorthodoxcontext
To construe the interpretative concept of "mutual submission" as a
development of doctrine (that is, as an integral growth from, and
harmoniouswith,previousChurchteachingsandexegesis)requires
anexpandedunderstandingoftheword"submission."Itistruethat
ahusband,inacertainsense,submitshimselftohiswifebygiving
hislifeforherthoughthisbroadeningofthetermhasneverbeen
employed by the Church in her exegesis of the Ephesians 5 or her
teaching on marriage. By broadening the term "submission," the
term acquires an analogous meaning. It cannot be applied exactly
thesametobothhusbandandwife,butonlyinasomewhatsimilar
manner. This analogous broadening of the term is necessary to
keep intact the previously understood meaning, i.e., that of a
hierarchicalorder.If,ontheotherhand,Wojtyla'sstatementthata
husband submits to his wife "just as" she submits to him, is
construed to mean that this submission is identical, then the
understandingoftheterm"submission"wouldnotbeanalogousbut
rather univocal. But such an univocal understanding would
necessarily contradict a hierarchical order as enunciated in
previous magisterial pronouncements, and thus bar it from being
incorporated into the corpus of authentic Church teachings. An
orthodox construal, then, requires that Wojtylas "mutual
submission of the spouses" be seen as an analogous
submission,wherethemanparadoxicallysubmitshimselftoa
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_junjuly02_bonus_1.html

2/9

29/5/2016

ChristianOrderReadFeaturesJune/July2002

life of authority that entails both headship and sacrificial

service.
Elsewhere in this exegesis of Ephesians 5, Wojtyla asserts that by
thepassage"'wives,besubjecttoyourhusbands,astotheLord'...
the author does not intend to say that the husband is the 'lord' of
thewife...."Forthisstatementtobeconstruedasharmoniouswith
previous Church teachings on the subject, "lord" must be
understood in a strictly pejorative sense that is, as a "lording
over" abuse of authority or, as Wojtyla says in the same passage,
an understanding of a husband's lordly position as "a onesided
domination."(4) But the other meaning of 'lord,' the positive
meaning, must not thereby by seen as discarded, for the husband
as "lord of the wife" is not only intrinsic to the Churchs teachings
onfamilialhierarchy,butalsoinaccordwiththemostfundamental
principle of biblical exegesis. This first exegetical principle is to
interpretscripturalpassagesinlightofothersimilarwritingsofthe
day,mostespeciallycompanionscripturalwritings.Intheepistleof
St.Peter,Christianwivesareexhortedtoimitatethe"holywomen
ofthepast...,likeSarah,whowasobedienttoAbraham,andcalled
him her lord." [1 Peter 3:56] (N.B. Emphasis is that of the text.)
Sotoo,the rest of the Pauline letters continually stress patriarchal
hierarchy.(5)
It is the clause "give way to one another in the Lord" at the
beginning of the Ephesians' passage that Wojtyla uses as the
cornerstone of his novel exegesis of Ephesians 5. Yet to construe
"givewaytooneanotherintheLord"asauniversalprescriptionof
mutual, univocal submission would, in effect, do away with all
hierarchical order, including that of the parents and children,
magisterium and faithful, and government and citizens. Instead, a
reading of the entire passage in accord with simple grammatical
logic clearly shows that "give way to one another in the Lord"
indicates both the source of legitimate authority and the spirit of
dutiful submission. The author of Ephesians goes on to delineate
some specific domestic relationships of authority and submission
that find their source and spirit in the Lord, beginning with that
which is the model for the rest, the relation of man and wife. If
Wojtyla's use of the term "mutual submission" were to be taken in
a univocal sense, and hence isolated from previous Church
exegesisofthepassage,thenitwouldfollowthatnotonlyisaman
to submit to his wife, but, as Ephesians goes on to delineate
domesticrelations,parentsaretosubmittotheirchildrenaswell.
Iftheterm"submission"isconstruedinanimplicit,secondary
mannerthatincludesaman'soraparent'sgivingofhislife
in sacrificial service of those under his authority, then the
explicit,primarymeaningwhichentailsahierarchicalstructure
remainsintact. Wojtyla's exegesis must be viewed as an implicit,
secondarydevelopmentofthepassageinordertopositionitinthe
light of previous magisterial teachings and exegesis. The primary,
explicitmeaning,themeaningpreviouslyassertedbytheChurch,is
thatwhichisderivedfromasimplereadingofthepassage.
JohnPaulII'spurifyingofhierarchy
PublishingasPope,JohnPaulIIsmostauthoritativepronouncement
to date on the issue of familial hierarchy, in the apostolic letter
Mulieris Dignitatem, contains a puzzling passage that employs a
historicalcritical methodology in its exegesis and seems to equate
familialpatriarchywithslavery:
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_junjuly02_bonus_1.html

3/9

29/5/2016

ChristianOrderReadFeaturesJune/July2002

"The awareness that in marriage there is mutual

'subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ,'
and not just that of the wife to the husband, must
gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences,
behaviour and customs. St. Paul not only wrote: 'In
Christ Jesus... there is no more man or woman,' but
also wrote: 'There is no more slave or freeman.' Yet
howmanygenerationswereneededforsuchaprinciple
to be realized in the history of humanity through the
abolitionofslavery!"(6)
Here,aselsewhereinhispapalpronouncements,JohnPaulIIuses
his private writings as a basis and reference that is, he is
premising his argument on "in marriage there is a mutual
subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ'." As such,
John Paul II's use of quotation marks here can also be somewhat
misleading. Elsewhere in the passage the use of quotation marks
refers to a direct quotation of a scriptural passage, yet here they
are not enclosing a scriptural quotation, but rather a highly
interpretative extrapolation of a scriptural passage. The point
being, it is important to keep in mind that "mutual subjection
ofthespouses"isnotagivenscripturalordoctrinalpremise,
but rather a concept that comes from Wojtyla's work as a
privatetheologian.
Itistheuseofthisprincipleofmutualsubmissionthatgivesriseto
thebeliefofsomethatJohnPaulIIhascircumventedoreven
negatedtheChurch'straditionalexegesisofEphesians5andthe
derivedteachingonthepatriarchalhierarchyofthefamily.But
again,inkeepingwiththeintentofviewingthewritingsinharmony
withpreviousteachings,theconceptofmutualsubmissionmustbe
seenasmakingwayforthepromotionofanauthenticChristian
patriarchybasedonthekingly,yetsacrificialmodelofChrist,orat
leastnotimplyinganydiminishmentofthedoctrineoffamilial
patriarchalauthority.Sotoo,hiscomparisonofthestateofwifely
submissiontothatofslaverymustbeviewedasadesiretodo
awaywithaworldly,orpaganpatriarchyofbrutedominance,while
promotinganauthenticChristianpatriarchybasedsolelyonthe
commissionofChrist.Suchadevelopmentpurifiesanddefinesthe
uniquenatureofChristianauthorityandpatriarchyitdoesnotdo
awaywithit,butratherelevatesit.
Wojtyla'sreconstructionofEphesians5
ItisnotpossibletodiscounttheentiretyofEphesians5asnon
essentialortodeleteit,asisbeingdoneinthereadingsinmany
parishesanddioceses.Forthissamepassageistheprimary
scripturalbasisfortheecclesiologicaldoctrinethatChrististhe
headoftheChurchandthattheChurchisHisbride.Inaddition,
thispassageprovidestheprimaryscripturalbasisforthedoctrine
oftheunityandsingularityoftheChurch,aswellasthe
matrimonialprinciplesofexclusivity.However,inhisprivate
theologicalworkCatechesisonMarriageandCelibacy,Wojtyla
downplaysEphesians5sessentialthemeofpatriarchal
hierarchyofthefamilyinanefforttoeliminateanyabusiveuse
ofthepassagetojustifymalebrutedomination.Therefore,in
ordertokeepintacttheecclesiologyandmaritaltheology,
whileatthesametimeattemptingtoremedyanymisuseof
Ephesians5,Wojtylamutesthepatriarchalthemeby
vigorouslyreworkingthepassage.
ThenovelexegeticalrevampingthatWojtylaemploysisbasedon
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_junjuly02_bonus_1.html

4/9

29/5/2016

ChristianOrderReadFeaturesJune/July2002

thefollowingextratextualassumption:thattheecclesial\familial
analogyisusednottoshowhowtherelationshipofmanandwifeis
areflectionofthespiritualunionofChristandtheChurch,but
ratherthattheanalogyisusedasasortofparableofthetime,
employingthatculture'sexperienceofmarriagetoilluminatethe
relationshipofChristandtheChurch.Wojtylaadvancesthatin
ordertoproperlyunderstandEphesians5:21,thetextmustberead
inareversemanner("torereadtheanalogyinversely")than
whichitiswrittenandthatthisreworkingofthetextisthe
"normative"readingandrenderstheprimarymeaning("toexpress
firstofall....")ofthepassage:
"MarriagecorrespondstothevocationofChristiansas
spousesonlyif,precisely,thatloveisreflectedand
effectedtherein.Thiswillbecomeclearifweattempt
torereadthePaulineanalogyinversely,thatis,
beginningwiththerelationshipofChristtotheChurch
andturningnexttotherelationshipofhusbandandwife
inmarriage....Wecanpresumethattheauthor,who
hasalreadyexplainedthatthesubmissionofthewifeto
thehusbandasheadisintendedasreciprocal
submission'outofreverenceforChrist,'goesbackto
theconceptrootedinthementalityofthetime,to
expressfirstofallthetruthconcerningtherelationship
ofChristtotheChurch...."(7)
Wojtyla here seems to conclude that the author of Ephesians was
notelucidatingprimarilyupontherelationshipofmanandwife,but
upon that of the Church and Christ, and that the headship of the
manandsubmissionofthewife were merely accidental examples:
an example that today is pass due to its cultural basis.(8) By
proposingthattheauthorofEphesiansfacevalueanalogyis not to
be read analogously unless we "reread the Pauline analogy
inversely," and that such an inversion's focus on Christ and the
Church is what the author desired "to express first of all," Wojtyla
is able to turn the passage into an ecclesial statement primarily,
while relegating its domestic prescription to an accidental, cultural
status. Still,itmustbenotedthat"thementalityofthetimes"
was not tending toward patriarchy, but quite the opposite.(9)
In fact, the many exhortations in the Epistles concerning
patriarchal familial and ecclesial hierarchy were necessitated
bythefeminismofthetimes,especiallyamongtheupperclass
incosmopolitanRomancitiesorcoloniessuchasEphesus.
Wojtyla's reconstruction of Ephesians 5:21 is accomplished by
changing the literary device used by the author of Ephesians from
that of typification to that of parable. Typification is a literary
device that shows how essential characteristics and internal
relations of a subtype are derived from a prototype. Parable is a
literarydeviceusedtoillustrateasublimetruthbycomparingitto
a common occurrence. Typification is used to bring out a truth
aboutthemoremundaneconcept,inthecaseofEphesians5:21the
truth of the domestic order. Whereas parable is used to illuminate
the more sublime concept, which in Wojtyla's reconstruction is the
relationofChristandtheChurch.Bychangingtheliterarydevice of
the passage from that of typification to that of parable Wojtyla is
thus able to render the passage a discourse on ecclesiological
ratherthanondomesticrelations.
ConstantChurchTeachingonEphesians5
Yet the Church has always taught that marriage is modeled on
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_junjuly02_bonus_1.html

5/9

29/5/2016

ChristianOrderReadFeaturesJune/July2002

Christ's relationship with the Church. Indeed the sacramentality of

marriage is due to it being a type of the union of Christ and His
Church. That is, marriage as type derives or patterns its character
and internal dynamics from the prototype, Christ and the Church.
Marriage as type is temporal Christ's relation with the Church as
prototype is eternal, lasting not only beyond marriage, but
somehow preceding it is as well. That is why St. Paul can imply
that the union of man and wife as it was in the prefallen state,
where a man leaves his father and mother and becomes one flesh
withhiswife,isbecauseofthepreexistingprototypeofChristand
the Church. The Church has always considered the Ephesians
5:21passageasonethattypifiestherelationofhusbandand
wife in accord with the prototype relation of Christ and the
Church:
"In His most farreaching foresight God thus decreed
that husband and wife should be the natural beginning
of the human race. [Footnoted as follows:] As fact and
as symbol, nothing could be more beautiful and
significantthanthisactofGod.ItisallamarvelofHis
love,theclimaxofwhichisreachedintheinstitutionof
Matrimony,imagingthemysticalnuptials of Christ with
HisBride, the Church, taken from his own open side in
His sleep of death upon the cross. In that union of
Christ with His Church we have for all time the model
ofeveryChristianmarriage"(10)[Emphasismine].
Finally,St.Thomassays,"atypeisaprotestationofthetruth,and
thereforecanneverbedetractedfromintheslightestdegree."
Inaddition,thereadingofEphesians5:21asatypificationmeant
to bring out a truth about the marital relationship by deriving that
truth from the illustration of Christ's relation with the Church is
warrantedbythecontextoftherestofthechapter,whichisclearly
a treatise on proper Christian behaviour, both personal and
domestic,asopposedtoatreatiseonecclesiology.Thistypification
does not, however, diminish the ecclesiological import of the
passage. Unlike the literary device of parable, in which the
mundane illustration is poetical and is not intended to convey a
truth about itself (e.g. the parable of the labourers in the vineyard
[Mt. 20:116] is not intended as an economic statement on just
wages), the use of typification necessarily asserts the higher truth
oftheillustratedprototype.
Wojtyla further seeks to transform Ephesians 5 by the statement
that the author of Ephesians "has already explained that the
submission of the wife to the husband as head is intended as
reciprocal submission 'out of reverence for Christ'." This imputes a
meaningtothephrase"submittooneanotherout of reverence for
Christ" that is manifestly not explained by the author of Ephesians
intheextendedmannersubsequentlydevelopedbyWojtyla.
If Wojtyla's novel extrapolation of "submit to one another out of
reverence for Christ," is not to be viewed as derived from a
premise that is totally outside the context of either scripture or
tradition, it must be interpreted in the context of not only the rest
ofthepassagebuttheotherPaulineandPetrineepistlesaswell.It
thus must be considered to be in harmony with the traditional
teaching on familial patriarchy, regardless of its lack of reiteration
of that teaching, and intended only to eliminate that which is a
distortionofthatteaching,i.e.,amalebruteandpagan dominance.
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_junjuly02_bonus_1.html

6/9

29/5/2016

ChristianOrderReadFeaturesJune/July2002

Nor, it may confidently be supposed, does Wojtyla's

characterization of the passage as "rooted in the mentality of the
times" reflect an intent to implement the historicalcritical method
in an effort to deconstruct and eliminate one of the Church's
constantteachings.
GENESIS3:16
In Mulieris Dignitatem, section 10, Pope John Paul II refers to one
of the consequences of original sin: "Your desire shall be for your
husband, and he shall rule over you" [Gn 3:16]. The Holy Father
writes:
"This domination indicates the disturbance and loss of
thestabilityofthatfundamentalequalitywhichtheman
and the women possess in the unity of the two.... The
matrimonialunionrequiresrespectforandaperfecting
of the true personal subjectivity of both of them. The
woman cannot become the object of domination and
male possession. The words of the Book of Genesis
quoted previously (3:16) show how...the inclination to
sin, will burden the mutual relationship of man and
woman."
Here, neither the assertion of fundamental equality, nor the
condemnation of woman as "an object of domination and a
malepossession,"iscontrarytoauthenticChristianpatriarchy.
Theformerisbuttheassertionoftheequaldignityofmenand
women, the latter is but the condemnation of a pagan or
worldlypatriarchalorderbasedonpower.
Yet further on in Mulieris Dignitatem, John Paul II's use of phrases
such as "fundamental equality" and "a unity of two ... called to
exist mutually one for the other," are liable to be construed as
implying that before the Fall there was no hierarchical order:
"These words of Genesis [3:16] refer directly to marriage, but
indirectly they concern the different spheres of social life: the
situations in which the woman remains disadvantaged or
discriminated against by the fact of being a woman. The revealed
truth concerning the creation of the human being as male and
female[i.e.asfundamentallyequalbeforethe Fall] constitutes the
principle argument against all the objectively injurious and unjust
situationswhichcontainandexpresstheinheritanceofsin...."(11)
Anexampleof"injuriousandunjustsituations"isgiveninFamiliaris
Consortio: "the oppressive presence of a father, especially where
there still prevails the phenomenon of 'machismo,' or a wrong
superiority of male prerogative which humiliates women [i.e.
"causes psychological and moral imbalance and notable difficulties
in family relationships"]" (para. 25). Again, the Holy Father's
words, in harmony with constant Church teaching, must be applied
to "a wrong superiority" rather than to all patriarchal prerogative.
So too, while there was no sin before the Fall and hence no sinful
domination, there still existed a patriarchal order.(12) Pope John
Paul II's teaching then, understood in the light of constant
Church teaching, advances that Christ purified and restored
marriage to its pristine but still patriarchal state, eradicating
not familial hierarchy but rather that which was a sinful
perversionofit.
As a final note on Mulieris Dignitatem, it should be mentioned that
JohnPaulIIdidnotintendtoconveyadogmaticstatementwhenhe
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_junjuly02_bonus_1.html

7/9

29/5/2016

ChristianOrderReadFeaturesJune/July2002

writes: "that the first sin is the sin of man, created by God male
and female. It is also the sin of the 'first parents,' to which is
connecteditshereditarycharacter. In this sense we call it 'original
sin'"(Sec.9).Forstrictlyspeaking,thoughthefirstsinwasthatof
Eve, it was the second sin of Adam, as head of the human race,
whichwasoriginalsin.(13)
Restoringpreternaturalhierarchy
Christ,indeedcametorestorethedignityandloftinessofmarriage
to its preternatural state, and, indeed, to raise it above that state.
But that state was not one of total nonhierarchical equality, but
ratherapatriarchalhierarchybasedontheveryauthorityofChrist.
Christ's restoration of marriage then entails not the elimination of
thepatriarchalhierarchyofthefamily,butratheritselevationfrom
a sinful, worldly context: which is exactly what St. Paul and all
subsequent positive magisterial pronouncements on the subject
havestronglyaffirmed.
Secondly, the consequences of original sin have not traditionally
been considered sinful in themselves, nor results of an inclination
to sin, but rather as embodying "remedies that limit the damaging
effects of sin."(14) Nor did Christ do away with the effects of
original sin, but rather made them the very means of man's
sanctification (i.e. the redemptive nature of suffering, such as
childbirth and manual labour). So while the punishments
prescribedinGenesisdonotgivehusbandsalicenseforsinful
domination(justastheydonotgiveanemployeralicensefor
exploitation of his labourers), they do establish a woman's
need("desire"or"yearning"for)herhusbandandahusband's
rulingposition. It is the disorder of sin that necessitates that
ruling, the act of "making straight," is an integral part of
headship.
ThatwhichisprescribedinGenesisasaresultoftheFallmaybeto
someextentalleviated(thoughnottoadegreethattheynolonger
actas"remediesthatlimitthedamagingeffectsofsin"),butthere
should be no attempt to circumvent or do away with them since
theyweredivinelyordained.
CONCLUSION
In the same manner as those that feel free to delete from the
Deposit of Faith any teaching that was not repeated in the
Documents of Vatican II (which is the vast majority of Church
teaching)byclaimingitsexclusionisitsrescission,therearethose
that wish to discard the traditional teaching of the Church on
familial patriarchy due to John Paul II's nonreiteration of that
teaching. But nonreiteration is neither rescission nor repudiation.
While the papal charism disallows formal statements of heresy, it
doesnotcompelpositivestatementsoforthodoxy. When John Paul
II's writings on patriarchy are read in the contextual harmony with
previous magisterial pronouncements on the subject they must
needs be viewed as having the primary intent of eradicating that
whichhas in the past masqueraded as a Christian patriarchy.John
PaulIIswritings,then,canbeseenaspavingthewayforthe
establishment of an authentic Christian patriarchy, a
patriarchypurifiedofallbrutishdominanceandworldlypower
andbasedfirmlyonChristandhiscommissionofauthorityas
pertraditionalexegesisandteaching.

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_junjuly02_bonus_1.html

8/9

29/5/2016

ChristianOrderReadFeaturesJune/July2002

TheauthorhasaMastersdegreeintheologyfromtheJohnPaulIIInstituteand
iscurrentlystudyingforadoctorateinpsychology,workingonthe formulation
of an authentic Catholic clinical theory and practice. He can be contacted at
gcd@allvantage.com

FOOTNOTES
(1) See "The Principle of Christian Patriarchal Hierarchy," Christian Order,
December2001,pp.655657,forthetraditionalexegesisofthispassage.
(2)JohnPaul II, General Audience, Catechesis on Marriage and Celibacy in the
LightoftheResurrectionoftheBody(11August1982)sec.3.
(3)Ibid.,sec.4.
(4)Thispejorativeuseof"lord,"inthesenseof"lordingover,"canbeseeninthe
writingsofH.BalthasaronthePapacy.Balthasar'sardentintent,nonetheless,is
topreserveandstrengthenauthenticpapalauthority.
(5)1Cor7:1711:11614:3338Eph5:2133Col3:18211Tim2:815TI2:1
10.
(6)JohnPaul II, apostolic letter, MulierisDignitatem, (15 August 1988) Ch. VI,
Sec.24.
(7)JohnPaulII,CatechesisonMarriageandCelibacysec.3,4,5.
(8)Ibid.,sec.6.
(9)See"AncientPaganism,"ChristianOrder,December2001,pp.65051.
(10)LeoXIII,Arcanum,encyclical,1880.
(11)Ibid.
(12)See"PreternaturalState,"ChristianOrder,December2001,pp.648650.
(13)IfonlyEvehadsinned,therewouldhavebeennooriginalsinnorFall.The
pivotal dogmatic teaching on original sin states that it was through Adam
exclusively that humanity inherited its consequences. In light of the dogma of
originalsinascommittedandtransmittedexclusivelybyAdam,itisirrefutable
thatAdaminhispreternaturalstatehadamostaugustandcrucialheadshipthat
wasnotfoundinEve.
(14)CatechismoftheCatholicChurch,para.1609.

BacktoTop|Features2002

http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_junjuly02_bonus_1.html

9/9