Does the Church teach wives must obey husbands?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I was under the impression it did, but in my previous thread some said it didn't. What's the official Church teaching on this? I'm interested in what the magisterium (sp?) has to say, not dissenting liberals.

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004

Answers

Erika, I'm so sorry that you would think that we would all lead you astray..Was there anyone who said in the previous thread that the Catholic teaching was that you had to "obey" your husband?

From the Catholic Catechism on Marriage:

1605 "Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another; "It is not good that the man should be alone." The woman, "flesh of his flesh", his equal, his nearest in all things,is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; she thus represents God from whom comes our help. "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh." The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been "In the beginning." "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

There it is, Erika..the Catechism of the Church says that the wife is the husband's "equal"..and that they are "one flesh"..it says this not once, but twice. I recommend that as a new Catholic, you get a copy of the Catechism and look things up..not to say "don't ask"..of course, ask. Yet is it always good to clarify what the actual Catechism says on the subject.

I hope that this will finally put your mind at ease about what the Church actually teaches.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 18, 2004.


I have a copy of the Catechism, and I'm familiar with the passage you quoted. However, it isn't relevent to my question. I did not ask if wives were inferior to husbands, I asked if husbands had authority. True, "equal" can mean equal in authority, but it could also mean equal in dignity or equal in importance, among other things, so this passage really doesn't answer my question. After all, in one sense, a parish priest is equal to a pope (as a human being), and yet the pope has authority over the priest.

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004.

Erika, no matter how many times you rephrase the question 'as a Catholic do you need to obey your husband' the answer is still no.

Not because we're liberals.

Lesley and others (on your medication thread) have all answered this.

And last but not least, if you're uncertain, why aren't you asking your local priest? It seems you only want a simple yes or no, and some 'official' looking document to go with it.

I'm certain he's got it in his library if you won't just take his word for it. And if you're still uncertain, ask if he can suggest any Church books that go into detailed accounts of our doctrine and beliefs.

Though I wonder why you went ahead and got confirmed as a Catholic to marry a Catholic fella, when you weren't 100% certain of the beliefs you were converting too.

Not that I'm complaining, but (God forbid) I was to convert to another religion, I'd make certain I knew all about it before I did.

Lesley even went so far as to suggest that excellent idea of going on a Religious Retreat with your spouse. To help you both grow as a couple. As well as many of us haveing suggested Marriage Counceling to help learn new ways to communicate with eachother. Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

In an effort to include all faiths: Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year

-- Dorian (DontLikeMyAnswer_AskYourPriest@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004.


Lesley - It would certainly appear some people are either trying to mislead me, or are mislead themselves. I've been doing a little of my own research, and this is what I came up with: Catechism of the Council of Trent: The catechism calls for the husband to maintain order in the family, "to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties." On the other hand, the duties of the wife are found in I Peter 3:1-6, which begins "Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands." The catechism further exhorts the wife to yield to the husband "in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience." Leo XIII, Arcanum divinae sapientiae: The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. Pius XI, Casti connubii: This subjection, 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 fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors...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 and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love. John XXIII Ad Petri cathedram: "Within the family, the father stands in God's place. He must lead and guide the rest by his authority and the example of his good life." Convenuti a Roma "[equality of rights between the sexes] does not in any way imply equality of functions...To overlook this difference in the respective functions of men and women or the fact that they necessarily complement each other, would be tantamount to opposing nature."

Dorian - You assume I converted to Catholicism "to marry a Catholic". Sorry to disappoint you. He and I had been living "in sin" for 7 years when I converted, which I did only because my lifelong search for truth led me to the Catholic Church. We got married because I became Catholic (and therefore didn't want to continue in a state of mortal sin) not the other way around. I didn't know you had to become Catholic to marry one, anyway- don't you just have to agree to raise the kids Catholic? Erika

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004.


Dorian - I also would like to add that I'm not asking the same question. I asked the first question assuming (as it turns out correctly) that a husband normally has authority over the wife, and wondering if my situation was an exception or not. I did recieve some helpful answers and I'm satisfied that it is (since to obey in this case would be tantamount to poisoning myself, and therefore wrong). However, the issue of whether wives should obey at all came up, which is why I started this thread, in order to discuss that question in a general way..

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 18, 2004.


Yes, I too have just looked up all of those..good timing Erika.

Essentially, IMHO, what we have in a Catholic marriage is equality of spouses, with each spouse having rather clearly defined roles. The husband is COMMANDED to love his wife as Jesus loves His Church..that's quite a statement, not to be taken lightly. The husbdna is the head, the wife the heart..one cannot "be" without the other..one is not "better" ..yet they ARE different.

The writings of all of the Popes are beautiful I think. They carefully point out that if the husband is unable to "be" the head, the wife is expected to perform that function for him, but not to usurp it without good reason. They also speak to guarding the wife against an unreasonable husband..and her personal dignity. When one looks at when some of these writings were done, (in what age of society), it's truly amazing.

As one article I read this evening pointed out, "someone has to be in authority"..I agree. "Authority" doesn't equate "dictatorship" either. For instance, in our home, my husband is most definetly the "head" of our household. He is a strong and good father, and a most loving and caring husband. Our children look to him for leadership..they look to me for tenderness and caring..we each have our "roles". We compliment one another.

When he had a major heart attack, I had to assume the "head of the household" for a time..usually, we consult with one another and agree as to how we shall proceed..if we disagree,and it is a major thing affecting our family, it is my husband who has the final "say". I consider it "my position" to assist my husband in making the decisions..but the final ones belong to him.

"Obey" ? I still think that's the wrong word..LOL..it's more like "Accepting"..accepting each other's place within the covenant of marriage. The "head" cannot exist without the heart beating and the "heart" cannot do anything without the "head".

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 18, 2004.


Erika,

If you want to live as a Catholic in the 21st Century you would do well to examine what the Church teaches in the 21st Century, and live by it. You cannot live as a Catholic in the 21st century while relying on 16th Century teaching. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church to a far fuller and richer understanding of doctrinal issues in the past 500 years.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 18, 2004.


Erika, I'm not disappointed, but the mere fact that you said 'We got married because I became Catholic & didn't want to continue in a state of mortal sin' means you converted to get married. Maybe not the only reason. But still a reason.

You'd still be better off asking your local parish priest your questions that you're asking on the boards here.

At one time, you couldn't have the sacrament of marriage or get married in a Catholic Church if both spouses weren't Catholic.

Most mixed faith marriages require that the child(ren) be baptised or converted to (one of the parents faiths) and an oath from the parents that they'll be raised in that faith when they get married in the practicing spouses church, temple or synagogue.

In your case, had you not converted, and you wanted to get married in your husbands church. One of the stipulations would be that you (the nonCatholic) vowed you would help raise any child(ren) as Catholics (your husbands faith). Instead of your own. (because it sounded as though you either hadn't been a member of one you felt you wanted to raise your children in, or hadn't been in one prior)

Hate disappoint you Erika, but frankly your state of mortal sin, ect..really doesn't affect me the way it seems to affect you (enough to mention it to perfect strangers).

I'm not here to judge you.

Only to hear whatever questions you ask, and thoughts you post. And chime in with my two cents.

Only God can/should/will judge you and your actions.

Pius XI, Casti connubii: 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 fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors.

There's your answer right there, him demaning you continue to take medicine the Doctor said you no longer (if ever) required is not in harmony with right reason or your dignity. And since you are not a minor (assumption on my part) you don't need his legal persmission.

But since he thinks there is a psychiatric necessity, then obviously in both of your equal responsibilities to your marriage you should seek therapudic counceling to make your marriage right.

(yes cross posting an answer)

But that still doesn't give him a blanket control over your life, or complete control over all you say, think or do.

You have a responsiblity for your own actions. God gave us free will. What you do with it makes it morally a good thing, or immoral.

You still need to ask your local parish priest. Who knows you and your husband, and your circumstances. He ought to be able to give you better councel because he knows you better than strangers.

(though we probably offer an slightly unbiased opinion..but it's still only based on what you've said. And we don't know what you're husband is saying/doing. Ect..)

You might pray that that heaven-born love will guide you in your quest for knowlege and remember to let us know what your Local Priest said. (minus the personal things that are just between the both or three of you)

Who knows? Perhaps another reader finds her/ or himself wondering the same thing you asked. And like Paul said, learning what the church says for this century is also a good idea.

Like Paul said, It's nice to know how our current doctrines evoloved from the historical ones.

Though if I recall correctly from your originally posted question on the other thread, you said he was a non practicing (lapsed) Catholic (which means that until he starts going to Church, ect..he's not really fulfilling his prescribed husbandly duties, and by default until he starts to commune with God and the Church again his requests, demands ect.. aren't really coming from a good and holy place. So it's up to you to uphold your position as head of the Catholic Marriage and Family until he chooses & is able to participate fully once more.) Love, Grace & Peace, Dorian

Enlightened Rohastu, Happy Hanukah, Bah Humbug, Merry Christmas, Blessed Winters Solstice/Yule, Abundant Kwanza & Prosperous New Year

-- Dorian (AskYourPriest@yahoo.com), December 19, 2004.


I was under the impression it did, but in my previous thread some said it didn't. What's the official Church teaching on this? I'm interested in what the magisterium (sp?) has to say, not dissenting liberals.

Erika,

Let me offer my opinion. Your husband is the head of your family. Both you and your husband must obey God individually and as a married couple.

In my opinion, in matters that involve potential actions or outcomes that do not contravene Church teaching in which both you and your husband may have differing opinion -in such case you should submit and support your husband's headship and decision...

Muy understanding is that in accord with authentic Church teaching, the familial relationship -family with God is analogous to the relationship -Church with God...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 19, 2004.


Lesley and Daniel, thank you for your answers. Paul, you said: "If you want to live as a Catholic in the 21st Century you would do well to examine what the Church teaches in the 21st Century, and live by it. You cannot live as a Catholic in the 21st century while relying on 16th Century teaching. The Holy Spirit has guided the Church to a far fuller and richer understanding of doctrinal issues in the past 500 years."

First of all, most of the quotes I posted were 19th century, not 16th. Secondly, what exactly are you saying? That in the 21st century the Church has contradicted itself and now teaches that husbands have no authority over wives? I have not seen any such teaching, and if it did exist it would not be a 'fuller understanding' but a complete contradiction. Do you really believe the Holy Spirit changes His mind to keep up with the times? The Church has already defined this quite clearly in the writings I posted. Do you believe that all Church teachings must be repeated at the beginning of each new century or they cease to exist? Dorian said: "the mere fact that you said 'We got married because I became Catholic & didn't want to continue in a state of mortal sin' means you converted to get married." I'm sorry, but this makes no sense whatsoever. It means no such thing! I said quite plainly that I got married because I converted, not the other way around. Obviously, as a neo-pagan I didn't see anything wrong with living together. After I came to believe the Catholic Church had the fullness of truth, so to speak, I couldn't continue living the way I had in good conscience. What part of that don't you understand? You also said: "Hate disappoint you Erika, but frankly your state of mortal sin, ect..really doesn't affect me the way it seems to affect you (enough to mention it to perfect strangers)." Again, you make no sense. I did not say you cared about my state of mortal sin. You made an assumption about my faith, my motivation for converting, which was completely false and frankly, offensive to me. I corrected you by explaining the true sequence of events and my true motivation. Now you criticize me for explaining myself. Why? I did not, not even in part, become Catholic so I could get married. What makes this so difficult for you to accept? Erika

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 19, 2004.



Ephesians 5:21-30

21.Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22.Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.

23.For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.

24.As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

25.Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her

26.to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,

27.that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

28.So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

29.For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church,

30.because we are members of his body.

31."For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh."

32.This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

33.In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.

[ 5:21- 6:9] Cf the notes on Col 3:18- 4:1 and 1 Peter 2:18- 3:7 for a similar listing of household duties where the inferior is admonished first (wives, Eph 5:22; children, Eph 6:1; slaves, Eph 6:5), then the superior (husbands, Eph 5:25; fathers, Eph 6:4; masters, Eph 6:9). Paul varies this pattern by an emphasis on mutuality (see Eph 5:20); use of Old Testament material about father and mother in Eph 6:2; the judgment to come for slave-owners (you have a Master in heaven, Eph 6:9); and above all the initial principle of subordination to one another under Christ, thus effectively undermining exclusive claims to domination by one party. Into the section on wives and husbands an elaborate teaching on Christ and the church has been woven ( Eph 5:22-33).

[21-33] The apostle exhorts married Christians to a strong mutual love. Holding with Genesis 2:24 that marriage is a divine institution ( Eph 5:31), Paul sees Christian marriage as taking on a new meaning symbolic of the intimate relationship of love between Christ and the church. The wife should serve her husband in the same spirit as that of the church's service to Christ ( Eph 5:22, 24), and the husband should care for his wife with the devotion of Christ to the church ( Eph 5:25-30). Paul gives to the Genesis passage its highest meaning in the light of the union of Christ and the church, of which Christlike loyalty and devotion in Christian marriage are a clear reflection ( Eph 5:31-33).

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 19, 2004.


> "what exactly are you saying? That in the 21st century the Church has contradicted itself and now teaches that husbands have no authority over wives?"

A: No. I am saying that the Church's understanding of the marital relationship, as well as many other doctrinal issues, is now far richer and fuller than it was at the time of Trent, and that the Holy Spirit's continuous guidance of the Magisterium over the centuries allows the Church of today to reach beyond the simplistic, legalistic interpretations of doctrinal issues which guided teachings of earlier centuries. I am also saying that trying to live your life today by the doctrinal understanding of centuries past severely limits your spiritual growth because it rejects a great deal of in-depth understanding. to which the Holy Spirit has guided the Church during the intervening centuries.

> "Do you really believe the Holy Spirit changes His mind to keep up with the times? The Church has already defined this quite clearly in the writings I posted"

A: No. The Holy Spirit does not change His mind. He simply reveals ever more of that which is and always has been His mind. Thus the Church is not a static entity but a living, growing organism, ever increasing in knowledge, understanding, and holiness. In the earlier writings you quoted, the Church defined issues in as clear a manner as it could, given the level of understanding it then possessed. Hundreds of years later the Church can define those same unchanging doctrines in more precise and in some cases more charitable terms, the inevitable product of centuries of additional theological study guided by the Holy Spirit.

> "Do you believe that all Church teachings must be repeated at the beginning of each new century or they cease to exist?"

A: No. I believe that all Church teaching must constantly be studied by the theologians of the Church, within the context of all revealed truth, and interpreted as the Holy Spirit leads, so that our understanding of such issues can become as complete as possible. Otherwise we would have nothing more than the rudimentary doctrinal concepts held by the Apostles, and the writings of the great Fathers and Doctors of the Church would be irrelevant.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 19, 2004.


Erika, I think that the original intent of wives needing to submit to their husbands was to maintain order in the home, so that if they disagree about something, she would give in. HOWEVER, the husband cannot ask the wife to sin or go against anything that the Church teaches. This would be sin, and she cannot sin for his sake because her higher authority is Christ.

Regarding your medication, I would say, if it's causing harm to you then you should not take it. This is a matter of preserving your own health and just as he cannot demand that you drink poison.

The husband who is to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, has a much higher expectation placed on him IMO. When a husband does not attempt to do this then the wife must be careful in the ways that she submits, so as not to sin against God or others to please her husband.

Jesus said: (Luke 14) "26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple."

Hate not in reference to uncharity, but meaning that in comparison to our love for God, which should be far greater than anything else. God is our first and primary allegiance.

God bless, and welcome to the Church. Thank you for asking these great questions. I am a convert also, from Protestant, and currently taking RCIA.

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com"), December 19, 2004.


I like this thread and I'm glad that Erika asked the question..it has some subtle nuances about it that can be quite interesting.

Pope John Paul II had some things to say about the family and feminism, etc. which are relevant..now if I could only FIND the quotes..I'll keep looking.

Say a married couple had decided that the wife would be at home with the children, and then after a time, the wife, on her own, decided that she would return to work and selected a daycare for the kids. Her husband still felt very strongly that this would be a bad thing for their particular family. His wife countered with her need to be back in society, to be fulfilled in her career, etc. etc.

In that instance, the wife would be putting her own individual needs ahead of those of the entire family: husband, and children, AND her role as wife and Mother. Her husband would be in the position of LEADING his wife to a renewed committment as spouse and Mother..while recognizing that his wife has unmet individual needs as well. Her needs must be met, yet not at the expense of the family. So as head of the family, he wouldn't shove aside her concerns, but talk with her about how ELSE they might be fulfilled..head and heart working together.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 19, 2004.


Paul, you still have not shown how the Church's previous statements that the husband is indeed the head of the household can be "more fully and richly understood" to mean the exact opposite.

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 19, 2004.


Erika and Lesley, thank God my wife does not “submit” to my “authority” in the way you think she should. If she did I would find it quite nauseating. If a husband (quite reasonably) doesn’t want the kids to go into day-care, HE should consider quitting his job and looking after them, to allow his wife to have HER need for paid work fulfilled, rather than insisting that he be allowed to do whatever he wants and that his wife somehow has to fit around this to find some other way of fulfilling her need for paid work. If a husband and wife disagree about what should be done, they must discuss it until they arrive at a consensus. There are TWO “heads” in each family.

It's really quite amusing that although you are obviously two very intelligent and articulate women, you're afraid of the responsibility of making your own decisions, and fret and bend over backward to try to extract and apply the Church's supposed command for you to "obey" your husbands, even when, at least in Erika's case, your husband obviously couldn't care less what the Church teaches about anything.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 19, 2004.


"you're afraid of the responsibility of making your own decisions" I can't speak for Lesley, but I make my own decisions 99% of the time, and no, I don't find it the least bit frightening. What I do find frightening is trusting my husband, and beyond that, trusting God, which is really what submitting to authority given BY God is. I'm quite used to making my own decisions, for myself and my three daughters, and my first response to any interferance from my husband is irritation, I regret to say. So you are way off base in your assesment. When it comes to twisting doctrine, it's quite obvious the one twisting doctrine is you - perhaps out of a desire to appear politically correct, or out of your own fear of responsibility? Who knows - but the fact remains - we are the ones striving to follow Catholic doctrine, even if it is difficult, while you are the one trying to find loopholes.`

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 19, 2004.

“twisting doctrine”? “trying to find loopholes”? Hey, it’s not ME who’s digging out centuries-old musty documents to try to avoid the fact that the Church teaches US, today, that wives and husbands are equal. Not because it’s politically correct, but because that is what the Church has deduced, after 20 centuries of reflection, is God’s truth.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 19, 2004.

Steve..I don't know why you seem to find it necessary to belittle other people in order to give your opinion..that is so sad. Your opinions would be valid, standing alone.

Erika, the article I was looking for can be found at:

www.catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0017.html "Feminism and Marriage a Reflection on Ephesians 5:21-33"

There is not anything about being intimidated by one's husband, or blindly "obeying" a spouse..far from it..yet there is a wonderful grace to be had by voluntarily giving up of the "self" by both spouses in order to truly be "as one flesh".

When each one of my grown children have approached marriage, the best advice my husband and I have given them is to wake up each morning of their married lives with one thought: "How do I make the OTHER person's day be happier and holier today?" If each spouse were to make that their goal each day, then each one would be voluntarily giving up themselves to the other..

In our modern world, everyday life is structured around the "I"..What am "I" getting out of marriage? How happy am "I"? "I" need more of this or that..No wonder there is so much divorce! If people feel the least bit unfulfilled, they trade spouses as if they were used cars.

Husbands being the "head" and wives being the "heart" of the one body of marriage doesn't mean specificity of demands..where one orders and the other obeys..it means one ultimately loves as the man is supposed to love his wife, and one ultimately is loved as the wife is supposed to be loved.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 19, 2004.


Recent publications by the Vatican seem to indicate a movement away from the use of terms for headship and submission. The apparent justification for this seems to lie in the fact that these scriptural references refer to our fallen state and as such are not the ideal to be strived for, which apparently is some kind of collegiality of mutual respect.

I would say that since these same articles did not deny headship and submission that as Catholics, as I believe Augustine would say, that we must accept all teachings that apparently conflict until there is a final resolution, whenever that may be.

It is all very confusing and this issue certainly can bring out passions, which to me certainly indicates the reality of our fallen state and the need for familial organization that does not support the stalemate that can exist when pure equals disagree.

In the ideal, which we will only attain in heaven and since there is no marriage in heaven this marital relationship has no reality, as I can understand it, both spouse are indeed created in the image and likeness of God and our relationships should strive for the perfect unity of the Blessed Trinity, where there are indeed three distinct and separate persons in one God but to leave us with this direction in our fallen state is, to me, not helpful. But then I may misunderstand what I have read. Otherwise I hope there is more concrete direction from Rome in short order, which of course in roman time may be in a generation or two or longer.

God help us!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 19, 2004.


Steve - The passage of centuries does not change the fact that the Church has clearly stated that the husband is the head of the family. That is Church teaching - time doesn't change it - so if your interpretation of recent documents contradicts it, you need to reexamine that interpretation. As far as the 'new teaching' that men and women are equal, it is not new at all. The church has always taught this. It does not mean men and women, husbands and wives are identical or should have identical, interchangeable roles. The pope just recently touched on this is his new document on feminism. Certainly it is considered unacceptable, in this day and age, to talk about husbands having authority over wives and the motivation for "glossing over" this doctrine is obvious - but the fact remains that it cannot be, and has not been, changed. You wonder why a woman would feel so strongly about this, when it would seem to you this doctine is anti-woman, no doubt. Look around you - look at the divorce rate, at the way few people today seem able to make their marriages work. It is clear God's plan for marriage is not being followed. It is also clear, from the documents I quoted above, HOW God's plan for marriage is not being followed. Can you comprehend that a woman might actually be more concerned about God's will than her own selfish desires? Also, you seem to think this doctrine permits men to 'bully' women. If you go back and read the gospels it's based on, you'll see this isn't the case. Clearly the husband is required to treat his wife with love "as Christ loved the Church" - if not, HE is the one in the wrong. The verse on submission is addressed to the wife, which shows it is HER responsibility to submit, NOT the husband's to "make her submit".

What you fail to understand, and the reason you cannot reconcile the Church teachings on submission with those on equality, is that authority does not equal superiority, nor does submission equal inferiority. Consider that the Blessed Virgin Mary was required to (and therefore certainly did) submit to her husband, St. Joseph, though she was perfect, without sin, and he was (though a Saint) still an ordinary fallible human being.

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 19, 2004.


Lesley, I’m sorry you feel I was belittling you. That was not my intention at all. I agree with everything else you said in your last post. Of course both husbands and wives should try every day to love and serve their spouse.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 20, 2004.

Erika, I never claimed the teaching that men and women are equal is MY interpretation, nor that it is "new". It is the consistent message I have heard from every Pope, bishop and priest I have heard or read on the subject.

“Look around you - look at the divorce rate, at the way few people today seem able to make their marriages work. It is clear God's plan for marriage is not being followed.” Yes, I respect my wife as an equal (no, NOT identical or interchangeable) and my marriage is strong. Karl demanded his wife obey him and she left him for another. You are troubled because you have got it into your head that the Church teaches you to obey your husband’s irritating interference in your decisions.

“Clearly the husband is required to treat his wife with love "as Christ loved the Church" - if not, HE is the one in the wrong.” That’s just what I’ve been saying.

“The verse on submission is addressed to the wife, which shows it is HER responsibility to submit” But not hers only. They have a responsibility to “submit” to each other, just as they BOTH have a responsibility to love each other as Christ loves the Church. Surely you do not claim that a wife does NOT have to love her husband as much as he loves her!?! But this is the corollary of your restrictive literal interpretation of the second half of St Paul's admonition to husbands and wives.

“you cannot reconcile the Church teachings on submission with those on equality” Hey, it’s you who’s got the conceptual problem, not me. I have no trouble reconciling these teachings, in fact I don’t see them as in conflict at all.

“the Blessed Virgin Mary was required to (and therefore certainly did) submit to her husband, St. Joseph” For one thing, St Joseph died long before those Bible verses that so trouble you were written. There’s no "required" or “certainly” about it, it’s pure speculation on your part. One thing we do know is that St Joseph refrained throughout his marriage from his right (no it would not have been a sin) to sexual intercourse with his wife. This was his decision as well as Our Lady’s.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 20, 2004.


Steve,

Your interpretation is flawed because it does not embrace the totality of Church teaching on the subject -you but parrot the feminist memes.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 20, 2004.


Thank you Steve.(sincerely).

In reading Pope John Paul II 's quotes regarding the impact of feminism on marriage, it is obvious that the Pope considers the husband to be the "head" of the family. As I said before, this topic is filled with all kinds of nuances.

One can choose to take the topic and make a case for the husband being the "spiritual head" of the family,accountable to God for keeping the sanctity of marriage intact to the best of his ability.

One can choose to take the topic and make a case for the husband being the "earthy head" of the family..being the "boss" with the wife having to "obey" his every order lest she offend God who has put him in charge.

One can choose to take the topic and make a case for husband and wife being 100% equals with nobody being accountable as individuals for anything.

One can choose to take the topic and choose to make a case for the husband being the BOTH the "spiritual and earthly head" of his family, accountable to God for leading his spouse and loving her as Christ loves the Church, and the wife as the "heart", being loved by her husband as the Church is loved by Christ, submitting to her husband as the Church submits to Christ. Both spouses equal in dignity..both having separate roles in the marriage..both having separate accountability before God.

Just my personal observation: over the past several years it has been a popular theme in television and movies to portray men, especially young men, as foolish ignorant and helpless individuals who somehow need a woman to set them on the right course. This idea is everywhere in commercials, sit-coms, etc. The woman is strong and competent and the man is a bumbling fool. The message is that men are weak. In my Grandson's Catholic school, educators have seen the results of this to be so negative among the boys that they have instituted separation of boys and girls in classrooms so they boys will not be "intimidated" by the girls!

It is "PC" to say that women and men are total equals in everything.

IMHO, when you take just those two things together..the media message that men are weak, and the PC ideology that women can "do" anything that men can do and do it equally well, you form the basis for a "genderless marriage" where, except for sexuality, there are no husband and wife "roles"..nobody is the "head" or "heart", and you lose the basic underpinnings of the fabric of Holy Matrimony.

I do not wish to return to the days of yesteryear where women all stayed home and said "yes dear". I certainly didn't. Somehow I managed working full time and raised 5 kids and 11 foster children..it was my husband and I doing both together. Yet it is my strong opinion that a wife need not give up her own identity in order to acknowledge that her husband IS ultimately the "head" of the household.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 20, 2004.


Steve - If St. Paul's first statement "submit to one another" says it all, as you seem to think, why then would he add that wives specifically should submit to their husbands, or children to their parents? If everybody is supposed to submit to everybody else, why is it neccesary to address wives, children and slaves in particular? Perhaps when St.Paul tells people to "submit to one another IN THE FEAR OF GOD" he is not addressing the issue of who should submit to whom, but rather, the proper attitude in those whose station in life calls them to submit to some authority? He then refers specifically to those groups. If he were indeed saying that people should simultaneously submit to each other, how would that work, in practical terms? It brings to mind the joke of two men standing at a door for years saying "after you" "no, after you"! If you cannot believe that St. Joseph had authority over his wife, then consider the gospel which tells us Jesus was subject to His parents! Surely you do not believe Our Lord was inferior to His creatures? Yet He was subject to them. You mentioned Karl and his wife as an example of why submission doesn't work, which is completely ridiculous, sinse this is not an example of a wife who submitted to her husband, but rather of one who tried to dominate him! Perhaps she felt, as you do, that a family has "two heads"! For an example of what happens to an organization with multiple "heads", just take a look at the protestant church - excuse me - the gazillion splinters thereof. Since people are NOT going to be in agreemant on everything at all times, any kind of lasting unity requires that someone have the final word. I don't think anyone is saying wives should not have their say, or that husbands should not consider their wishes, only that the final say is his. For example, last year I wanted a homebirth, and my husband was against it, so I showed him a number of studies and articles from medical journals supporting homebirth, and he changed his mind. If I had felt a family had "two heads" I would have gone ahead without addressing his concerns, satisfied that I knew more about the topic that he did. I doubt this would have benefited our marriage, or that he would have been as helpful during our daughter's birth. I'm sure someone is going to say "I don't care about your life" - whatever. I felt an example was needed, and I'm more familiar with my life than with anyone else's.

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 20, 2004.

You ladies are an inspiration to me.

Your husbands are lucky men. God bless you all.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 20, 2004.


You ladies are an inspiration to me.

Your husbands are lucky men. God bless you all.

Karl

To this day I do not really know why my wife behaves as she does. I have ideas but only ideas.

I did think, however, since she considers herself a practicing catholic, as does her lover by the way, that she would be moved to consider what she has done in the wake of the two rotal decisions in favor of the sacrament. But when she is told in practice and in theory that she can remain with her lover, continue to persecute her true spouse unjustly and remain a catholic in good standing, I could easily see, if i was her, there is no incentive to be faithful to my vows. I just have to wait until my spouse dies or maybe even hurry it along through persecution, which he cannot defend himself against when I am loaded with money and have the courts and the church on my side.

That is why I do not practice my catholicism.

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 20, 2004.


That is why I do not practice my catholicism.

What a waste. What a horrible, tragic waste that for the sake of hatred toward a mere creature someone would throw away their immortal soul.

-- jake (j@k.e), December 20, 2004.


Indeed jake.

Perhaps it is something those in authority in the Church should consider when they are so fast to annul a marriage but will do nothing to encourage an errant spouse to restore the Sacrament they are violating, with the Church's permission.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 20, 2004.


This may add to the discussion -emphasis added:

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN
IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD

"I. THE QUESTION

2. Recent years have seen new approaches to women's issues. A first tendency is to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men. Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women, in which the identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other, leading to harmful confusion regarding the human person, which has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family."

From this, in my opinion, it is self-evident that subordination is Church teaching. Error in emphasis and or application does not contravene the objective authentic requirement necessary as authentically observed within the family structure.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 20, 2004.


Wife is not a servant of her spouse. But YES; she owes him obedience if he speaks on a practical matter, for the sake of his family. He is the head of his house, while his word is just and reasonable.

He, in turn must also be obedient to the cares of his wife. She is not to be countered in everything her heart tells her is good and correct. Husbands must be understanding, and in some instances give up their authority and obey their wifes (Not at all unusual.) Nevertheless, she is not in authority, he is. It depends on the circumstances; love will cover over the differences in a good Christian household.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), December 20, 2004.


“One can choose to take the topic and make a case for husband and wife being 100% equals with nobody being accountable as individuals for anything”

They are no longer two, but ONE FLESH. There is no "person #1" and "person #2" in a marriage. This is not liberal lunatic fringe misguided feminism, but the Church’s teaching, which is the only thing which I “parrot”.

“It is "PC" to say that women and men are total equals in everything.” Of course. But all that I am saying is that a husband and wife are equal in authority in matters involving their family.

You make some very good points Lesley. I too am appalled at the media stereotype of the bumbling puerile man, which leaves boys and young men with the idea that their only two choices to live life as a man are being an incompetent “mommy’s boy” totally reliant on women, or else a violent “macho” bully. We need to show them that men do not lose any of their strength, dignity or sexuality by treating women as equals (not identicals).

“If everybody is supposed to submit to everybody else, why is it necesary to address wives, children and slaves in particular?”

Interesting you bring this up, Erika, because this could be, and WAS, used to claim that slavery is God’s will. We know in fact that slavery is the result of Man’s sinful desire to dominate others. From this same desire springs the idea that wives must be subservient to their husbands.

Saying that husband and wife have equal authority does NOT mean that whenever one wants to do something the other disagrees with, he just says “well go and do as you damn well please, I couldn’t care less”. My wife and I often disagree about things. When we find there is disagreement, we talk it out until we understand the other’s point of view. We find a compromise which we are both happy with, and yes there virtually always is one. (Maybe in the case you mentioned, it would have been to give birth in a “birthing center”, a home-style unit which are adjacent to many hospitals, so that if any emergency arises the mother and/or baby can quickly access expert medical care.) On very rare occasions, (I can only think of 3 or 4 in our 20- odd years of marriage), we have had to agree to disagree. Even then it doesn’t mean that we stop being "helpful".

I certainly would be far less forthright in expressing my thoughts and feelings to my wife if I thought she might feel under compulsion to obey me even when she knew to the best of her belief in her own mind that I was wrong.

Karl, as you have decided not to practise your Catholicism and you claim the Church is wrong, it seems out of place for you to presume to lecture others on how to behave as the Church teaches them.

“From this, in my opinion, it is self-evident that subordination is Church teaching.” What a bizarre and perverse conclusion Daniel. The whole passage emphasizes that the Church does NOT teach subordination or opposition of one sex to the other.

“she owes him obedience if he speaks on a practical matter, for the sake of his family.” LOL! In many marriages (including my own) where the wife generally has a far better head for practical matters than the husband does, following Eugene’s counsel would lead to a continuing series of disasters.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 20, 2004.


"this could be, and WAS, used to claim that slavery is God’s will. We know in fact that slavery is the result of Man’s sinful desire to dominate others." Used by whom? The Church never condoned racial slavery, and it is likely the slavery Paul refers to was not racial. The slavery most common at the time was like the work done by prisoners today - it was punishment for a crime. There were also people who agreed to a limited time period of slavery in order to pay off a dabt. Were people unfairly exploited? Certainly, as they always have been in all sorts of relationships, but St. Paul does not condone this - in fact, he reminds the masters that they have "a master in heaven".

Being the head of the household doesn't mean you can't consult your wife and ask her opinion! It only means that if you disagreed and were not able to reach a consensus, the proper thing for her to do would be to back down and go along with your wishes. St. Paul is clearly not saying that you should bully her into submission. He is addressing her, saying she ought to submit of her own free will. Actually, I see this as a sort of promise from God to the wife, that if she yields in order to preserve the order established by God, God himself will look out for her interests even if her husband does not. But this is, of course, a huge leap of faith, and doesn't include cases where the husband wishes the wife to do something wrong.

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 20, 2004.


Erika, obviously I meant that this passage was used by slave-owners (and some protestant churches) to justify their own behavior. I know the Church has never endorsed slavery. It is true that slavery in the Roman world was not as bad as slavery in 17th-19th century America. But many if not most of the ancient slaves WERE enslaved on a racial basis, their only “crime” being that they (or their husbands, sons, brothers and fathers) had fought to preserve their race’s independence from the Romans.

Please stop using emotive phrases like “bully her into submission”. You know very well that’s not what I’m talking about. But if your husband had said, after you tried your best to persuade him, “No I’m not going to allow you to give birth at home”, would you have “backed down and gone along with his wishes”? Somehow I don’t think so.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 20, 2004.


You were the one who bragged (on the other thread) about how you are a 'real man' because you don't 'bully' your wife. Your phrase, not mine. And yes, I was fully prepared to go along with my husband's decision, and have done so on other occasions. I wonder why you consider this so unbelievable? People have been willing to die horrible deaths for their faith, yet yuu don't believe a wife could go along with her husband's wishes in a relatively trivial dispute for the same reason? Do you have such a low opinion of women, that you don't think we are capable of self-sacrifice?

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 20, 2004.

I wasn’t bragging Erika, I was defending myself from Daniel’s outrageous assertions that I am “effeminate” and parroting “evil rhetoric” and “feminist indoctrination” and “self serving” and “void of compassion”, merely because I respect my wife’s equal authority. I think my response was relatively very mild.

Yes I’m well aware of self-sacrifice, I’m just amazed that someone who so resolutely defends her argument here would not stand up for herself over an issue which, I had the impression, was vitally important to you personally. If you think it’s relatively trivial, then the same result would happen as in my marriage. It would be a case of “I don’t feel strongly about this, so if you do feel strongly about it we’ll do what you want.”

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 20, 2004.


Steve - the fact remains, you did characterize the opposing veiwpoint as 'bullying'. Also, it's not strange at all that I would argue with you, yet not with my husband. Women are not required to submit to men in general. This doctrine refers specifically to married couples. Thank God! I didn't consider it a trivial issue at all. I said 'relatively", in comparison to martyrdom. I did in fact feel very strongly about it, but I imagine I would feel more strongly about being thrown to the lions or burned alive. And yet, there have been women who were not deterred by these things, in practicing their faith.

-- Erika (maiaminna@yahoo.com), December 20, 2004.

I tell you what Erika, I’ll put your point of view to my wife, and if I’m still here tomorrow :-), I’ll tell you what she thinks about it.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 21, 2004.

Is it wrong for a woman to want to obey her husband? Do you think it shows weakness? I personally think it is quite the opposite. As a woman you are meant to show submission. As women we are stronger to begin with so doing this shouldn't be hard. Only a weak woman couldn't do this and obey what has been set out for her. Personally, I love being home with my children and not working. I work hard enough here and my job is at home. I am happy to have lunch and dinner ready for my dh and whole family. Is this so wrong that my love, passion and work goes to my home?

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 21, 2004.

"...authority does not equal superiority, nor does submission equal inferiority. Consider that the Blessed Virgin Mary was required to (and therefore certainly did) submit to her husband, St. Joseph, though she was perfect, without sin, and he was (though a Saint) still an ordinary fallible human being."

Ding ding ding. Winner.

"Hey, it’s not ME who’s digging out centuries-old musty documents to try to avoid the fact that the Church teaches US, today, that wives and husbands are equal."

Hepl me. My eyse rolled so far bcak in my head I cna't see well enough to tpye a ersponse.

This is turning out to be one of the most interesting conversations in the forum. Ever.

-- Emerald (em@cox.nett), December 21, 2004.


Well I can’t print the first word my wife said in response to Erika’s theory, but after that, she said the same thing as I’ve been saying: If you have a disagreement you just talk it out until you get an agreement, however long it takes. If you love and know your spouse you can tell when he/she feels really strongly about something, even if he/she is inarticulate or not a skilful salesperson for their point of view.

Jalapeno, I can see where Erika’s coming from, but where on earth do you get the idea that “As a woman you are meant to show submission.” (apparently not just to your husband as a rare last resort when you can’t agree, but in general to every man)?

Whether a wife works outside the home is a totally different question. I certainly don’t believe that all housewives do that role only because their husbands tell them to, and that all wives working outside the home do it against their husbands' wishes. On the contrary. For 7 years I was the principal caregiver for our children, working part-time or not at all while my wife worked full- time. (Actually I still work far fewer hours than she does.) When I mention this to other husbands, they invariably say, “Oh, I’d LOVE to do that, but my wife would refuse to let me!”

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 21, 2004.


"practical matters".. people can get caught up here in specifics and miss the bigger picture.

In our household, I handle the checkbook and pay all of the bills. Why do I do this? Because my husband was in an automobile accident years ago and suffered a head injury which affected his short-term memory abilities. Doing paperwork is extremly frustrating for him.

So, if we needed to make a major purchase, he would necessarily have to ask me if we could afford to do so. After we both discussed how much was available financially, of course my husband would take into consideration MY opinion regarding the purchase..Yet, if there were conflict, it would be my husband who would be ultimately making the final decision ..

Why? Because it is my husband who is the sets the financial goals for the family..I may write the checks and pay the bills..we BOTH discuss options, and he values my input..very much so..As the "heart", it is my position to assist my husband in his leadership (if you will).

So often today in many marriages, people tend to confuse the different gifts and talents of each spouse with "authority". A wife may know more about finances than the husband does..perhaps she is an accountant and he is a baker. That doesn't mean the husband automatically cedes ALL responsibility and "authority" of the household financial decisions to his wife, the accountant, while he contents himself to bake bread. If he does, this means he abdicates the role of "head" and gives it to his wife.

This concept of total equality in marriage and talking an issue to death until some sort of equal compromise can be reached to satisfy each party is what ultimately leads to a society full of people who feel that they MUST be satisfied in ALL things in their marriages...somehow they MUST have all of their individual needs met 100% of the time, sacrificing nothing.

When there is recognized "authority" in a marriage, with the husband being "head" and the wife being "heart" spouses are freed from these negotiations..The husband says "What do you think"? The wife gives her opinion, knowing that her husband will listen and respect her. The husband will make the decision after taking in the wife's opinion, knowing that his wife will support him however he chooses.

THIS is what makes for a very strong marriage. There is no sulking, no angry words, no recriminations, no posturing..just two people who are "as one." And what do the children of these spouse see? They see a loving husband who cares what his wife thinks..who consults her in all things, yet still accepts the leadership role for his family. They see a loving wife who is respected by the husband, and supports him in his role as leader of the family.

Sons are taught loving respect of women,that it is important to ask counsel of their wives, and it is their role to lead their families. Daughters are taught to EXPECT love and deep respect from their husbands and it is their role as wives to be the "heart" and support in the family.

Practical tasks can be done by anyone, depending upon circumstances..some men like to cook, some women are great carpenters..it doesn't change the basic ideology a bit.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 21, 2004.


Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yes, and...

...the key point here is what you understand "obedience" to mean. Some people conjure up ideas of slavery or drill sargents. Highly inconsistent with all else we know of Catholic morality and indeed of Christ himself.

Now Jesus Christ is considered to be the model for husbands. How did Jesus command and how did he expect his disciples to obey?

When he made commands he also explained them. In John he allowed people to ask - Nicodemus, the woman at the well, the disciples, Peter... it wasn't blind obedience, draconinan obedience or repressive.

But it was commanding based on the will of the Father.

In Marriage obviously wives and husbands will disagree. But who has the last say? Most couples agree to stake out areas of expertise. The woman tends to rule the kitchen and children. The man tends to rule the garage, outside and fundamental economic questions (if he is the sole breadwinner.) But women tend to actually spend the money - big expenses are discussed based on their goals.

No one is asking women to be thralls or slaves here. And no Catholic man I know thinks he is the drill sargent micromanaging every detail of life with the wife asking permission to go to the bathroom etc.

CS Lewis once remarked on the difference between what we know about the faith and what we liked about the faith...

Same here. Lots of MEN don't particularly like the prospect of having to be husbands to wives as Christ was for the church (willing to suffer and die for her). But they have no choice in the matter.

If you are on top, then at the end of the day, if things go wrong, it's your fault. If you obey someone else - and things go wrong, well... let's just say it may still hurt but not as bad.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 21, 2004.


“As a woman you are meant to show submission.” (apparently not just to your husband as a rare last resort when you can’t agree, but in general to every man)?

****Oh yea, growing up with all brothers made me submissive to all men. Got my nickname because I was/am timid. LOL Steve, only you would come to that conclusion or even ask that question. Thanks for the hearty laugh this morning. Always a nice way to start the day. :o)

Whether a wife works outside the home is a totally different question. I certainly don’t believe that all housewives do that role only because their husbands tell them to, and that all wives working outside the home do it against their husbands' wishes.

***You lost me here. Where did I state a husband would tell them to work in the home? A woman is lucky if she has married a man who knows her greatest job would be to stay home and raise their children. Many men have become like the women where they believe having the best of everything is what matters. We live in a day and age where money rules most and many women work outside of the home even when they do not have to. Many women I know would rather work because their children drive them nuts and all of them could afford to stay home. Most work because they feel staying home is not important enough nor does it hold the same status as working outside of the home with a "real" job.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 21, 2004.


"What a bizarre and perverse conclusion Daniel. The whole passage emphasizes that the Church does NOT teach subordination or opposition of one sex to the other."

Steve,

I consider your subordination to your wife and your embrace of feminist agenda to be "bizarre". Your fear of leadership apparently distorts your interpretation of Church teaching on this subject. The family structure you freely discard with morally relative feminist meme is based in authentic teaching.

IF your inclusive and equality based interpretation was valid our Church would have priestesses -reconsider your protestant errancy and step up to your responsibility.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 21, 2004.


Steve,

Oh I see, you don't wear the "boots" in your family. And this is why you try to wear them in this forum with your "belittling people" all the time like the young Lady told you the other day.

-- - (David@excite.com), December 21, 2004.


“This concept of total equality in marriage and talking an issue to death until some sort of equal compromise can be reached to satisfy each party is what ultimately leads to a society full of people who feel that they MUST be satisfied in ALL things in their marriages...somehow they MUST have all of their individual needs met 100% of the time, sacrificing nothing. “

Sorry but that's the absolute opposite of what happens in real life. In our marriage, and I’m sure in the vast majority of others, it leads to exactly the opposite. We know we CAN’T just demand what we want. Talking it out, by definition means SACRIFICING and COMPROMISING your wants and needs and considering your spouse's wants and needs as more important than your own. When you decide TOGETHER what to do, there is no point in “sulking, angry words, recriminations, posturing” because you BOTH “own” the decision. You seem to think that a loving discussion between husband and wife must be a shouting match where the person who shouts the loudest and longest gets his way and the other is left sulking and resentful. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“Jesus Christ is considered to be the model for husbands. How did Jesus command and how did he expect his disciples to obey?” Just two teensy problems with this idea Joe. Jesus wasn’t married. And He is GOD come to teach us what to do. Of course his disciples have to obey him. I’m quite willing to suffer and die for my wife, as she is for me. But neither of us confuse that with thinking that our spouse has to obey us.

Glad I made you laugh, Jal, but that’s exactly what you said. “As a woman” (not “as a wife”) “you are meant to show submission.” Period. I’m very glad you didn’t really mean it.

“You lost me here.” I think you lost yourself. I was pointing out that whether a woman works outside the home has got nothing to do with whether she obeys her husband. Most women want to work outside the home for all of the same reasons that most men want to work outside the home. If a couple don’t “have to” have two incomes to support themselves, why should it by definition be the husband who is the one allowed to have a paying job?

Daniel, you’re the one with the "protestant errancy". It’s the conservative protestant sects who base their arguments for not having women minsters on the idea that only men may have authority. The Catholic Church does NOT teach that men by definition have authority over women. We don’t have female priests because a priest acts in the person of Christ, a Man, and He Himself ordained only male priests. A priest is a very different thing from a minister. The Catholic Church has many female ministers and women in authority. The Catholic Church rejects the protestant idea that women should not hold authority, in either the church or the family. You’re the one discarding the God- given family structure for one based on man’s sinful desire to rule over women.

Treating one’s wife as an equal is not evading “responsibility” or leadership, or “not wearing the boots”. A true Christian leader seeks to serve, not to be served.

David, most of us men are frequently tempted to belittle and lord it over others. Some of us have learned to control this temptation. You are probably far too old to learn to do this, but you have to at least accept that, thank God, you can’t “boot” women around like you were able to get away with in your day.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 21, 2004.


Period. I’m very glad you didn’t really mean it.

*** Here is what I wrote. Is it wrong for a woman to want to obey her husband? Do you think it shows weakness? I personally think it is quite the opposite. As a woman you are meant to show submission. How you got that to mean all men when I was writing about husbands is still very funny. You have a nice way of leaving things out or just trying to make something out of nothing. Period.

I think you lost yourself. I was pointing out that whether a woman works outside the home has got nothing to do with whether she obeys her husband. Most women want to work outside the home for all of the same reasons that most men want to work outside the home.

***No, I didn't lose myself. Everything you have to say above has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. Right now we live in a day and age where children and families are second. Materialism rules this world and most have bought into it. This is why we have the problems with our youth and why most parents wonder where they went wrong when they can no longer control their children.

If a couple don’t “have to” have two incomes to support themselves, why should it by definition be the husband who is the one allowed to have a paying job?

***At times I have wondered if I was not a little favored to have my husband. I'm the happiest, luckiest woman alive and men just don't come around like him very often. We (as in children and self) have been blessed. No need to answer the above.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 21, 2004.


“Right now we live in a day and age where children and families are second. Materialism rules this world and most have bought into it. This is why we have the problems with our youth and why most parents wonder where they went wrong when they can no longer control their children.” I’m sure we all agree on that, but what if anything has it got to do with the topic?

I’m sure it’s my fault, but I often have trouble understanding what you say. I’m glad Brian’s such a great guy and all. My wife’s a great gal too and I’m blessed to have her. But I still need an answer to my question, if you wouldn't mind.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 21, 2004.


I’m sure we all agree on that, but what if anything has it got to do with the topic?

***LOL Being you brought up about working outside the home blah, blah, blah I was pointing out what is wrong with our society. Our society has gone downhill because mothers no longer stay home. Family is second.

I’m sure it’s my fault, but I often have trouble understanding what you say.

***Then why do you always bother to reply or make a remark if you don't understand me?

But I still need an answer to my question, if you wouldn't mind.

***You NEED an answer? Need? I don't need to give you anything. Who are you to begin with? giggling How does your question help this topic and how would my answer help you? What would it matter?

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.


The Catholic Church does NOT teach that men by definition have authority over women.

Steve,

Authority = straw man argument... Check my postings again -look for that word...

Now -let's get back on track...

History thus far: Steve attempts to teach errant interpretation then Steve confused asks wife and continues same errancy. ALL THIS in spite of authentic Church documents that clearly refute Steve's errancy...

Hmmm... Steve please refer me to this 'secretive' authentic teaching you speak of.

P.S. One can not grow in understanding if one's goal is to always be "right" at any cost. One must humbly and honestly seek and embrace the Truth as taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 22, 2004.


"..but you have to at least accept that, thank God, you can’t “boot” women around like you were able to get away with in your day..."

lol Steve. Can you explain that one?

-- - (David@excite.com), December 22, 2004.


Don't you get it "Davey boy"? Steve thinks you're 79! So back in "your day", when men were men, they treated women like dirt and "booted" them around. Today the sexes are equal, so men can no longer get away with this behavior. Men are more likely to get a boot up their own backside courtesy of a liberated woman.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 22, 2004.

How can one possibly have an attitude that one's spouse's needs and wants are "more important than your own" if both spouses are totally equal? This is not logical Steve.

I did not say that I think a loving discussion between spouses is necessarily a shouting match. My point was that when two people firmly believe that they are both in authority, are both totally equal, both are the leaders of the family, and nobody has the ultimate decision-making responsibility, such "discussions" must by their very nature, go on and on and on ad infinitum until SOMEONE concedes.

When people are in discord, people tend to argue..arguing leads to anger..anger leads to negative behaviors..and yes, shouting is pretty negative.

When a marriage has clearly defined roles, and the role of the husband is that of "head"..there aren't many arguments. There's no NEED for them since the wife has no expectation that her husband SHOULD consider her opinion to be "more important than his own." The wife is totally secure, knowing that her opinion is valued, taken into consideration, and that the husband will make the final decision..

it's so EASY..so incredibly EASY..you have two people working together with the husband taking the "head" and the wife taking the "heart"..one says "I will lead and love you forever" the other says, " I will help and be loved forever by you."

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.


Ok an example from real life. My wife and I were talking about what we wanted for the home. We looked at our finances, savings, debts, and income stream. She wanted to buy furniture, I was interested in getting an emergency heater.

We discussed this and didn't come to a decision. Later she called me from a store to ask if she could buy some table. We again talked it over - do we really need a new kitchen table? Yes, it would be nice. Yes, eventually we'll replace the one we have. Must it be now?

I said no. She agreed.

On my side of things the same rule holds. I don't just run out and buy the heater. I did research, let her know about it, but didn't just up and buy it. If she was seriously against me buying something I wouldn't buy it.

Who is in charge here?

As far as the home goes - kitchen, interior decoration, clothing and appliance tastes, she is in charge of selecting what she wants. I am in charge of signing off on when (not if) to purchase them based on our current financial situation.

I want to beef up my tools and "toys" - camping gear, etc. But while I control the "what" she controls the "when". Eventually I hope to get all the tools I'd like to have. But it won't happen until she is ready.

I know her dreams and desires...and seek to fulfill them. She knows mine. Obedience then within a loving marriage isn't about separation and heavy handed control. (Neither is this the case in religious life btw).

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 22, 2004.


Examples from real life:

Both young couples BTW..one couple married for 10 years..he is 30, she is 32..the second couple married for 3 years, she is 23 he is 30.

Couple #1: Both work full time..she wants a new dishwasher..he says they cannot afford it. She orders one anyway and has it installed. Her rationale? "I work full time as well as he does..he has no right to deny me the dishwasher, since I'm the one who needs it and I make more money than he does.I don't care what he says." Her husband, when he sees the installed dishwasher in the home is very angry. They fight for a whole week over this. In the end, he gives up since the thing is in the house anyway. Her "friends" tell her, "Good for you." His "friends" tell him, "Man, I sympathize with you, but what can you do?"

Couple #2..Both work full time: they need to renew their car insurance on their very old, but usable car. They own it outright..no payments. The wife wants new furniture. Instead of paying the insurance premium, the wife goes out and buys the furniture. She tells her husband that "it's highly unlikely they will get a ticket for having no insurance on the car as long as they are careful how they drive and aren't pulled over." (for those of you who don't live in Alabama, this seems impossible, but trust me, it's a common scenario in that state).

The husband is livid that she did this..she has now put the family in jeopardy in the even of an accident, not to mention other people. The money is gone for the insurance premium. The wife says "I work, and it's my right to decide where MY SHARE of the money goes". "You have no right to tell me what to do." Her "friends" say "good for you, you GO girl." His friends say, "I sympathize with you Man, what can you do?"

Couple such as these are common nowdays..I know many of them. They have been neighbors and relatives. My husband and I have been continuously stunned by what thought processes go on in the minds of "modern wives"..BTW, both of these couples are now divorced. Sad, very VERY sad.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.


Had to laugh at your examples, Lesley.

"Can't afford it" --probably should have been "choose not to buy at this time." If the wife in example #1 was paying any attention at all to the money situation, she probably *knew* there was money. Her priorities may or may not have been fair--what were his reasons not for buying?

"Can't afford it" wouldn't fly in our house w/o cold hard facts behind it. Life is all about choices. He owed her the truth, which she may well have understood.

As for number #2, realistically the couple is probably judgement proof anyway, and I believe you really can't take someone's primary residence away, no matter how much someone wins in court. Look at OJ Simpson and Ken Lay--the law says there are so many things that can't legally be touched by lawsuits, like retirement accounts. Um, the other faulty opinion is that lack of insurance causes accidents, well, it doesn't. And, BTW, if this couple, as many do, carry only the state minimum insurance required, well, they may as well be carrying no insurance at all as far as most injury cases go....

And where's the other side, like guys blowing the household money on expensive stuff?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 22, 2004.


BTW, both of these couples are now divorced. Sad, very VERY sad.

Sad but not in the least surprising, in fact I would have been surprised if they weren't divorced or headed that way.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), December 22, 2004.


"Can't afford it" meant can't afford another credit card debt..in the divorce, the husband ended up with more than $12K in credit card debts to pay off (dishwasher included).

The second husband's reasonable protest wasn't about them possibly losing their trailer..it was concerning being in an accident and having no insurance to avail themselves of decent health care coverage for themselves or their children. He also felt a STRONG moral obligation to obey the law..something his wife did not feel.

Point is that when these couples married,BOTH of these "wives" were apparently in love with their spouses..yet something changed. The husbands stood there and watched as these two young women simply sailed on without them, each declaring their "independence" from their husbands within the marriage..each absolutely adamant that the role of the husband was to provide: income, sexual intercourse, companionship, and anything they wanted materialistically..end of conversation. If the husbands didn't agree, hey, then it was off to the lawyers and next thing the husbands knew, they had "visitation" days with their children, court-ordered child support, and a ton of credit card debt.

In the case of the second couple, the poor guy is still reeling in shock, wondering what truck ran over him.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.


God bless you, Lesley.

Someone who is willing to be discerning of all the facts.

Its too bad the Catholic Church does not have you to review its annulment cases!

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.


Dear Karl..from what I've read of your posts, my heart is touched by your situation.and I understand your frustration and anger..I also know how terribly hard it is to let go of anger..not to say that the situation is not important, or that you weren't unjustly harmed..yet to simply be able to wake up one fine morning and let it all "go"..to be at peace..to forgive as Christ would forgive..tall order I know, and there aren't many who can do so. I pray that someday you will be able to.

Anulments and moi? LOL..thanks but no thanks. One of my "things" though, is working towards legislation to make civil divorce more difficult. In most of the USA, a civil divorce takes one person to file proceedings and unless the other spouse has at least 10K on hand to "fight" a losing battle, the average time from filing to decree is less than 3 months. Many people have no clue that if your spouse wants a divorce, there is NOTHING that you can do about it..nothing. But I digress..and go off topic..sorry.

I truly would like to see the time when an engaged couple MUST be counseled not only spirtually by their priest, but also by married couples who are faithful in the Church, and have been married many, many years.

There is much wisdom to be shared by married people who have been together for several decades!

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.


Dear Lesley,

While I am not one who agrees with the position or belief that in order to understand what one experiences who has to have experienced it. I think that presupposes that it is impossible to earnestly try to see what it is like to wear anothers shoes.

But on this issue I have seen real hatred for innocent victims.

I think that anyone who judges my inability to forgive this ongoing nightmare and move on as so many, lousy Catholic would have me do, is far more guilty of unforgiveness than I will ever be. So when someone tells me to forgive I want to know the concrete steps they have taken to force justice to occur in the Church. If they know of such injustice that is still not being delt with each of them is OBLIGED to cease monetary support for the Church until it takes such action. No one does this to my knowledge so I have very few people whose opinions I really respect.

If Catholics informed their Pastors and their Bishops that they would immediately cease contibutions in the collection plates until there was a just system in place regarding ivorce/remarriage/annulments/accountability, you would see real movement towards justice or you would see, justifiably, many Church closings.

I am certain each person who is aware of this situation and does little to move it toward justice, by choice and NOT INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE is guilty of Mortal sin and should not be receiving communion. To simply accept that what the Church is doing is proper, is mortal sin, it is not doing what is right.

Damn you who disagree, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Lesley, thanks for the kind words.

When people begin to see that divorce that is unjust is REAL RAPE and is REAL HOMOSEXUAL RAPE as well, that in the case of an unrepentant aduterer or adulteress is never ending each day and understands that the Catholic Church welcomes these UNREPENTANT RAPISTS as part of the Church, without doing anything to force them to stop their RAPING, them perhaps there can be some changes made. It must become personl, like the child abuse issue did.

I have never once on this forum, where I have been brutally abused and I am an innocent man, have said that unforgiveness is justified.

But I would like to have these people in their real lives, not this cyberfake life, tell a woman that she must PAY her rapist to rape her and raise her child with the Rapist as her child's father and to submit to his rape each day and then yell at her and castigate her when she tells you her vagina is raw and it is hard for her to forgive her rapist when she has to see him welcomed at Mass, because he is a catholic at her same church. Then she has to watch the parish priest bless the adultering rapists and treat them as the married couple.

I hate with my entire being and soul what the Catholic Church practices inthis regard it is completely unjust and disgusting.

But people refuse to be objective when you criticize the Church and do not see that their refusal to be objective is in and of itself worse Mortal sin. And they join in to make our Rape a GANG RAPE, welcomed by the Catholic Church.

Amen.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@htomail.com), December 22, 2004.


OK Jalapeno I’ll just leave the ambiguity of your post hanging if you wish, but no it was NOT me who brought up the topic of wives working outside the home. It was you.

Daniel, I searched throroughly through the Catechism (that is, the current version, not some superseded one) and I couldn’t find anything that even hints that a wife should obey her husband. So please refer me to this apparently secret authentic teaching you speak of.

“How can one possibly have an attitude that one's spouse's needs and wants are "more important than your own" if both spouses are totally equal? This is not logical Steve.”

Not according to the sinful logic of the world in its fallen state, where people seek to dominate each other and are obsessed with “who wears the boots”. But that is precisely what a Christian husband and wife are called to do. It’s NOT God’s plan that one spouse dominate the other. That they seek to do this is the result of sin. As the Catechism puts it “400. The harmony in which they had found themselves, thanks to original justice, is now destroyed: the control of the soul's spiritual faculties over the body is shattered; the union of man and woman becomes subject to tensions, their relations henceforth marked by lust and domination.”

“when two people firmly believe that they are both in authority, are both totally equal, both are the leaders of the family, and nobody has the ultimate decision-making responsibility, such "discussions" must by their very nature, go on and on and on ad infinitum until SOMEONE concedes.”

That’s where you’re wrong. It’s not that “nobody” has the ultimate responsibility. They BOTH have the ultimate responsibility TOGETHER. If it turns out later on, in hindsight, that the wrong decision was made, the wife CAN’T sulk, complain or recriminate “YOU got us in this mess because YOU overruled me”. Instead, it’s “we BOTH got it wrong TOGETHER”, so instead of apportioning blame, they work out together how to get out of the mess.

Unlike Erika’s model, a husband in a marriage of equal spousal authority doesn’t just ask his wife “What do you think?” and get the finished result of her cogitations which he then accepts or rejects. He asks her WHY do you think that and TOGETHER they discuss the pros and cons, and learn HOW their spouse thinks and feels, enabling them to grow together in knowledge and love of each other and grow in the graces of the Sacrament.

It’s easy, so incredibly easy. Both husband and wife say “I will love you forever. I will not lead you but we both will be led together by God.” Neither one leading or following the other but walking BESIDE each other.

An equal partnership does NOT lead to chaos or domination of one partner by the other. We see this even in the mundane practical world of business, where there are innumerable 50:50 business partnerships. I was once a partner in one, and making decisions was not a problem.

In regard to purchasing decisions Joe, ever since we got married we have had a rule that neither of us ever spends more than $50 (now $100 due to inflation) without getting the other’s OK. (btw my wife and I always laugh when we hear that oft-repeated line “most arguments in marriage are about money”. We have had plenty of arguments [all resolved], but not even once have we had an argument about money. )

Lesley, I take it that you’re implying that the disasters of Couples #1 and #2 would have been avoided if only the wife had obeyed her husband’s command not to do such stupid things. The disasters would ALSO have been avoided if the couple had made the decision together in conformity with the ideals of Christian marriage.

In real life it is even more common that the HUSBAND is the one making the stupid decisions which his wife objects to. I have seen it all too often, not only a matter of not paying insurance or buying things they can’t afford, but spending the housekeeping money on gambling, alcohol or drugs. An obedient wife would be no solution to this, in fact it would make the problem worse.

I do agree with you Lesley that civil divorce is far too easy to obtain and far too hard to prevent, and re the need for more and better pre-marriage education. However we have to be careful not to inadvertently give young people the message “if you’re not ready for marriage, just cohabitate”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 22, 2004.


Oh Karl..I cannot say "I know how you feel"..I do not. I can only tell you that in my own life I have suffered great injustices..plural is intended. And please do not take this as a "holier than thou" thing..it is simply the truth.. through no effort or will of my own it is simply not "in" me to hold onto anger. It is not as if I used to have anger in my heart and somehow through God's grace I was able to find peace..that's not the case..

So, yes, I know what it feels like to be terribly wronged..horribly wronged and to suffer tremendous emotional pain from it..yet I have no concept at all of the feeling of seething anger.

Do I agree that there are many who receive anulments in the Church who perhaps should not..either due to their own misrepresentations to the Tribunals or due to SOME Tribunal members who are in gross error? Absolutely. Do I believe that the Church hierarchy should be held accountable for these errors in judgement? Absolutely.

Do I agree that the manner in which this issue should be pursued should be one of anger and vengeance? No. I don't believe that any issue should be resolved in anger or vengeance.

Mother Teresa went out into the streets of Calcuta and picked up dying homeless human beings ..she bathed their open sores and made soup for them. She brought the slums of India to the attention of the entire world by smiling while she washed roaches off bodies. She did not march angrily up to the steps of the government and yell at them for not taking care of their poor.

Prayer, humility and love are all so much more powerful than anger. This is all I know to be true.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.


Dear Lesley,

You are not one of the people around here who love annulments, almost worshipping their accuracy(ha) and supporting the Church process of encouraging divorce, as many do on this forum.

I want people to confront what divorce that is unjust really means, not when it is justified.

But I do, through experience, believe that anger and hatred is more than justified at injustice. And it is love, humility and prayer that are made perverse through this process. It is never appropriate to only pray, love and be humble when concrete actions can be taken. To do only the former three is grave mortal sin in the absence of the latter when there is the opportunity, as there is each day.

I am sorry Lesley, you seem to be one of the good ones but only if you hold the Church accountable publically, not in private. Adultery and unjust divorce are public sins and must be dealt with in public, not behind closed doors when there is injustice. The offender must be exposed openly, as openly as the marriage is violated.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.


Karl,

I just want to tell you I am sorry for all you have been through. I have also witnessed marriages that were ended that should not have been and it is sad to see that many more are happening with only one party involved. All of us are given different crosses to bear. I just read, St. Louis de Montfort's True Devotion Consecration to Mary, by Fr. Helmuts Libietis. I highly recommend it. It helped me understand more about suffering, why we are given certain crosses and what God wants from us. Remember to offer up the pain, anger, hurt you feel for all the souls in purgatory. I will be praying for you.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.


OK Jalapeno I’ll just leave the ambiguity of your post hanging if you wish,

***Your question was not very clear to me either. How old are the kids, and why would the woman not want to stay home would be my question to you? I for one can not understand women who would rather work than stay home with their children. Sorry..call me extremely old fashioned. As for women working if the man is not able to work. My father was terminally ill for 11 years and could not work and mom went to work for the first time in her life at an olive factory. Do I see this as bad? Not at all. Families do what the need to, but overall with a few exceptions, most women are better with their children than men. Most women are more nurturing. Not all though so let me make that clear. I know quite a few men who are the better parent more loving, patient etc.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.


Well in our own case I had been working long hours in a job which I found draining and boring. I wanted to spend more time with our kids. My wife had the chance to take up a job which she found exciting and stimulating. Neither of us wanted the kids to go to child-care. So we decided (together, as always) that she would take up her new job and I would quit mine. NOT because I am “more nurturing, the better parent, more loving, patient etc” than my wife (I am not), but because we thought it was the best thing to do for all of us.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 22, 2004.

Alcohol, gambling and drugs are all either illnesses or signs of an illness..in marriage, it doesn't matter which spouse is afflicted with these things..husband or wife..the result will be the same.

We are speaking about the roles of each spouse in a marriage, not marriages complicated by illness. But say that a husband does choose to take the family money and go off and purchase "toys" for himself, causing his family to suffer hardship. He has his new deer rifle and his family ends up eating stale cereal for supper. What then? Since the husband has not chosen to be the "head" of his family,his wife must do so until he changes. It is then up to her to procure food for the children, act in a manner that provides her husband with an EXAMPLE of a godly wife, and pray that he will change.

That's where the Church comes in to play. The priest of the parish is consulted..food is provided the family..the priest speaks to the husband. If THAT doesn't work, and the husband continues to neglect his family, the wife has the obligation to continue to with HER part of the marriage covenant. This is what is meant by "for better or worse, 'til death do us part." If the husband were physically threatening, then the wife is encouraged to LEAVE.

Too often, the only time people consult their priests is after they have divorced and now wish to marry someone else.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 22, 2004.


Daniel, I searched throroughly through the Catechism (that is, the current version, not some superseded one) and I couldn’t find anything that even hints that a wife should obey her husband. So please refer me to this apparently secret authentic teaching you speak of.

Steve,

obey = straw man argument (again you do this 'tactic') why do you persist in this? The posting record is clear -read this thread again my postings...

I still give you the benefit of the doubt as to the objectively errant methodology you employ in 'discussion' -try again harder this time. All information -I have posted (with links) is contained within this thread... No need to discover anything new...

---take note Steve: --my postings with you on this subject serve two purposes:

[1.] For the common good and building up of the Church -prevention of others that may read Steve's errant interpretations from being led astray from Church teaching.

[2.] In charity -fraternal correction offered Steve.

My first purpose has clearly been documented and acheived - regardless of my second purpose and your ability to obediently embrace Church teaching I take consolation in having accomplished the first purpose.

I would recommend you attempt to set aside your ego and consider all that has been offered you by the many on this thread.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 22, 2004.


So Lesley you are saying a wife’s obligation to obey her husband ends when he fails to be loving enough. Who is to decide how much is enough? Where do you draw the line? What if he spends only a moderate amount on his "toys", but it puts enough of a strain on the family finances so that his wife and kids don’t quite have the standard of food, clothing, shelter and healthcare that they should have? If the standard is whether he loves his wife “as much as Christ loves the Church”, all husbands must fail by that standard.

Btw most people who gamble and drink to excess are not “sick”, just selfish.

Daniel, “obey” is not my “straw man argument”. It’s the key word in the title of this thread, the question Erika wants answered. I don’t think I’m “confused” Danny boy, but you certainly seem to be. You give us quotes of documents and then claim that they say the very opposite of what they appear to say. If anyone has “errant interpretations” it is you.

As for “errant methodology in discussion” – you win that prize too. Your posts (especially the last few) consist of gratuitous personal attacks (which you call “in charity fraternal corrections”!LOL!), irrelevancies, non-sequiturs and unintelligible cant phrases. How you expect to convince anyone with that I don’t know.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 23, 2004.


Sorry, alcohol, gambling, and drugs are CHOICES, not illnesses. Gee, let's make everything an illness, then we're not responsible for our actions.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 23, 2004.

Well in our own case I had been working long hours in a job which I found draining and boring. I wanted to spend more time with our kids. My wife had the chance to take up a job which she found exciting and stimulating.

****A job more exciting and stimulating than watching your children grow up? Do I dare ask what? I can't think of one. I just babysat too much as a child and saw first hand what most were missing out on. Too many children took their first steps to me and didn't want me to leave once their mom showed up. They would cling to me and cry as if I was their mom. Lucky for your kids that at least they had one parent there. :)

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 23, 2004.


Jalapeno, it’s not that my wife didn’t LIKE spending time with the kids. But as she put it to me “I want to let you have a share of what I have had. I don’t want to hog it all.” It wasn’t “luck” that our kids had at least one parent there, that was the way we carefully planned it, even though it caused us some financial hardship. All parents should watch their children grow up. But the Church rejects the idea that that should be women’s SOLE occupation.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 23, 2004.

I clearly said that if a husband's actions caused his family "hardship" the wife would have to take over to provide what the family needed. Nowhere did I say the wife stopped loving her husband. Who draws the line? If couples would consult their priests more when they are in discord, as I said, issues MAY become clearer much earlier.

The abuse of alchohol and drugs can be either an illness or leading to one. Alcoholism is a disease. Drug addiction is a disease. Most alcoholics and drug addicts also have a co-morbid disorder..clinical Depression. Gambling can be an addictive disorder. Holding people accountable for getting help with these things is appropriate. Blaming people for having them to begin with and dismissing their problems as simply a matter of "choice" is not.

If one takes the time to read Pope John Paul II's writings on marriage, the Bishops' writings on marriage, the Church's position on feminism and it's impact upon marriage, I cannot understand how anyone can fail to see that the Catholic Church's teaching is that the husband is the "head" of the family and the wife is the "heart".How they each have separate roles within the marriage to fulfill.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 23, 2004.


That's funny Steve, my wife and I have the same policy on the $50 spending money. Although this seems to work, I have been wondering if it's feasible for me to simply take out the $50 per week or month and save it...then buy the big toy or tool I have my eye on..

But that doesn't seem right - since if I had $650 sitting around somewhere it would seem to be "our" money rather than "my" money.

Buying McDonalds or a candy bar is one thing. A major appliance or tool or toy is another. Communication of dreams, desires, and hopes is essential.

We also try to budget so we can help family or friends with financial difficulties as well as the parish and charities. Having a slush fund over $100 would make me feel like I'm keeping bread from someone's mouth... I dunno, maybe it's just feelings and not reasonable.?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 23, 2004.


But as she put it to me “I want to let you have a share of what I have had. I don’t want to hog it all.”

*** For any mother to think she is hogging it all if she stays home with her children is silly to me. Sorry. Imagine our Blessed Mother telling Joseph she wanted to start working and tell him to stay home with Jesus so she wouldn't be hogging all the time with Him. As if they weren't sharing it to begin with.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 23, 2004.


Sorry Lesley, the fact that people can go to 12-step programs and actually quit cold turkey is proof enough that they are not illnesses. I'm not saying that it is easy, but it is always a choice. Don't you know there's big money classifying them as "illnesses" just as obesity is now an "illness", and you can now take treatment off your taxes?

The Bible didn't say they were illnesses....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), December 23, 2004.


Steve,

You still reply with nothing of substance?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 23, 2004.


For those interested -related thread:

Obey husband?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 23, 2004.


My goodness, GT..the bible says that adultery is punishable by stoning to death..does that still appply? The bible says a lot of things..There is a HUGE difference between drinking to excess, otherwise known as "getting drunk" and alcoholism..one does not equal the other by a long shot. Many people erroneously believe that abuse of alcohol (getting flat out drunk) means that one is an alcoholic. Absolutely incorrect. One is an alcoholic when one NEEDS alcohol in order to merely get through the day..to function.

12 steps is a treatment..one part of treatment for the DISEASE of alcoholism. An alcoholic has no more "control" over the illness anymore than a diabetic has "control" over the fact that their pancreas doesn't produce sufficient insulin to meet their body's needs. The diabetic has to choose not to eat many types of food..the alcoholic has to choose not to ingest alcohol in any form.And that means not only obvious sources such as a can of beer or a shot of bourbon, but also hand lotions containing alcohol, ethanol-based paint thinners, cough syrups..many things that other people don't have to worry about.

For some reason,in some people, even a small amount of alcohol in the body sets up an actual craving for more. An alcoholic need not drink to have this happen, just be exposed to alcohol in any way (as in hand lotions, etc.)

Don't confuse treatment of an illness with the illness itself. You're making a moral judgement about people who have a physical illness. Please do not take only my word for this..if you are truly interested in the facts, take the time to look up "alcoholism" on the internet. You will find that it is, indeed, a disease. There has been much research going on to identify the particular gene for alcoholism. Fascinating genetics. Also, as I said, defining an illness doesn't excuse the people who have it from personal responsibility for getting treatment..not at all.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 23, 2004.


“If one takes the time to read Pope John Paul II's writings on marriage, the Bishops' writings on marriage, the Church's position on feminism and it's impact upon marriage, I cannot understand how anyone can fail to see that the Catholic Church's teaching is that the husband is the "head" of the family". (Lesley)

Well call me dumb, and I can’t say I’ve read every word of the Church’s recent writing on the matter, but I’ve never seen this idea put forward as "Catholic teaching". To be fair, I can’t say that I’ve seen it specifically condemned either, although the Church’s frequent insistence on the equality of husband and wife and its condemnation of “domination” and “subjugation” of one spouse by the other, certainly imply that this idea is not in accord with Catholic teaching.

Joe, my wife and I would definitely regard it as cheating to “put aside” multiples of $99 at a time for our own individual use without telling the other. Another thing we have done is that ever since we were engaged, we have put all of our money (and our house etc) into joint names/accounts, so there is no “mine” and “hers”, it’s all “ours”.

“For any mother to think she is hogging it all if she stays home with her children is silly to me. Sorry. Imagine our Blessed Mother telling Joseph she wanted to start working and tell him to stay home with Jesus so she wouldn't be hogging all the time with Him. As if they weren't sharing it to begin with.” (Jalapeno)

I imagine that Joseph’s carpentry shop was attached to or part of their house, and that the boy Jesus spent just as much time with St Joseph as with Our Lady. In fact that was the typical pattern of family life throughout the world up until the Industrial Revolution. Both fathers and mothers nearly always worked on a farm plot, shop, office or small factory which was part of, attached to or very close to the family home. There were very few “absent fathers”. It was only from the late 19th to the mid 20th century in the West that the majority model of family was the mother staying home with the kids while the father worked many miles away.

Daniel, if you give us something of substance, I might be able to give a substantial reply to it. Come on, Danny boy, you claim your ideas are official Church teaching and that mine are “errant”. PROVE IT! Give it your best shot and let’s see whether you’ve got anything more than a lot of hot air.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 23, 2004.


Oh and Jalapeno, my wife didn’t “TELL” me to stay home. As I said it was something we decided together. In fact I was MORE keen on the idea than my wife was.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 23, 2004.

Daniel, if you give us something of substance, I might be able to give a substantial reply to it. Come on, Danny boy

Steve,

Are the referenced and linked authentic documents of the Church not substantial enough? Reply to them... I still await some reference on your part to authentic teaching - something other than another repeat of errant interpretation laced with rhetoric and ad hominem. If I am incorrect, please provide correction by offering something authentic.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 23, 2004.


Yeah I read the documents you linked to Danny boy. The problem for you is, they don’t back up your claims at all, in fact if anything they say the exact opposite of what YOU claim is "Church teaching", merely on your own authority. And I’m afraid the only “ad hominem” (non-)arguments have come from you. You did actually read those documents didn't you? Try reading them again, this time with a mind and heart open to what the Church’s leaders are trying to teach you. I hope you have a happy Christmas with lots of time to reflect on what the Church teaches us.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 23, 2004.

Steve,

I smile at your persistent ad hominem and do hope you one day rise above it rather than fall as result of it.

I will try more in depth now with some paraphrased and borrowed information as your errancy appears quite entenched. First, I suggest you read the entire passage in Ephesians that I have posted and linked earlier in the thread.

I am sure you would agree that the Church is the Voice of God. What you still question is not what I say -[it] is what God has told us in Sacred Scripture. Again, as I am sure you would agree, to completely understand God requires a deep Faith and an ability to accept that we humans are incapable of fully understanding God who says "My ways are not your ways."

In His Word God compares a husband to Christ naming both "heads." We are errant when we allow ourselves to prefer to accept what society and our 'modern' times in particular deny God and His Word -when we do this, sadly, we have made a choice -one more wrong choice.

God makes it very clear that He created man and woman as equals in His eyes. Why has society insisted that woman is inferior and so literally encourage women to become like men? God made each sex and gave to each sex the role He expected them to live as they journey to their true Home in Heaven, in the case of truly married people as companions, both working for the same goal, final union with our Creator. Who has changed our purpose in life? Certainly it hasn't been God, rather we poor humans who think or desire to be INFINITE in our reasoning power! God alone is Infinite. Each human regardless of sex is FINITE which means we are limited. Why did God give in cases differing talents or abilities to women and to men? Simply because it was His Plan when He created us? Who says that one talent or ability makes one sex superior over another? --Humans... Who says that both sexes are equal, in essence, that differing talents or abilities are not 'really' different? Again, humans...

God gave each sex a role and or roles to play, duties to fulfill and we have the duty to accept and use His gifts in the manner He intended them to be used.

Why do corporations have a head, male or female? Why do countries have Presidents, kings or Queens? Again because of the Divine Plan. Someone has to be in a position to make a final decision when human reasoning is incapable peacefully? Someone must do what is right for the Common good which is God's plan expressed clearly in His Word. Such is life.

A man is the head of his home because God has placed this duty upon Him. In a good Christian marriage both parents work together which is also God's plan. There is no place for causing unrest by an individual's power struggles!

We are able to understand as humans with the help of God Who is ever at our side for guidance. All we need to do is seek it. ASK and you shall Receive. SEEK and you shall find. KNOCK and it shall be opened. This is God's advice to we His children, male and female.

Extreme feminists, humanists and or modernists seem to take issue with passage in Ephesians. If both men and women were to read this passage seriously and take to heart what Paul is saying (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, mind you), they would come to realize that this is the greatest deal they could ever hope to get in the world - at least in respect to an enduring, stable and faithful marriage.

Consider that Paul places an even strong injunction on men to "love their wives". "Love" in this sense is not the ooey gooey stuff of modern times. The love Paul is talking about is the kind of love that Christ, the Bridegroomm shows for His Bride, the Church. This is true charity, that is, sacrificial love - with the emphasis on sacrifice.

Sacrificial love always seeks the good of the other, even at the cost of one's own life.

Sacrificial love places the good of the other person as the highest goal. This sort of love must inform every Christian marriage so that Christ can be the heart of the marriage. When Christian spouses embrace this vocation of marriage with sacrificial love, then they are truly seeking to help the other attain the joys of heaven. Spouses have the obligation to help the other get to heaven: that is the highest good for the other person. Therefore, no truly loving husband should do anything hurtful or harming, would never cause, ask or provoke a sin. Think about it.

Indeed think about this. The injunction to love is far heavier and more difficult than to obey.

Of course what Paul is really saying is that both spouses should have sacrificial love for each other, each exercising it in their own manner of living the vocation of marriage. What Paul says to husbands and wives are two sides of the same coin.

This is the best deal a wife and a husband could ever want to have: sacrificial love.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 23, 2004.


Both fathers and mothers nearly always worked on a farm plot, shop, office or small factory which was part of, attached to or very close to the family home. There were very few “absent fathers”. It was only from the late 19th to the mid 20th century in the West that the majority model of family was the mother staying home with the kids while the father worked many miles away.

***Steve, I have to give you one thing..you never give up. LOL You are right that the fathers were around more, but that was not my point. I guess you miss my little jokes here and there. Even if Joseph were right in the same room never would our Blessed Mother say she was hogging Jesus. You made a statement (your wife) that was a little silly to me. I did say sorry for it. Still can't imagine any mother thinking she is hogging the kids by staying home while the husband works.

Oh and Jalapeno, my wife didn’t “TELL” me to stay home. As I said it was something we decided together. In fact I was MORE keen on the idea than my wife was.

***You couldn't have taken me away from raising my kids for all the money in the world nor would my dh even think of wanting to trade places. As I've said before, just old fashioned over here and happy that I married a man who thinks and believes the same. I know my dad hated having to be home. He felt like he was less of a man, but he had no choice. He was old fashioned too.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 23, 2004.


Steve,

P.S.

I suggest you get a dictionary and look up "ad hominem" -your errancy appears in this "ad hominem" definition as well. Also, suggest you may want to focus more on asking questions here rather than submitting answers you are unsure of...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 23, 2004.


Daniel, if you could possibly point out anything “ad hominem” (i.e. attacking the man, not addressing the question) in my posts to you I would gladly apologize for it. As I have not, please don’t continue with this baseless accusation, it only demeans you further.

I’m glad you have read St Paul’s letter to the Ephesians and your latest post shows you are coming to understand the Church’s teaching in this matter. In fact the only point you slip up on is your unsupported claim that “A man is the head of his home because God has placed this duty upon Him.” If you read, reflect and pray on the Church’s teaching you will, I trust, come to realize that it is the folly of sin, not God's plan for man, which deludes men to think that they are “naturally” in command of their wives.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 23, 2004.


Jalapeno, the ONLY story we have in the Bible about Jesus’ childhood tells us that St Joseph and Our Lady both assumed (for 4 days!) that He must have been with the other when He wasn’t with them. So the only scriptural evidence we have suggests that they both shared equally in “quantity time” caring for the boy Jesus.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 23, 2004.

Steve,

For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.

I guess, somehow you twist the above simple wording as do feminists meme 'equality'? In my opinion, this is your error in a nutshell... -still undocumented by authentic teaching?

-read here and you may gain authentic understanding:

http://www.familylifecenter.net/html/resources/check2.ht ml

P.S.

You still provide no authentic documentation of your opinion? You have had ample opportunity to document your opinion with authentic teaching. If you continue to provide nothing am I to assume the Church to be lacking or deficient in this 'important' teaching? Would it not be prudent to assume your understanding errant until you 'produce' something that you must have seen but refuse to share -something that will set me straight on this?

As to your ad hominems, now that you understand the meaning as evidenced by definition and lack of ad hominem in your last posting I would hope this mini revelation and deeper understanding bodes well your future postings to all that may come in contact with you here...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 24, 2004.


Steve,

-corrected link:

"Wives, Be Subject to Your Husbands"

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 24, 2004.


Daniel..thank you for putting this article up for all to read. At last, something definitive..something which CLEARLY addresses what Erika's question was all about. What exactly IS the Magesterium's teaching? Well done..

It is always good to learn what the Church teaches.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 24, 2004.


Danny boy, your rude and patronizing attitude is severely trying. I suggest you read the thread, “The UnCatholic rudeness of so many in this forum”. It is you who is disputing the Church’s teaching in this matter. You obviously have access to the Church’s teaching from the links and quotes you have mentioned, and it is absurd of you to suggest I have any dispute with these. What I dispute is your arrogant claim that your interpretations of these documents to suit your ideas of male superiority, should be accorded the unquestioning assent due to the Church’s dogmatic teaching. And your extremely rude way of saying so.

Yes I have known for a long time what “ad hominem” means. Although you have repeatedly and, to my mind, inexplicably, launched extreme and perverse ad hominem attacks against me, I will not retaliate in kind. I suggest you take a leaf out of the book of others such as Erika, Lesley, Jalapeno, Brian and Joe, who are able to vigorously debate my opinions without resorting to this type of abuse, especially inappropriate at the time we celebrate our Savior’s birth.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 25, 2004.


Steve, Do not plead your case with me -you are not subordinate to me -you are subordinate to your ego.

Further, self edification as does majority as does anything morally relative merits nothing in discussing Truth as the Church teaches.

You have been presented with information -do with it what you will. I will continue as I choose.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 25, 2004.


Daniel, I think you know I wasn't suggesting you do it because the majority here do it, but because it's the right thing to do.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 26, 2004.

daniel,you're a really annoying guy

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 26, 2004.

i mean,what the **** is your problem dude?

you wanna come here promote sexism?

go back to the 16th century d****t

i really feel sorry for your wife,if you ever going to have one with that attitude...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 26, 2004.


sdqa,

Whether you consider me annoying or agreeable may address the messenger; however, [this] does not bolster or diminish the message content.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 26, 2004.


but why are you saying that the man should have authority on his wife?

that's insane

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 26, 2004.


sqda..did you read the link that Daniel posted? ALL of it? Daniel didn't write the Church teachings..he was kind enough and diligent enough to post them.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 27, 2004.

i'm against any form of discrimination based on sex

the man is not the chief of the family or his women nor the women is

equality is essential for true freedom

hierarchy among people is the biggest mistake ever made and the main cause of problems throughout history and today

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 27, 2004.


sdqa..again, did you READ the article? If you had, you would have read the theology behind the teachings..how initially, God created man and woman..how there was no hierarchy..until original sin came into play..read it, then comment. I doubt that it will change your mind, yet it's always better to comment with an informed opinion.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 27, 2004.

but why are you saying that the man should have authority on his wife?

that's insane

sdqa,

Feel free to check my postings on this word for word -you will find that I never used the word authority...

authority = straw man argument (look up the meaning if necessary).

Additionally, what is presented is Church teaching -simply my attempt to convey my understanding of [it] so that, in the method of Faith seeking Understanding, others in addition to myself seeking such may discuss and further gain in understanding...

Look at the documents and ask questions; otherwise, you blindly refute what you do not know of yet hope to understand -- I suggest that trying to see with eyes closed is what is insane...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 27, 2004.


Danny boy, the rest of us here are trying to answer Erika’s question, not to play “straw man” word games as you are doing. You may not have used the particular word “authority”, but what else could you possibly mean by your continued assertions such as “A man is the head of his home because God has placed this duty upon Him” (sic), other than that you think that a man must have some kind of authority over his wife? This impression of your muddled thinking is confirmed by the rest of your rhetoric. A husband and wife inhabit the same “home”.

Just a wild guess, Danny boy, but you’re not married, are you?

Sdqa, sometimes “discrimination” against one sex can be justified. What cannot be justified is the distortion of God’s plan that a husband and wife are equal partners in marriage.

Oh and correction to my earlier statement: Our Lady and St Joseph each assumed the boy Jesus was with the other for ONE day, then spent another 3 days searching for Him. But even one day is a long time for a mother to assume the Child was with His foster-father, if, as Jalapeno suggested, she would have insisted on being a full- time mom.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 28, 2004.


“A man is the head of his home because God has placed this duty upon Him” (sic), other than that you think that a man must have some kind of authority over his wife? This impression of your muddled thinking is confirmed by the rest of your rhetoric. A husband and wife inhabit the same “home”.

***I believe that Brian is the head of my home. Is this bad Steve? My family life does not seem to have the same outcome as yours with all do respect. I have children ranging from 17-11 yo. Not one will tell me they don't believe and do as they please. I have children who obey me over here. AS to one of your post, I know you do not have the same and for that I am sorry.

Just a wild guess, Danny boy, but you’re not married, are you?

Sdqa, sometimes “discrimination” against one sex can be justified. What cannot be justified is the distortion of God’s plan that a husband and wife are equal partners in marriage.

****Steve, I know that Brian and I are equal, BUT the bottom line, he has the last say. I will trust him no matter what. Good example, last thing I wanted to do was to move back to CA from WA. Did I have a choice? If I raised a big stink, but I had to respect my dh's authority and decision. Overall it has been the best for all.

Oh and correction to my earlier statement: Our Lady and St Joseph each assumed the boy Jesus was with the other for ONE day, then spent another 3 days searching for Him. But even one day is a long time for a mother to assume the Child was with His foster-father, if, as Jalapeno suggested, she would have insisted on being a full- time mom.

***Steve, as always, you have me LOLing over here. Thank you. :o) I see you can make a mountain out of a mold hill for your own home. To you it was all good and the best answer and your children have turned out 100% well is why you argue it. I can only go by what I live and what I have. What do I have? Awesome children who love their faith and will argue it, pray daily, wear their brown scapulars, pray the daily rosary, obey their parents, and are overall , pretty dang good kids. I can't complain. Sorry if my conservative approach offends, but it shouldn't. We rock over here and if I can spread what we have over here I will. I will not spread what has been a flop or dud. I will only try to give what has blessed my family and that is my being home and giving to them all that I have stated above. Brian has been there 100% as always. He is the silent strong arm. Without him we would not have a thing. As for those who tried it and their children are in different areas not all Cathoic...sorry. It's not where we are.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 28, 2004.


'Sdqa, sometimes “discrimination” against one sex can be justified. What cannot be justified is the distortion of God’s plan that a husband and wife are equal partners in marriage.'

[no it can never be justified,man and women are equal parteners in marriage,why should the man be the head of the family? why not the women ? what should make the man stand above the women and be the first in rang in the family? because he's male? because he's stronger or taller? why should'tn they be equal?

what is wrong witht that?

this is insane

every true loving husband would never demand of his wife to obey him or to accept his autohority

there is no authority in true love]-sdqa

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 28, 2004.


i didn't know catholics were sexists

...a reason more to despise your religion

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 28, 2004.


sdqa..if you have so many reasons to "despise" the Catholic religion, why are you posting here? There are many non-Catholics who come here to ask questions in good faith because they are curious..you appear to simply want to be insulting. What are you getting out of that?

Daniel..thanks again for posting that link which still goes ignored by those who refuse to acknowledge what the Church actually teaches. Despite all of the back and forth,future readers will be able to see for themselves what the truth is.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 28, 2004.


i come here also to ask about faith and other things

but sexism is evil and i hate it

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.com), December 28, 2004.


mold hill

LOL mole hill.

but sexism is evil and i hate it

***It is not evil when there is mutual respect and love for one another.

every true loving husband would never demand of his wife to obey him or to accept his autohority

***When you love your man you do not see it in a negative way and when he is a true and loving husband he will not lord his authority over you.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 28, 2004.


Steve,

Firstly, my name is Daniel -do you understand this simple teaching?

Secondly, I will continue to oppose your persistent possibly ignorant misrepresentation of Church teaching regardless your inability to understand why.

Finally, and laughing at your meager persistence -your attacks on me do nothing to me and truly only harm you.



-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 28, 2004.


“My family life does not seem to have the same outcome as yours with all do respect. I have children ranging from 17-11 yo. Not one will tell me they don't believe and do as they please. I have children who obey me over here. AS to one of your post, I know you do not have the same and for that I am sorry.”

Once again I’m having trouble understanding exactly what you’re getting at Jalapeno. Are you saying that my (now adult) children do not practise their religion because my wife does not obey me?? (btw they were still practising it when they were the same age as your kids.)

You give an example of ONE case where it seemed in retrospect that Brian’s opinion was right and yours was wrong. That hardly proves that it's right to obey him. Surely you could think of other cases where he was wrong and you were right?

I have mentioned what my wife and I have done for the purpose of sharing insights into marriage, not to suggest everyone has to follow our example. You have chosen to do otherwise and are happy with the “results” - God bless and good luck to you.

Sdqa, for example if you were employing a teacher at a girls’ school it could be quite OK to discriminate in favor of a female candidate. What would not be OK would be for a woman to obey a man JUST because he is a man. When you get to know a large number of Catholics you will find that there are fewer sexists among Catholics than among non- Catholics.

Danny boy, LOL! You’re telling us the Church has a teaching about YOU personally!? Your puerile playground jeers at least provide amusement. Be careful when you chuck around insults like "ignorant", they have a way of rebounding on you. Have you actually READ the documents you linked to, which you claim others are "ignorant" of because they don't share YOUR individual interpretation? (I'm sure it's a sheer accident that your interpretation just happens to be highly convenient to to personally!)

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 28, 2004.


Are you saying that my (now adult) children do not practise their religion because my wife does not obey me?? (btw they were still practising it when they were the same age as your kids.)

***I think many factors will play into why one no longer believes. I thought you said in an earlier post that you had a 16 yo at home who doesn't believe (could be mistaken). I don't know what went on in your home and how good of a Catholic you were while raising your children either. Do know that in some rare cases many fall away even if they had a good family life. What I have been finding lately with many "traditionals" after asking about their lives what they would say kept them Catholic or what they did to remain close (most have been cradle Catholics and come from large families). Daily rosary and the women stayed home. Will let you know in five to ten years how my children are doing. ;o) I can tell you they are not your average joe trying to fit in. They will even pray before AND after eating a hotdog at a baseball game and this is not something my dh or I have told them to do. They have taken on our Catholic faith full speed ahead without batting and eye nor caring what others think of them.

You give an example of ONE case where it seemed in retrospect that Brian’s opinion was right and yours was wrong. That hardly proves that it's right to obey him. Surely you could think of other cases where he was wrong and you were right?

***I obey him because that is what our faith tells me to do, and quite honestly I don't see the big deal. Yes there have been times where he is wrong and I am right, but what does that have to do with whether or not I should obey him?

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 28, 2004.


Jalapeno, I said my youngest of 16 (now 17) didn’t practise the faith. But all my kids except one claim that they still “believe”. Yes I have told them this is illogical of them and if they REALLY believed they would practise it, and quoted Apoc 3:16.

Your kids are rare indeed if they don’t care what other kids think of them. I sincerely hope and pray that your kids keep practising the faith, but I have seen how many previously apparently devout kids can “lose” their faith almost overnight, while a few do not. This seems to happen regardless of how “liberal” the parents are, or whether or not the mom works outside home. I know many Catholic families where some of the grown children practise their faith and the rest do not, yet they all had the same parents and the same upbringing.

“I obey him because that is what our faith tells me to do”. Sorry but you’re begging the question. Even our friend Daniel, despite all his bluster, has been unable to produce any evidence that our faith tells us that wives must obey their husbands. In fact the documents he has referenced only reinforce the fact that our faith does NOT tell wives to obey their husbands.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 28, 2004.


I said my youngest of 16 (now 17) didn’t practise the faith.

***How does one who is still a minor manage this in your home?

I sincerely hope and pray that your kids keep practising the faith, but I have seen how many previously apparently devout kids can “lose” their faith almost overnight, while a few do not.

***I would have said the same, but lately in the circle of people we are with, this does not seem to be the case. One priest I know comes from a family of 12 children and not one of them left the faith. IN fact two are priest while one sister is a nun. They only went to the Traditional Latin Mass (not saying this is what did it), prayed the daily rosary and his mom stayed home and you can believe she was obedient to her husband. With our new circle of friends this does not seem to be a problem nor does it seem out of norm. Women obeying, staying home and raising large families, teaching the faith and the importance of all that goes with it (confession, obeying the 10 commandments etc) while putting material things last.

This seems to happen regardless of how “liberal” the parents are, or whether or not the mom works outside home. I know many Catholic families where some of the grown children practise their faith and the rest do not, yet they all had the same parents and the same upbringing.

***I do too, but for the most part when a parent is liberal many won't practice the faith nor will they have been taught properly. Too many Catholics believe in abortion, divorce, homosexuals being normal, not going to Mass on Sundays, etc. I am being blown away by many Catholics who have remained true to the faith and are VERY conservative. It is awesome to see and meet people who truly practice our Catholic faith the way it should be. Being number 1 in your life! We are here on earth not knowing if we will be alive tomorrow. We must live as if every day is our last worshipping God the way He should, and doing our best to be ready if our time comes. Your 17yo is still under your roof, make him/her ready and teach him/her the way God expects you too. God has trusted this child to you and it is your duty to do your best while he/she is at home to raise properly and to give him/her the tools he/she will need once he/she leaves your home. While at home our duty is to make sure if God calls them home early, they are ready.

On another note..as for the prayers I promised, I have not forgotten them. I will have them posted for the new year. There are so many and I am taking it easy while the kids are out of school even though I still have lots of stuff to put together to send to Seton.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 29, 2004.


Well, our faith includes the letters of St Paul...and our faith includes the Old Testament as well as the Gospels which don't set up an egalitarian type family structure or church whereby authority is decided democratically.

Thus, it would appear on the face of it that authority does reside in the final analysis with the head of the family - how that authority is used is also spelled out: as Christ to the Church: not arbitrary, not draconian dictator, not rude, not brutal, not crude. But sacrificial love in obedience himself to the will of the Father.

The Church positively teaches that children and wives DON'T have to obey their fathers or husbands when the command is illegal or immoral. But the implication is, someone has the final say in matters that involve the family and relationship, and that someone, for all our failings and problems, is the father.

If you don't think this is so, please show me where "Our faith" says so.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 29, 2004.


The Church positively teaches that children and wives DON'T have to obey their fathers or husbands when the command is illegal or immoral. But the implication is, someone has the final say in matters that involve the family and relationship, and that someone, for all our failings and problems, is the father.

***If you are speaking to me I'm not sure if I gave you the impression some where that I would believe one must obey no matter what? Of course one does not obey if it goes against what God teaches. He is the authority over all.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 29, 2004.


I was answering steve. Maybe Daniel hasn't proven from scripture or our faith (magisterium) that dads are in charge. But that doesn't mean that our faith and the bible doesn't teach that they are ultimately the authority of the family.

To claim "well, what if they make an unjust or illegal or immoral command" doesn't disprove that they have authority. Misuse of authority doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

On other threads I mention that bishops can be wrong - but that doesn't mean that they don't have authority. In virtually all non- moral issues the local bishop's whim is the rule. If he wants a parish to divide, it's divided. If he OKs a school, it's OK. If he wants Fr Bob to move to Parish X, Fr Bob must move...

But if he preaches as true what is patently ridiculous or gives cover to an immoral politician out of fear of not getting invited to the next golk outing, or (*heaven forbid) a scathing editorial in the local rag... then he's wrong, no matter what his authority is.

Ditto for dear old dad or dear husband. In most everyday life, he has the final say...but not when commanding his wife or children to do something illegal, immoral or irrational. And it would be immoral (and irrational) to command his wife to do something that reduces her to tears or trauma because his authority is patterned on Christ's love and selfless service for the Church, not on some eastern king or pharoah.

In the wise words of My big fat Greek wedding: "Men may be the head of the family, but their wives are the neck, and they can turn him anyway they want to" - the whole theater errupted in laughter at that line - the guys giggling nervously and their wives or girlfriends uproariously because both knew that it was true. So much for the idea that the typical American husband is some ogre just waiting for power and authority to abuse his wife and children.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 29, 2004.


"Men may be the head of the family, but their wives are the neck, and they can turn him anyway they want to" - the whole theater errupted in laughter at that line - the guys giggling nervously and their wives or girlfriends uproariously because both knew that it was true. So much for the idea that the typical American husband is some ogre just waiting for power and authority to abuse his wife and children.

***That was my favorite line of the whole movie. LOL It does ring true though. ;o) I will post a few threads I found on this issue by a priest, but have to wait for Brian to show me how.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 29, 2004.


Steve, The Church teaches exactly and succintly what the documents I provided you to obiently follow state. The Church does not teach what your false interpretation of 'equality was/is nor does the Church teach what words you repeatedly falsely ascribe to myself and others.

The documents linked on this thread are clear -your protestations and morally relative argument as does your complete lack of documentation regarding the errant interpretation you subordinately cling to do nothing to me and or Church teaching.

If a husband chooses to be 'equal' and not be the head of his family then really he subordinates himself to popular culture. Can one be subordinate to culture authentically -in essence serving two masters? I think not.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 29, 2004.


I agree wholeheartedly with Daniel & Jalepeno..Joe, I think the link that Daniel posted does show clearly that the Church teaches the husband has the final authority..with the stipulations that you have shown.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), December 29, 2004.

Yes Joe, that was my favorite line of the movie too. I guess it’s just another way of saying that the husband and wife have equal authority, even though a lot of insecure men have to pacify their macho feelings with the idea that they "wear the pants".

“someone has the final say in matters that involve the family and relationship, and that someone, for all our failings and problems, is the father.” If you think this is so, please show me where "Our faith" says so.

Danny boy, you seem to be the one “subordinate to culture”, with “morally relative argument” and “complete lack of documentation” regarding your “errant interpretation” as you put it. It’s not a matter of the husband CHOOSING to be equal (presumably reserving the right to change his choice and pull rank and declare that he is superior if his wife gets too uppity about something he disagrees with). It’s a matter of the husband respecting GOD’s plan for marriage as a union of two equals.

Jal, maybe you ARE onto something, I don’t know. May I ask how you would deal with a teenager who decided he/she wasn’t going to practise the faith anymore? You can’t exactly MAKE them like you would a 10-year old.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 29, 2004.


I guess it’s just another way of saying that the husband and wife have equal authority, even though a lot of insecure men have to pacify their macho feelings with the idea that they "wear the pants".

***LOL Is your theory that anyone who wears the pants in the family is an insecure man who is macho? LOL I've known many macho men in my life and they have always been the biggest turn off. A strong man who knows his role in his home is very different from a sissy man.

May I ask how you would deal with a teenager who decided he/she wasn’t going to practise the faith anymore? You can’t exactly MAKE them like you would a 10-year old.

***It would be a sad day and I would be asking many questions as to why AND then I would just make them go the same way I could/would a 10yo. I can still make my 17yo obey me and do what I want and he towers over me by alot to the point he likes to call me shrimp. I have a very close relationship with all five of my children. They have been my priority since they've been born and they know they can come to me for anything. Not sure if I can really answer your question because my relationship with my children would never reach the point where they would go against what I have taught them while living in the same home. I have my children's respect so they will not go against my authority.

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 29, 2004.


Jal, “wear the pants” is a figure of speech. I’m not suggesting they should wear a skirt! :-)

“I would be asking many questions as to why AND I would just make them go the same way I could/would a 10yo. I can still make my 17yo obey me and do what I want and he towers over me by a lot to the point he likes to call me shrimp.” Interesting. What if he refused to answer or listen to your questions and barricaded himself in his room or left the house every time you brought up the subject? I think maybe in the case of boys it makes it difficult when it is the father confronting them about it, because it becomes a matter of the young bull trying to prove himself against the old bull, so often having the mother do it works better.

Btw 2 of my children to my surprise came to Mass with us at Christmas. And my son had a long (intellectual) discussion with me about parts of the Bible. A one-off, but it was something. I’d appreciate your prayers that this spark grows into something bigger.

“my relationship with my children would never reach the point where they would go against what I have taught them while living in the same home.” Hmm but what about when they move out? Is it just a matter of “not my responsibility any more”?A lot of people have told me that they were brought up Catholic but their parents strictly forced them to practise the faith, and now they are adult they not only do not practise it but are very anti-Catholic.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 29, 2004.


Jal, “wear the pants” is a figure of speech. I’m not suggesting they should wear a skirt! :-)

***LOL I know, but I also have four brothers and two I would call the "macho" type and they do take wearing the pants in the family to the extreme.

What if he refused to answer or listen to your questions and barricaded himself in his room or left the house every time you brought up the subject? I think maybe in the case of boys it makes it difficult when it is the father confronting them about it, because it becomes a matter of the young bull trying to prove himself against the old bull, so often having the mother do it works better.

***Understand what you are saying when it comes to how they react to one parent over the other. I've always sat down with my kids and fished out anything that was bothering them. There is a time and space we must give all our children, but getting it all out in the open and not letting it linger is the best way to take care of the problem. My oldest and have gone on five mile walks just talking things out. I recommend this to all parents. Grab your kid and go for a walk, jog or just plain workout. You'll see how much they will open up.

Btw 2 of my children to my surprise came to Mass with us at Christmas. And my son had a long (intellectual) discussion with me about parts of the Bible. A one-off, but it was something. I’d appreciate your prayers that this spark grows into something bigger.

***Wonderful!! Will pray for all of you. We have an elderly friend whose husband just returned after 50 years of being away. They came over for Christmas (in their 80's) and she gave me the great news. We hugged and cried! He (her husband) has taken going back to Church as if he never left. He went to confession and seems to be newly awakened. This is proof that one must never give up with their prayers.

Hmm but what about when they move out? Is it just a matter of “not my responsibility any more”?A lot of people have told me that they were brought up Catholic but their parents strictly forced them to practise the faith, and now they are adult they not only do not practise it but are very anti-Catholic.

***Well if I didn't see them doing things on their own maybe this could be true. I was pretty religious as a child and my kids pass me up as to what I did. I can't tell you how many times I've walked into their rooms and caught them on their knees praying and some, even praying the rosary. All we can do is our best in raising them and I don't believe our conservative strict way is a negative thing. Instead, after speaking with many families who come from very strong Catholic backgrounds, it seems that they had parents who lived their faith daily and it was witnessed. We have a very open and honest relationship with our children over here. I pray daily that they never stray from our faith and doing my best to give them all they need before they leave our home (which quite personally they can live here forever if they want).

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 29, 2004.


Oh and Jalapeno, though I am labelled a “liberal” that does not mean I “believe in abortion, divorce, homosexuals being normal, not going to Mass on Sundays”. (Unfortunately I have to add that I do NOT, as some here seem determined to doubt it.) In fact that description would apply to many “conservatives” I know.

I hope you're not offended but from what I've learnt about you, your personality seems very similar to my wife in many ways. God bless your family and I hope they all keep practising their faith and Christian morality. I tell you it has been the hardest thing I have ever had to deal with, that my daughter is cohabiting. (and no it's not because I've led a sheltered life before that). What makes it worse is all the people who say, "Hey, it's not like she's not on drugs or anything, she's finished her education, they've both got decent jobs, he's a decent enough guy, what are you worried about? Everybody does it these days." AAARGH!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 30, 2004.


though I am labelled a “liberal” that does not mean I “believe in abortion, divorce, homosexuals being normal, not going to Mass on Sundays”. (Unfortunately I have to add that I do NOT, as some here seem determined to doubt it.) In fact that description would apply to many “conservatives” I know.

***Fair enough. I do know many as you do who also believe in the same which is sad.

I hope you're not offended but from what I've learnt about you, your personality seems very similar to my wife in many ways. God bless your family and I hope they all keep practising their faith and Christian morality. I tell you it has been the hardest thing I have ever had to deal with, that my daughter is cohabiting. (and no it's not because I've led a sheltered life before that). What makes it worse is all the people who say, "Hey, it's not like she's not on drugs or anything, she's finished her education, they've both got decent jobs, he's a decent enough guy, what are you worried about? Everybody does it these days." AAARGH!

***No not offended in the least. I hear you about your daughter. Just don't give up yet. Trust me when I tell you there have been many times in confession that I tell my priest I want to let up on my older boys, he tells me to not EVER let up. Hold true to our beliefs and this alone will help her. My priest is younger than I, and he shared that at one point he to would have left our faith. He was lucky enough to find a conservative Catholic College to lead him back. I will pray for your daughter. Just don't give up. Have I shared that what made me home school my children was reading a book about home schooling and my oldest son? At that time my oldest would have been going to high school and he was straddling the line. His direction scared me and when I told my dh I was home schooling I remember him telling me it would all be on me. Of course at that time I agreed, but then the neck takes over. ;o) Now we are all on the same page and even more so. :O)

God Bless.

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), December 30, 2004.


Thank you Jalapeno. God bless you. I guess what my wife and I have to do is try not to dwell on how much we are hurting but offer our pain to God. We don't "let up" on our daughter in our prayers, but we have to "let up" most of the time as far as confronting her directly, because she just makes a scene and paints us as the bad guys. Even when we say "we will always love you no matter what you do" she says she resents the implication that she has done anything wrong.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 30, 2004.

Steve,

It appears you 'get it' now.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 31, 2004.


Huh?? What do I "get", Danny boy?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), January 01, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ