Unpacking Headship and Subordination in Marriage

(upbeat music) - This is Father Gregory Pine. - This is Father Joseph Anthony Chris. - And welcome to God's Plenty. Thanks to all those who support us. If you enjoy the show, please consider making a monthly donation on Patreon. Be sure to like and subscribe to God's Plenty wherever you listen to your podcasts. Father Joseph Anthony, I have a pressing question for you. - You talk to me while I talk to me. - I can't help but the claw hand looks like. I have a pressing question and so I'm going to make my hand look torturous or tortured. Never mind. - You go with claw hand, I go knife hands. - Nice. - Yeah, and so when we start up a rap duo, like Will Smith and DJ Jazzy Jeff, we can be a knife hand and claw hand. - Ooh, yeah, that's my DJ knife hands. - And our corporate name could be the Mitz. (laughing) So what is the most exotic place you have ever been? - Oh, I've traveled a lot, but I haven't really traveled. - I love how you just like include that as a preferatory word. I've traveled a lot. - Yeah, yeah. - It's like there are 196 UN nations. I don't actually know if that's true folks. I've been to like, you know, haves in the East mind. Just kidding. - I've gone to Europe a lot. I really love Europe. I love traveling to Europe. Poland, Italy, Austria, Germany. Little bit of France, little bit of Switzerland. That's good. - That's kind of fun stuff. But I've only been to South America once. So I went to Lima, Peru there. I haven't really spent a lot of time in like Central America. I haven't gotten there a lot. And really nothing in like Asia or in the Pacific. Pacific, actually the most time I've spent near the Pacific was in California. - Yes. - Earlier this year, I did two weeks in California and started in San Diego and just like worked all my way up the entire coast all the way up to-- - You try to figure out where to use the word all. - Yeah. - All my way up, all the way up, all my way up. - Yeah, yeah, yeah. - Anyway, I went up to Napa, which is great. But the drive from Santa Barbara to San Jose drove up the coast, one of the best decisions I've ever made my entire life. I loved every second of it. Open top Jeep, country music, the ocean. And then went through like Big Sur with all the big pines and stuff. - Yeah. - Yeah. - Yeah. - Yeah. - Nothing says California like country music. - Yeah. - I guess like North of Santa Rosa gets kind of country. Once you're up there like redding way. - Yeah. - People be pretty country. - It's true. - Okay, so I've had some time to reflect on this question. Not in that I wasn't listening to your answer. - I know. - I know. - And so far as I do ask myself. At a certain point, you know how sometimes you make eye notes for inscrutable purposes. - Yes. - Yeah, like you find them later and you're like, what is this? - Ooh. - Yeah, like I watch the movie K-Pop Demon Hunters and I felt compelled to make an eye note as to what I liked and didn't like about it. It's unclear why. But I made an eye note of the countries that I'd been in. - But I made an eye note of the countries that I'd visited. - Oh, yeah. - 'Cause at a certain point I was like, how many countries have I been to? 'Cause I think I've been to 46 US states. Not Alaska or Hawaii or Arkansas or New Mexico, but all the others. - Oh, what can fix that though? - We could. - Yeah. - I'm not necessarily any rush. But nevertheless, here we go. But then like, country wise, I was like, I think I've been to like 35-ish countries. And I listed and I have been to 35-ish countries. Most exotic, licked in Stein. - Ah. - Not a place where many people stop. Unless you're taking a train between Zurich and like Vienna. - Okay. - But I was there for like a day to hike across the country. You heard it right, folks. - Did I hike across the country? - One day to hike across the entire country. - It's a little postage stamp of a country. But a noble people, a hearty stock. And I was in Australia. So shout out to our friends down in Australia, especially in that Ambrose. - We love you. - If you're listening. - Cool, if you're not listening, still cool. Yeah, but when I was in Australia, I was totally discombombulated time wise. - I sure am. - I'm not sure who I am. - I'm sure you're with them wise. So I was like going about at 9 and waking up at like 1.30 AM. But I realized that if I was going to make it through the subsequent days of events that I ought to protein load, as it were, it's like carboloding except different. And we had had Lebanese food the first night that we were there and we had brought home a lot of leftovers to the priory. - Okay. - And so I was eating like lamb kibbe like a little monster at like 2 AM, which was just hitting 70 grams of protein hard, which was great. - Okay, the reason I bring up these matters is almost entirely impertinent. But I suppose different places, different cultures, different expectations as to relationships and interactions. And that's going to lead us into a discussion of today's things. But before we do so, we have two little thank yous for folks who have generously sponsored this episode. The first is our friends at the Catholic Woodworker. So we're delighted to partner with the Catholic Woodworker. They're pumped about the rosary, we're pumped about the rosary. We're looking forward to getting the whole world pumped about the rosary. They make good rosaries. Solid rosaries with quality materials that are durable and timeless, made by prayerful Catholics here in the United States. And they've made a God's Blending rosary with the centerpiece featuring St. Dominic and the little God's Blending Dago and God's Blending colors throughout. And so yeah, we want to give a shout out to them, thank them for their work. And also you can look in the description and our show notes for links to thecathacwoodworker.com or Catholicwoodworker.com. And then the God's Blending rosary with little discounts involved. Next is to give a thanks to Exodus 90. Exodus 90 knows the importance of friendship and they're focusing on friendship in the current challenge that is ongoing. So during the month of July, Dr. John Cutterback is leading a challenge on the Exodus 90 app on the theme of holy friendship. So exploring the biblical vision, the traditional vision of friendship and offering some practical guidance test had to grow in friendship. So I invite you to join tens of thousands of men who have experienced or found uncommon freedom through Exodus 90 by embracing prayer, asceticism and fraternity. So you can download the Exodus 90 app and you get a free 14 day trial or you can visit Exodus90.com/Godsplending to learn more. So the Holy Friendship Challenge began on July 1st, but it's ongoing throughout the month of July. Okay. So the theme for today then is headship and subordination. Yep. And I think one way by which to begin the conversation is to acknowledge that it's somewhat, I'd say, fraught or potentially contentious and a different dispensation. And it's like, it's not for us to be naive or kind of happy-go-lucky about things which profoundly affect the individuals involved in relationships of a differentiated sort. Oh, Father Gregory, that's unclear. What do you mean exactly? I don't want to be like flippant about the issue. Right. But I do want to be light-hearted about the issue because I think that in certain senses the way that it is discussed can be overly contentious or it can be like, yeah, overly fraught in a way that need not burden the discourse or need not burden the arguments. So folks are talking about the relationship between men and women specifically within the setting of marriage or the sacrament of marriage. And so you've got a lot of kind of ongoing feminism debates and folks are familiar with the work of Erica Bakiochi, who we've had on the podcast, and he had a recent book published by Carrie Gress, also different visions of their feminism, and then there were responses to that book by like Leo Liboresco Sargent, by Angela Franks. We've also had Mary Stanford on the podcast to talk about related issues. So it's like there are a lot of things going on here. And then you've got folks on the internet, like typically men on the internet describing these things from a very different vantage. Very different. And so there's concern that there's a kind of toxic culture as concerns men and their comportment, these are the women, their expectations, as a concerns marriage. And so that's just, there's a bit of a maelstrom, there's a bit of a tumult, there's a bit of an upheaval. So as you've seen the kind of conversation unfold from outside, first observations or initial comments. Yeah, I think it is, I mean, we're at this point, like 56 years after the feminist movement, and like this is kind of now still, it's an after effect of all that. And so I think that placing it within that context is right, because we've had this kind of really big push to elevate women in a certain sense. And but that has impact across the board. So from the male side, you see a lot of men on the manus fear or whatever you want to call it, entering into that, being very kind of aggressive in trying to reclaim something that they feel that has been taken away, you know, through that. And that can be toxic, right? That can be that. And I think our conversation we want to say is, let's not, you know, let's not get aggressive in this sense, but let's actually look at seeing where things fall in their proper place. Let's have the proper place of that instead of, because when you have that experience of like, okay, I lost something, and I want to reclaim that as quickly as possible. Typically, you begin to overcompensate. And then you start to, you know, you know, the little people and not respect the dignity of others because you're so focused on reclaiming something that it tends to be overcompensated. And so it's, our thing, our conversation, you're right, is like, we don't want to be dismissive of this and say, oh, it's not that big of a deal. Why don't people just understand and just do it this way? We don't want to be flippant. We don't want to be dismissive because this is a real conversation, especially in the context of a spousal union. Like, that's a very intimate union. It needs to be given the gravity and seriousness of it. But at the same time, it's more about finding kind of the proper place of all of this and not just trying to overcompensate in order to, as quickly as possible, reestablish something that has been lost or anything in that way. Yeah, I think people make the observation that both feminism that you have first wave, second wave, and a third wave, questions concerning the present dispensation as to whether or not it constitutes a fourth wave ongoing. But first wave is like largely speaking, equal opportunity. Right. Second wave is kind of like equal to men. And then there are questions arise. whether or not that reflects differentiation or distinction between men and women with sufficient subtlety or nuance or whether we've begun to run roughshod over sexual or gender differences. And then third wave, it seems largely indebted to ideologies of an anti-Christian or non-Christian sort, which have further complicated the issue. - Right. - So, dot, dot, dot. So we don't intend to get into questions of feminism if present and we've had some good guest episodes which have treated the issue, I hope, with some measure of, yes, subtlety and nuance. But it seems like, you know, if there is a thing in which, pretty similar, religious, specialize, it's in God or it ought to be in God. And so I think one particular issue that comes up in these conversations that requires sustained attention, serious engagement is how do you read Ephesians 5? - Yes. - Always. - And that's not to say that the whole issue just cooks down to Ephesians 5 verses 21 through 33. But I do think that we've got biblical revelation and then we've got God's promise of grace, mediation. And then we as Christians are responsible for receiving that and transmitting that. And so not to say that like, all right, we're experts of the sacred page and so we're just gonna shell out the only way in which to read this passage. But there are ways of reading this passage in the church which can help us to reflect on these issues with some measure of sensitivity. - Yeah, I mean, I think that's the important thing is that like this isn't then gonna be the only interpretation of that. But it's like we have to be able to say that this is part of the sacred page, this is part of revelation. And thus it is for our help. It's to benefit us in that way, not to be shunned away or say, oh, that language is uncomfortable. So we're gonna shy away from it. I'll tell you, I've done a lot of wedding prep. I've prepared a lot of couples for marriage. And then when we get to the meeting in our preparation when it's choosing the readings, I have been surprised at how many couples intentionally choose Ephesians five for their wedding. And majority of the time it's the bride. That like shocks me. Because it is a very beautiful scripture text. If it's embraced and appropriated into the relationship in the right ways. And I've always kinda had this hesitation with it because of the experiences of feminism and all these other things, especially when you're in a large mixed context like wedding where you have extended family and other friends that may not be Catholic or things like that. It's a very mixed setting. But I've been surprised at how many couples, like I said, especially brides, I've said, no, no, no, I want this. I want this at my wedding. I want this to be proclaimed in a public way in the context of our spouse, what you mean. Okay, let's get into it. So we're gonna end up talking about questions of headship, subordination, sacrifice. These are all at play. But try to treat them as part of a reading of Ephesians 5, 21 through 33. And I think at the end of the day, it means something or it doesn't mean something. So we all have to grapple with this text. If Christians believe that it means something and that we're responsible for appropriating it or responsible for taking it on board. Okay, so the first line, be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. This is a line that Saint John Paul II gives extended commentary upon in his theology of the body. But it begins with a kind of recognition of relationship, which, you know, so husband to wife, wife to husband, which entails some measure of subordination on the part of both. Yeah. Yeah. So I think that like a helpful thing to acknowledge at the outset is that what we're talking about here isn't domination, you know, what we're talking about here isn't one running rough shot over the other. But what we're talking about here is a relationship in which both parties are called to the fullness of love and that that fullness of love is going to be expressed in some way, shape, or form through a subordination. So it's like, it's not like, be balanced. No, or it's not like achieve an equilibrium. It says be subordinate to. So there's a sense in which you've got principles and there's a sense in which one is subordinating itself to another in one way and another is subordinating itself to another in another way. Yeah, exactly. I think when we hear subordination, we hear kind of headship or hierarchy, we think as if it's a podium, like somebody's in first place, which means somebody's in second. And the second always has to, you know, succumb to the level higher to them. But I think when we talk about mutual subordination in this scripture that we're using, that's the opening line. So like that's your starting block. Is that it is a mutual subordination in that way. And I think it's more like threads that are woven together. They're like intertwined with each other instead of this kind of cascading effect or maybe like a pure midside. Like somebody's going to be in the top position, right? And that's always going to be the case. It's like they're almost kind of interwoven and dependent on each other at different, you know, it's a mutual subordination where they are woven together into each other. Yeah. So then I think the next observation that we make is that so a man can't be subordinate to a woman and a woman subordinate to a man in the exact same way. Yes. Because just it seems from metaphysical law, a can't be subordinate to be in the same way that b is subordinate to a. Because there's got to be some differentiation in that subordination if it's all to hang together. And so that's how St. Paul continues. So we continue with verses 22 through 24. Wives be subject to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church's body and is himself its savior. As the church is subject to Christ, so that wives also be subject in everything to their husbands, all right? So it turns first to the wives, you know, in encouragement of their subordination. And then it will see in what follows. It turns next to the husbands and encouragement of what we can understand is their subordination, which comes out largely by way of sacrifice. So, okay, initial observations here, and then we'll see in the next one, we'll see in the next one, and I think that what you said is really impressive. So the thinking from a masculine perspective, that's what we are, there is a certain tendency, masculine orientation towards sacrifice. And what St. Paul is highlighting is that's a good thing, but for it to be sanctified within the Spausel Union as sacrifice on behalf of the bride, and he's using the Christ as bridegroom, which was how Christ repeatedly throughout the Gospels identified himself as bridegroom. So he's saying, "Okay, let's begin to imitate that through sacrifice." So there's this masculine inclination, but let us then orient it in such a way that it brings about salvation for the bride. Because that's the sacrifice that Christ made, precisely as eternal bridegroom was that he offered his sacrifice for the sanctification of the bride. So I think, you know, so that central image of headship is an important one. Obviously, we source it from other places in St. Paul, so earlier in Ephesians, and then in Colossians. And the idea is that a man is to the wife as Christ is to the church. That's the basic analogy. Now with any analogy, they're going to be similarities. Sure. And the similarities. And I think it's helpful to acknowledge the dissimilarities before going into the similarities. So like Christ is God. Yes. And the husband is God. Yes. And Christ is sinless. Right. And the husband is sinful. Yep. Now he might be more or less on the way, healing and growing beyond the effects of sin in his life. But nevertheless, there is a principle there of, okay, he can't wholly trust himself to always do what's good because there is a sense in which he is slipping sliding towards what's bad if left to his own devices. Whereas Christ is the well-springer of the font of grace. Yep. So he said, like what we're talking about, or what we're talking about isn't so much a kind of domination of a craft sort because domination is really introduced with the fall. What man is entrusted with in Genesis 2, you know, or Genesis 1 and 2 is dominion of a certain sort, like a kind of stewardship or care for, right, which looks to the good of those whom he serves or looks to the good of those whom he loves. Yeah. So you see it come out in these craft forms in the post-lapse area in dispensation. And so we have to be able to, again, acknowledge dissimilarities and the way in which those dissimilarities have profound effects on the application of the analogies. But then also we want to insist on certain similarities. And so like I'm indebted to St. Thomas Aquinas in his description as to what constitutes headship. And he'll say that like headship signifies some measure of like order, you know, some measure of governance, something going on there with like influence or something going on there with power. And so we don't have to sort out all of that. But I think where we start is that we acknowledge the difference between men and women, a biological difference, a genetic difference. between men and women, which it, I mean, it's told fourth in a kind of morphological difference, you know, or in a kind of anatomical difference in men and women. And so like, for instance, men typically tend to be bigger. They tend to be stronger. And so it's natural that they be entrusted with defending and protecting. Or men as far as the handing on of genetic information as far as the handing on of life goes, they tend to be more expendable. Like the child gestates in the womb of a woman, she can only give birth to a child like every 18 months, or as a man can sire children at a much greater rate. And so when you think about like the preservation of the population, women are far more precious than our men. - Absolutely. - So we're just making observations about genetic or biological differences, which eventually morphological or anatomical differences. And so there's a sense in which like, on account of the fact that he's bigger and stronger, there's a certain natural authority typically according to man. But on account of the fact that he's kind of less important as far as the breeding population goes, there's a certain expendability, or a certain sacrificeability, which we typically associate with men. So it's like, we begin by acknowledging the differences just in their kind of simple or kind of factual realization. And then we make our subsequent philosophical and theological judgments on the basis of those things. So I think that's like, yeah. So the idea here is that on the basis of these differences, we see differences arise within the setting of the relationship. And so this can then be imported into or this is then raised to the dignity of a sacrament within the setting of the coming together of a man and woman who are themselves baptized. - And I think that's really important. You gave a glancing blow to it at the beginning, but we have to also remember that this started in the garden. In Genesis, male and female he created them to walk together in a spousal unity in his presence. You know, that was the garden, that was paradise, right? That got torpedoed in the sense that original sin came into play and threw it all into chaos. Well, this is in a real sense like the reestablishing through the grace of God and being elevated to a sacrament that kind of original design. And so it's worth us being serious about understanding this and seeing how this is graced in a certain way. And when Christ takes on our humanity and enters in, presents himself as the eternal bridegroom as a kind of reestablishing and recreating this first paradise garden experience that he's setting himself as that kind of model for us then to see and bringing into then how do we look at masculinity and femininity in such a way that is redeemable, sanctifying in that sense. So then like everything you were saying about like the kind of, let's be honest and looking at the differences because those differences were also very present in the original plan, right? This isn't like, okay, well, original sin happened through it and now we have all this like chaos to deal with and sort through. But those differences were also very, very present in the original plan, prefall. And so to begin in that place, from which then we can look at what the kind of theological and philosophical underpinnings are through which then we can live this reality out graced by God, infused by grace and strengthened by the grace of God to actually live this out in a real day-to-day life is extremely important. - Yeah, okay, let's keep on trying to hustle in. So versus 25 through 27 read, "The husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor without spotter, wrinkle, or any such thing that she might be holy and without blemish." So here we see the overall orientation of headship, namely headship is ordered to blessing. So when I studied this a little bit for my thesis or for my dissertation, and the idea is that Christ as head of the church is the source of grace for the church. All right, so we'll talk about his capital, grace, the grace of the head, which is in effect the grace of the body. So it's the habitual grace of his human soul spills into the whole church by virtue of the fact that the whole church is organically united with him or in him by a kind of communion. And so it seems like the orientation of headship and the biblical paradigm is for the communication of blessing or for the communication of grace. Now, is the husband the fontal source of grace or the wellspring of grace in the way that Christ is? No, but it does. Again, we said it's something about order, something about governance, something about influence, something about power. There is a kind of trajectory to the flow of grace within the setting of a relationship. And so the woman is subordinated to the man in one way, the man is subordinated to the woman in another way. And so their consent is differentiated and they mediate grace to each other in a differentiated fashion. And so it seems like what we're talking about here is that the man mediates grace to the woman specifically through the offering of sacrifice as Christ mediates grace to the church, specifically through the offering the sacrifice, the sacrifice of his body. So if we were to kind of give a compact formulation of the difference, I'd say this, these are my words. So I'm going to attribute them to me either as praise or blame. The woman's role is more of one of, like is more as receiving the gift of her husband's self offering by certain obedience or submission. The man's more as furnishing the gift of self offering in sacrifice. That is to say each one's role or their respective roles. The woman's more as receiving the gift of her husband's self offering by certain obedience or submission. The man's more as furnishing the gift of self offering in sacrifice, thoughts. - Yeah, I think unfortunately in the kind of contemporary context when this conversation comes up, often it's seen as the men kind of being the head is oriented in a direction and as if he's dragging his wife along the path. And it's like, if we reorient and look at it the way that you presented, I think that's the appropriate way. Saying like, it's about the sacrifice as the gift of blessing for that. But then it's also returned or kind of the, the blessings return back to the husband in the reception of that in the proper, even enjoyment or use of that blessing in a real sense. So I think the concern of the headship for the body and the concern of the body for the head is once again the mutual understanding of the subordination where they're both actively involved in this. Instead of this men being kind of like the tip of the spear leading in a direction, because I think that's, we hear that language use, like it's about leading the direction of the family or the marriage or whatever, as if it's going in this direction and we're dragging everybody else along for the ride. But it's not that, it's about the concern, that for the head concern for the body and the body's concern for the head and it's in that kind of reciprocation that the blessings are kind of flourishing in that sense. - All right, we're almost at the end. So versus 28 through 31 read, even so, husband should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it as Christ does the church because we are members of his body. For this reason, I'm sure I'll leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. The thing that I love about this resolution is that it kind of moves us beyond a dialectical push and pull. Again, we'll talk about it in terms of balance or in terms of equilibrium. My concern, that those formulations make it sound like it's just a matter of moving the parts or moving the matter. - Yeah. - When truth be told, again, subordination signifies a union, or a communion, one that's realized through differentiation, but nevertheless, it's not a matter of mere balance or equilibrium, though certain kind of instances will require us to compromise or chat things through or votes or alternate or whatever it is. But we want to move beyond the dialectical push and pull as if we were just two things trying to get hours and just making small concessions along the way. - It's not about that power dynamic, right? - Yeah, yeah, yeah, that kind of push and pull that's pure power dynamic in that way. And this is not what's being spoken over or presented here. So then the ideal is that, all right, this is a one flesh union that's how it's spoken of in Genesis, that's how it's spoken of in the gospels, that's how it's spoken of in St. Paul. And if so, then a man out of love, a woman is he loves his own body. So rather than it being like love of neighbor, it's more like love of self. And so that means identifying the goods of one's wife as one's own goods or identifying the goods of one's husband as one's own goods. So that, again, different bodies occupying different places, there's going to have to be some measure of back and forth, but the idea being that in the mutual subordination, there is a kind of union or communion, which makes it possible to kind of see this as us rather than me and him or me and her. So I think that it's only through subordination that one can attain to the genuine unity, which God intends for man and woman within the setting of the sacrifice or sacrament of marriage. Yeah, and I love what the language of St. Paul uses, right? That he nourishes and cherishes her, right? And I think that's really fascinating to me because I think those are kind of typical attributes that we assign with femininity. The woman is the one who nourishes, right? And, but it's actually the role of the head to cherish the body. Right? And so thinking of like, okay, well, that's also then the husband's role is to cherish his wife, to cherish the family and to have that kind of reverence for it. And I think that's a really unique charge and responsibility of the husband then to see his wife as an extension of himself, not that he can be augmented or not so that he can be grandized or things like that, but so that he can cherish her. And that's a really, really beautiful phrase that I think kind of maybe gets glossed over a lot. Yeah, that's beautiful. Okay. This mystery is a profound one he continues in verse 32 and I'm saying that it refers to Christ in the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself and let the wife see that she respects her husband. So I think like obviously worries abound or worries abide. Sure. Yeah. A kind of misappropriation of headship and the subordination entailed thereby will lead to abuse, will lead to a kind of hierarchization within the relationship that suborns the one and exalts the other. But I think the fact of the matter is that part of what's going on in marriage is that we're receiving a grace, receiving virtues, receiving gifts to the Holy Spirit so that husband and wife can heal and grow beyond the effects of original sin and attain to the union of the communion which God intends for us in which there will no longer be suspicion in which there will no longer be abuse or violence of whatsoever sort. But the fact is we have to be open to that prospect if we're going to take it on board, if we're going to appropriate it because if we constantly think of ourselves as jockeying or as in competition, then it strikes me that a lot of the biblical vision of marriage will remain kind of unavailable to us. Yes. Yeah, I mean, we hear in scriptures that you don't lower authority over each other as the pagan's do. Like this isn't about a strict authoritarian structure that is now implemented in a domestic environment, right? True headship and subordination is rooted in sacrifice. It's rooted in cherishing the other as being the full extension of thyself. And so, we are worried that can this go awry? Can this be disordered? Can this language be wielded in such a way that it is imposing authoritarian structures and abuse and degrading to the parties that it should be then unifying? Yes. But I think if we then start to look and have a conversation that we just had, an understanding, the Christ analogy as bridegroom and looking to him as that model in rooting it in the sacrifice, but also the share of blessings that each give each other in the participation of such blessings, then we start to kind of keep the guardrails on this conversation from and the living, living in the reality out from then becoming extremely disordered and hurtful and harmful for both parties and even further with children involved in things of that nature. I think to like in the Aristotelian to mystic tradition, you talk about justice sometimes within the setting of friendship, like as each looks out for himself and gets his, typically when you talk about justice, it signifies some breakdown in love. So it becomes necessary to adjudicate claims of justice, only when charity has in a sale or failed or defected from the fullness. So like the goal should be to cultivate the fullness of charity or the fullness of love. And that means that both parties are seeking to cultivate grace, virtue, gifts of the Holy Spirit, so as to be generous, so as to be respectful, so as to be loving. And there's an in order to end up out of concern for the good of the other, right? And not just it's the hesitate from stepping into this kind of utilitarian aspect of, okay, I want to live my life, how are you going to help me do this? What do you bring to the table in that sense? It's like, no, it's this extreme concern for the good of the other and how to then bring them the most blessings and increase their life of charity and grace in a deep sense. Boom. All right. I want to give the last word. Please. To Cassidy Canubi 27, so an encyclical about marriage written at the beginning of the 20th century, I believe, by Pius XI. He writes, "This objection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman, both in view of her dignity as a human person and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion. Nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife. Nor, in fiend, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called miners to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of the rights on account of their lack of mature judgment or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family. It forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart. And as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may she and so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love." All right, folks. A difficult issue, but one worth talking about, one worth sussing out. And hopefully continuing the conversation. So thanks so much for tuning into this episode of God's Planing. Let's see. If you haven't yet, check out our Patreon account. We've got new opportunities for virtual rosaries and book clubs and exclusive content from days of recollection and retreats. So we're super grateful if you're able to support the podcast and it helps us to continue our work. And yeah, apart from that, the ordinary things with social media and website opportunities, we look forward to seeing you on those two outlets. So no of our prayers for you. Please pray for us and we'll look forward to chatting with you next time on God's Planing.