The Magnanimous Housewife

Mrs Jones, a housewife herself, discusses the democratic distrust of Kingsgip, the suspicion of authority, and exaggerated "hyperpaternalism".

From One Peter Five

By Olivia Jones, BA

The following reflection is for my sisters in Christ called to the married state.

Humility as the Magnanimous Life

The magnanimous man in Aristotle’s Ethics is the man who “deems himself worthy of great things and is worthy of them.”[1] In other words, he knows that he’s pretty glorious. Since the classic understanding of humility is “understanding the truth about oneself,” one could argue the magnanimous man is quite humble. However, for the filia Hevae (daughter of Eve), humility imparts the knowledge that she is a broken part of the doomed, flawed human race. Such self understanding seems to put magnanimity out of reach for any honest woman in touch with reality. Such contrariety between magnanimity and humility would remain the human condition, except for the Word who said, “he that shall humble himself shall be exalted” (Matthew 23:12).

In the A.D. era, humility is the route to magnanimity. After all, the ones who know they are the most wretched sinners have potential to become the greatest saints. Those among us who see that we are undoubtedly bound in chains to the world, the flesh, and the devil, and act upon that knowledge with prayer, fasting, and almsgiving, become the luminaries who shine with a glorious, enchanting greatness of soul. Who remembers the Italian lords at the time of St. Francis of Assisi? A few historians. But we all remember St. Francis, because he became humble. Now, both men and women can attain human excellence through heroic lives —more than was ever possible in the B.C. era of human history.

However, the most popular response in early Christianity to the knowledge of self was to embrace the path that most denied the self: continence. If you are married (or intending to be so) the words “If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor” (Matthew 19:21) cannot apply literally to your life, much less “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 19:12). Does the married life add an extra stumbling block on this route to magnanimity? Isn’t the lay life a deliberate choice for pusillanimity? It can be difficult to see how, having refused the heroism in such Gospel counsels, wives haven’t refused heroism altogether. Yet given that the Church upholds the housewife as a beautiful and good vocation, surely, there must be more to the story.

Of course, one should strive to do all for the glory of God and live mentally aware of His presence. But on the experiential level of housework and child care, such goals are extremely difficult to attain, so much so that they almost feel unnatural to our journey toward the Beatific Vision. Practically speaking, so much of our lives involve mingling in society, not praying the full divine office, and, as a pregnant or nursing mother, not fasting. It involves tasks Aristotle would have thought un-intellectual and slavish: cooking, cleaning, constantly trying to train (or restrain) little children. One has to admit after an exhausting, mind-numbing day spent squeezing cleaning in between feeding people or preparing to feed them, Aristotle might have had a point. This is part of why the early Christians established monastic life. They knew that regular family life can be offered to God, but by its nature family life is full of distractions and runs closer to pitfalls off the virtuous path.

However, I don’t think we Christian wives often take consolation in what ought to be our consolation. I don’t think we typically claim the genuine Christian heroineism offered to us in particular. I have certainly been slow to do so. After all, St. Paul gives us a particular counsel that is quite unworldly: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord” (Ephesians 5:22). Living obedience to your husband as you live your obedience to Christ offers a clear parallel to the obedience a religious has to their superior and the obedience of the most glorious woman of all time to her husband. Haven’t we heard the religious saints harping upon the freedom that comes with such obedience? Why don’t we enthusiastically embrace it? There are at least three zeitgeists that prevent our minds and hearts from embracing this route to magnanimity.

The First Zeitgeist: Democratic Distrust of Kingship

Politics is more often discussed by circles of men smoking pipes than ladies over tea. But at least the fundamentals should concern us all. Since the Anglo-colonization of the new world and the American conquest of French and Spanish territories within it,[2] American history has been a verdict decided for Democracy. De Tocqueville’s observations fit lovely Lady Liberty in 2024 just as well, if not more so, as they did the 19th century: “In America I saw more than America; I sought there an image of democracy itself.”[3] America did her best to spread her views overseas upon the nations (alas for Bl. Karl!). Whether we view that general trend positively or negatively, we have lived in a land where the powers and environments of our world prejudice our minds against kingship. My American history courses imparted an all-but-explicit equivocation of kingship with tyranny. But such equivocation is by no means borne out by the Catholic Tradition. In fact, humans, male and female, incline to patriarchy, to hierarchy, to kingship—all of which are meant to reveal and “translate the kingship of Christ to the material world.”[4]

Now, any good democratic spirit will immediately recite the litany of corrupt kings in Scripture and European history. But take a moment to recognize that just because an institution can be corrupt does not mean that it is in itself flawed. I suggest we fight the zeitgeist. Let us fill imaginations (ours and children’s) with images of good kings: Bl. Karl of Austria, St. Stephen of Hungary, his son St. Emeric, St. Edmund the Confessor, St. Louis XIV of France, and even fictional kings such as Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings and Peter the High King from The Chronicles of Narnia, etc. We can encourage meditation upon how hierarchy is the clear design of the natural world, in the realm of inanimate minerals, then of plants, then of animals, then finally of man, who crowns the rest as the apple of God’s eye. Above humanity, the angels fill the gap between us and God. Within humanity, Adam is the head of Eve, his heart. Christ is king, and within the family, your husband is the kingly icon, stumble though he might.

The Second Zeitgeist: Slavish Distrust of Authority

The second zeitgeist is the attitude that results from Feminism. Feminism in all three of its historical waves is based upon the distrust of authority that is a slave’s attitude. The distrust of woman for man runs throughout Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s 1848 Declaration at Seneca Falls[5] unto present day Feminism. Such distrust is akin to the master and slave relationship, but not befitting the lieutenant’s regard for a general, or a queen’s regard for her king. Why? Because it is rooted in a fear of oppressive power. Even apart from the influence of Feminism, the womanly heart struggles with a specific kind of concupiscence consequent to the Fall. The married woman realizes that this fear of oppression easily grows into an outright fear of submission. Thus, the fear undermines her trust in both her husband and in God. When we question why God gives us a particular pain or why God fails to rescue us from a harsh burden, sometimes physical, more often emotional, we are suspicious of His providential authority over our lives.

Of course, fear more easily intrudes into a relationship with an imperfect man. But women ought to cling firmly to the distinction between abuse and normal imperfection in a husband. While no one should put up with abuse, true obedience to an imperfect leader is the modus operandi of Catholic life. Scripture does not stipulate that husbands become perfectly worthy rulers before they deserve obedience. Rather, it suggests that perfect marriages are constructed through complete obedience and love. The husband’s authority, which exists for the good of his family, is given at the beginning of the marriage by his woman’s consent. Rejection of subordination is the essence of the devil’s non serviam and Eve’s motivation to “be as gods” when she ate of the fruit (Genesis 3:5).

In addition to firmly distinguishing between abuse and lesser imperfection, the exorcism of this zeitgeist requires an education on hierarchy. Pseudo-Dionysius, much beloved by St. Thomas Aquinas, understood that God uses hierarchies in order to share his goodness:

The goal of a hierarchy, then, is to enable beings to be as like as possible to God and to be at one with him… Hierarchy causes its members to be images of God in all respects…. It ensures that when its members have received this full and divine splendor they can then  pass on this light generously and in accordance with God’s will to beings further down the scale.[6]

Hierarchy allows creatures to receive God’s goodness but also to participate in the giving of that goodness. The glory of God is man, since man superabundantly receives God’s mercy and love. So too, the glory of man ought to be woman, since she exists to receive his mercy and love naturally and supernaturally.

There is no place for the slave’s regard toward the master in baptismal vows or marriage vows. Women are subordinates in an order explicitly made for the good of the subordinates and the efficacy of love. Therefore, wives should regard and perform obedience to husbands with the same delight and security that religious regard and perform obedience to their superiors.

The Third Zeitgeist: Hyperpaternalism

Akin to hyperpapalism in the Church, there can be the false spirit of hyperpaternalism in marriage. By hyperpaternalism, I mean an unhealthy compliance to the father of the family.

In his contribution to the fantastic anthology Ultramontanism & Tradition: The Role of Papal Authority in the Catholic Faith (Os Justi Press, 2024), Timothy Flanders describes the line between theological ultramontanism, which entails a healthy obedience to the papacy, and hyperpapalism, which involves a vicious compliance to the papacy. A similar distinction applies within marriage. As Flanders writes of ultramontanism,

When we consider ‘ultramontanism’ as theological terminology, we cannot ascribe to it (or equate with it) hyperpapalism, since the latter would of course be nothing other than a perverse use of the orthodox doctrine of the papal monarchy for the sake of Modernism, Liberalism, or whatever else the hyperpapalists may be trying to achieve. It is a trick of the Devil to use what God has established in order to discredit the papacy itself, as is being done acutely in our day.[7]

So too, when we consider Christian patriarchy as it has been described in the Church’s magisterium and tradition, we cannot confuse it with hyperpaternalism, since the latter is a perverse compliance with illicit authority. The devil is up to the same old tricks, slandering patriarchy in the mind by confusing it with hyperpaternalism in order to discredit the family structure itself.

While I rarely see or hear of wives who ascribe to a hyperpaternalist mentality, 21st century culture is afraid of its spread, which likely explains the unfortunate hesitancy within the Church to robustly defend the practical implications of Ephesians 5. To both dispel inordinate fear of this demon and to oust him from the rare home in which he roosts, women ought to meditate on the bounds of true obedience.

True obedience never necessitates that a wife commit sin, but blind compliance can and does result in sin. The same distinction holds true for compliance to civil authorities, religious superiors, priests, bishops, and popes. How are evil compliance and holy obedience distinguished? Dr. Peter Kwasniewski clearly does so in his work True Obedience in the Church: A Guide to Discernment in Challenging Time (Sophia Institute Press, 2021). Rightful subordination, he writes,

means two things. First, it means that the superior himself is obedient to … divine law and natural law. But he should also be respectful of custom and tradition, especially within the Church where these things have the force of law. Second, it means that the inferior is subject to the superior only in those matters over which the superior has discretion or command, and that the inferior has the capacity to see when the superior is or may be transgressing the boundaries of his own position.[8]

Resisting a superior’s abuse of authority is the proper action for the sake of one’s own soul (to avoid committing sin) and of the soul of the superior (to avoid becoming an auxiliary to his sin). Hence, “if one has a serious and well-founded doubt about whether the human command is compatible with the divine or natural law, one should not obey it.”[9]

If you think you’ve encountered “a doormat trad wife,” check your evidence (and your emotion) against the outline above. True law, whether political or familial, does not violate the common good.[10]  Moreover, this is precisely what the Roman Catechism says as well, saying that wives must yield to their husbands “a willing and ready obedience in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety” (2.7 Matrimony duties).

It’s worth clarifying that subordinates may seek to influence their superiors without committing sin. Clear communication of preferences and concerns (and their logical roots whenever possible) are desirable and healthy in marriage. Indeed, a good king will take such communications into account, as Christ is always willing to listen to our hearts. However, for the good of those under his rule, a patriarch may decide not to abide by the desires of his wife, just as God does not always give us what we want. As subordinates, wives ought to accept orders that go against preference and concern as long as no clear sin is involved. If you are unsure whether the order involves sin, consult a well-formed traditional priest or theologian. Otherwise, obey. Obedience is, after all, a way of furthering the hierarchy that exists for our own good and the good of our children.

Parting Thoughts

Against the pressure of the three zeitgeists, the household patriarchy must stand firm. Unlike the individual in the democratic model of reality, the patriarchal household truly forms the building block of Christian society. The patriarchal structure of the family contributes to the construction of a holy society and to the holiness of the household itself. Indeed, the family, as “a kind of school of deeper humanity,”[11] seems intended by God to be the first school of hierarchy, preparing children to understand the nature of society at large and the created order as a whole. Any Feminist notions distorting such a fact are new wooly clothes for old wolves hungry to devour rightly ordered life.

Husbands are to their household as the bishop to his diocese: pastors. We wives, as the shepherd girls to our shepherds, ought to help fight the wolves threatening the authority of our leaders, especially in our own hearts and minds. From the first day of marriage, the wife’s examination of conscience ought to ask whether she was obedient as much as possible to her lord’s wishes and commands. This is our humble path to the mighty Lord, and our glorious imitation of Our Lady’s spousal relationship with St. Joseph. The way to find the magnanimity of the next life is by subjection to our husbands in this one.

---

[1] Aristotle, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Robert C. Bartlett & Susan D. Collins, trans. (The University of Chicago Press, 2011), 75.

[2] See “The Founding of Protestant America” in Charles A. Coulombe, Puritan’s Empire: A Catholic Perspective on American History (Tumblar House, 2008), 19–49.

[3] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Harvey C. Mansfield & Delba Winthrop, trans. (The University of Chicago Press, 2002), 13.

[4] Anonymous, “Integralism is Christendom – Pt. I,” OnePeterFive, January 21, 2022.

[5] “…” Cited in Timothy J. Gordon, The Case for Patriarchy (Crisis Publications, 2021), 135.

[6]  Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works, Colm Luibheid, trans. (Paulist Press, 1987), 154.

[7]  Peter Kwasniewski, ed., Ultramontanism & Tradition: The Role of Papal Authority in the Catholic Faith (Os Justi Press, 2024), 272.

[8] Peter Kwasniewski, True Obedience in the Church: A Guide to Discernment in Challenging Time (Sophia Institute Press, 2021), 10.

[9] Ibid., 14.

[10]  Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae I-II, q. 90, a. 4.

[11] Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, §52.

Pictured: Photograph of a woman holding a baby and doing laundry, c. 1919. National archives.