Advice Please - Wife Going Overboard

[fpt]

The fact of becoming** a scrupulous wife, and also a scrupulous mother** is wrong, that is sad, * it is very dangerous for the couple and for the family.* It is not in link with the natural state of marriage. She has to change her new mentality, she is on the wrong way, she has to respect the natural state of marriage.

**She is not a nun, you are not a monk, **she is not the boss, according to the traditional catholicism you could be the boss, the leader, the chief, the chief of the family: traditional role of husband, she has to obey you. The fact of being of a submissive wife is her duty, because she is in the ways of abuses and of excess, in my humble opinion.

She needs to avoid the false devotions, you are the first of her devotions. She must seduce you, respect you, flirt with you, love you, honor you, stay in her function and role, she has to assume her state of life,** her conjugal life**; it is her first moral obligation and her first moral duty.

 

[dixieagle]

liliesapparel.com/photoindex.html

In case anyone is curious…

One or two of the dresses might be OK on little ones, but my husband would think I’d lost my mind. Dress can be modest without being frumpy… these are frumpy and resemble Victorian wallpaper, IMHO.

 

[aspirant]

And then there’s the brown scapular issue. There are certain commitments which are made for the wearing of the scapular - such as praying the Rosary daily. Does the wife not know about this? It would seem not.

Yes. You don’t just put one on, there’s an actual enrollment into the Brown Scapular Confraternity with investiture performed with a priest. Promises and commitments are made.

For the record - my wife has purchased things from a place called “Lillies of the field.” It’s not exactly Laura Ingals, but it’s enough to get noticed as weird in town. I keep thinking to myself, “If anything can be considered Catholic birth control, a long, baggy denim dress with loafers is it.”

Ack:
Lilies of the Field:

Ladies’ Prairie Jumper
Here’s a light and carefree jumper that closely resembles the Girls Jumper #10 and would be very nice for mother / daughter outfits.

Apologies to folks who like this, but I am gagging.

But, hey, it’s a great look for anyone who’d like to be mistaken for a Mormon fundamentalist polygamist!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[10thCrusader]

I would hope that those who are lurking and not comenting will not get the impression that the attitude of the wife in question is representative of traditionalists in general. I mean, some of her ideas of tradition go far beyond that of the average trad. Even the SSPX. Take, for instance, the wearing of a head covering even outside of Mass. In the seven years I attended the EF, I’d never heard of that. Not in the three years that I attended an SSPX chapel, and not at the FSSP parish did I know of anyone wearing a head covering outside of Mass. That’s just wierd. And the wearing of prarie dresses is also not a common thing, but only practiced by a minority of trads.

Also the limit on the drinking of alcohol (unless the wife is worried about the sinfulness of being slightly drunk, which is actually a venial sin). At the SSPX chapel I attended, families would sometimes bring in bottles of wine to be shared when socializing after Mass, but usually it had to do with a special occasion, which were fairly common.

And then there’s the brown scapular issue. There are certain commitments which are made for the wearing of the scapular - such as praying the Rosary daily. Does the wife not know about this? It would seem not. She seems to have been taken in by some strange anomaly of a trad commuinity. Definately not typical, from my limited experience. Even the SSPX doesn’t go to these strange lengths, which are a bit extreme, even for a trad.

Oh, and the anti-EF folks have much food for fodder in this thread, as it might seem to confirm all of their worst fears and prejudices concerning the EF and tradition. Which is unfortunate. Still, there are trads who develop a sort of cult mentality, which does have to be guarded against. The trad women friends of hers are obviously a bit fanatic. It can be a problem. I’m glad the husband wrote the letter. It’s a good one, and makes sense. I think that the wife just wants to become a saint, and her motivations are good. But moderation can be a mode to becoming a saint, too.

I was a little concerned about the impression that people reading this thread would get traditionalists about those who attend the EF Mass. Very few of the people I know at the EF Mass even approach this level of extremism. I see a few scattered prairie dress types, but nothing like this.

It’s all too easy for people to make the leap and derive all sorts of prejudices about those who prefer the EF. Even the OP is only willing to go to the EF Mass once a month with his wife. What must he think about those who attend there? They can’t all be like his wife and her goofy friends.

People could easily use this thread to portray the EF Mass as wrong or distorted. Most people who attend the EF Mass have a hard enough time being accepted in their diocese/community without this grotesque situation to make it worse.

 

[Evania]

Yes. You don’t just put one on, there’s an actual enrollment into the Brown Scapular Confraternity with investiture performed with a priest. Promises and commitments are made.

Ack:

Apologies to folks who like this, but I am gagging.

But, hey, it’s a great look for anyone who’d like to be mistaken for a Mormon fundamentalist polygamist!

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/10/timestopics/polygamy2_395.jpg

I’m not sure how this post is in any way charitable or helpful in helping the OP understand his wife.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

There was another similar thread about the wife going to Mormonism, and hurting the family.
You have my prayers and one thought:

Both of these women are stay at home moms. I was too and loved every minute of it. But I had lots of hobbies and had activities outside the home. In other words, I had my own identity outside of the home. But I do know of others that felt like they had disappeared.

In both cases I do wonder if the Mom is feeling a bit lost in her life and is unconsciously using a new religion to differentiate herself from the family unit. Dad has his work and for much of the day he is a valued employee and has a separate identity from the family that his co workers only know subtly. He has family and himself.
She may not have this. Maybe she is feeling that life is passing her by and the person she used to be is disappearing.

So maybe, an attempt to get them into activities outside of the house and hers only would help. I am artistic so I naturally gravitate to ideas like writing, photography or painting that she can do on her own and that no body else in the family does.
A"room of her own" as it were.

I am posting this in the other thread as well, as the two situations might be related.

 

[Evania]

The fact of becoming** a scrupulous wife, and also a scrupulous mother** is wrong, that is sad, * it is very dangerous for the couple and for the family.* It is not in link with the natural state of marriage. She has to change her new mentality, she is on the wrong way, she has to respect the natural state of marriage.

**She is not a nun, you are not a monk, **she is not the boss, according to the traditional catholicism you could be the boss, the leader, the chief, the chief of the family: traditional role of husband, she has to obey you. The fact of being of a submissive wife is her duty, because she is in the ways of abuses and of excess, in my humble opinion.

She needs to avoid the false devotions, you are the first of her devotions. She must seduce you, respect you, flirt with you, love you, honor you, stay in her function and role, she has to assume her state of life,** her conjugal life**; it is her first moral obligation and her first moral duty.

I had a priest explain this position a little differently. Yes, it is true that a husband is to be considered the head of the family. Some people mistakingly believe that a wife has to submit no matter what, no matter what the issue, simply because St. Paul says so in the Bible. What does “submission” mean? The root of the word submission is “under” mission. Wives are to be under a husband’s mission. What is the mission that St. Paul is referencing? A husband should lead his family spotless to Christ. A wife should undertake and fully support this mission and not thwart it. That doesn’t mean she can’t seek The Lord and seek personal growth for her and her family. It just means her mission should be to lead her family spotless to Jesus, along with her husband.

What constitutes a “false” devotion? Wouldn’t it only be false if the person practicing a devotion held no sincerity in their heart? A lot of Protestants claim that praying the Hail Mary is a false devotion. A great many believe that believing in the True Presence of The Eucharist is a false devotion. Only God can see the heart and see if a person’s devotion to Him is false. Also, why are you assuming that the wife isn’t "seducing, flirting, honoring her husband? Is it because you feel that she is being disobedient to her husband?
God should come first in a marriage, not the spouse nor the children. When God is placed first in the home, every role naturally falls into place. “Seek Ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you.”

Finally, how did St. Paul end his passage on submission?
He said, “Husband’s love your wives as Christ loves His Church and gave Himself up for her.” Jesus sacrificed Himself for His Church to the point of dying a bloody death on the Cross. Women are called to submit to their husbands mission to lead their families to Heaven, and men are called to sacrificial love.

Marriage was never intended to be about controlling another person. It shouldn’t be about one being the “boss”. It shouldn’t be about exerting power or lordship over another. It shouldn’t be about “obeying” and “disobeying” a spouse.

To be clear, I do NOT think that is what the husband is doing. I believe that the OP and his wife’s hearts are both well intentioned. It’s sad to see some of these comments against this man’s wife as she is probably unaware of so many judging her intentions, and in some posts, blatantly mocking her choices in dress and questioning her mental capacity. I just wanted to respond to this particular post as it seems that a few good intentioned people have this view as well.

 

[fpt]

Are there any deep changes concerning her manner of seeing and of understanding the morality of the marital act: the N.F.P., the ends of marriage, the foreplay, the sexual preliminaries, the sexual positions, the conjugal sex during her periods, the Holy Erotism of marital act, the three moments (steps) of the conjugal act, the time for making love: Where, When, Why, What for, How, How many times, How often, How long, active wife or passive wife, or passive wife and active wife, prudish or not prudish, uptight or natural and normal, sensual and sexy or not…etc. If yes, she needs to work on that, and also he needs to work on that:** the rights, the obligations and the duties. **

May be that behind her new view, there is a deep conjugal issue concerning different topics of the conjugal life:* the conjugal money, the family in law, the lack of conjugal love, the lack of conjugal tenderness, a lack of conjugal commmunication, a bad conjugal behavior, the conjugal leisures, the past guilt concerning the conjugal life, a bad conjugal behavior, the conjugal sports…etc.*
OR
a mental disease, a religious disease, a spiritual disease, a depression, a stress, a physical issue, a physiological issue, a cultural issue…etc.

The fact of going to the mass of the SSPX is not good. Only the extraordinary form of mass in link with the local catholic bishop is morally permissible. **The sectarism is very dangerous, it is not good. **

Talk with a catholic priest;
Talk with a catholic physician;
Talk with a catholic ethicist;
Talk with a catholic psychologist;
Talk with a catholic conjugal counselor;

 

[lynnvinc]

At the risk of derailing, I have to respond to your assertions about Latin.

1. The Latin the Church uses is not the same version you learned (though it can help make learning it easier) in High School. Thus, it has never been associated with the wrongdoings of Pagan Rome. It is unique to the Catholic Church. Hence the full name Eccesiastical Latin.
2. Have the Protestants really warmed up to us since the move to the vernacular? My experience as a convert to the Faith says no. So why try to please people who say you’re going to Hell anyway? Should we stop any and all devotion to the Saints and to Our Lady as well? that’s a biggie for them too, after all.
3. One need not know Latin to understand the Latin Mass. If one learns the the meaning behind the symbolism, there is much to ponder. Padre Pio once said that you don’t need a missal to pray the Mass. Guess which Mass he was talking about? Hint: Not the Mass of Paul VI. It wasn’t promulgated until after he died.

Sorry if I seem to be jumping down your throat, but I had to make the clarifications for lurkers out there.

God bless.

That’s all fine. I still don’t like Latin for more than, say, 5% of a Mass. (And I did know it was Vulgar, not Classical Latin – one teacher taught us one, and the next year we got the other.)

But each to his own.

RE Protestants, I didn’t get cable until 2007, so I used to watch Trinity Broadcasting (an Evangelical network), and gained much from its commonalities with Catholicism. I’d say about 90% of Protestantism (at least in the mainstream denominations) is compatible with Catholicism. However, I’d worn born-Catholics not to follow such channels and programs, since they may not be as aware of the differences.

Anyway, back in the 80s every now and then the folks on TB said something negative about Catholicism. But by around the mid or late 90s something changed, and they started having positive things to say about Catholicism, and even had a Catholic priest come on now and then. So, yes, I do think there has been somewhat of a rapprochement, tho differences and prejudices remain.

We won’t give up our Marian devotions (another sticking point betw Catholics and Protestants), but as far as language is concerned, my thinking is the meaning is what’s important, and Latin is just a detail, not at the heart of Catholicism or Christianity.

Others may differ in their opinion.

Similarly, if the OP’s wife wants the whole thing in Latin, that doesn’t seem to be a huge problem, as long as they have some translation to understand the meaning, and strive to follow the Gospels. (I’d just rather support a welcoming rather than unwelcoming parish, and in my books Catholic parishes tend to be somewhat unwelcoming, esp to non-Catholics, and the sad thing is Catholics are unaware of this, how they come across to non-Catholics.)

But the main thing is obedience. Jesus taught us to be obedient, and he himself was obedient to his Father and to the various cripples and others who petitioned him for help.

We need to be sensitive to others’ wishes, esp family members, and try to fulfill them unless it is sinful or harmful to do so.

It seems the OP is going along quite a ways with his wife, but when it comes to their children’s education, it seems he should have a say in the matter. One of the problems in our society today is the back-seat role men have been relegated to in marriages and families.

 

[fpt]

I had a priest explain this position a little differently. Yes, it is true that a husband is to be considered the head of the family. Some people mistakingly believe that a wife has to submit no matter what, no matter what the issue, simply because St. Paul says so in the Bible. What does “submission” mean? The root of the word submission is “under” mission. Wives are to be under a husband’s mission. What is the mission that St. Paul is referencing? A husband should lead his family spotless to Christ. A wife should undertake and fully support this mission and not thwart it. That doesn’t mean she can’t seek The Lord and seek personal growth for her and her family. It just means her mission should be to lead her family spotless to Jesus, along with her husband.

What constitutes a “false” devotion? Wouldn’t it only be false if the person practicing a devotion held no sincerity in their heart? A lot of Protestants claim that praying the Hail Mary is a false devotion. A great many believe that believing in the True Presence of The Eucharist is a false devotion. Only God can see the heart and see if a person’s devotion to Him is false. Also, why are you assuming that the wife isn’t "seducing, flirting, honoring her husband? Is it because you feel that she is being disobedient to her husband?
God should come first in a marriage, not the spouse nor the children. When God is placed first in the home, every role naturally falls into place. “Seek Ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you.”

Finally, how did St. Paul end his passage on submission?
He said, “Husband’s love your wives as Christ loves His Church and gave Himself up for her.” Jesus sacrificed Himself for His Church to the point of dying a bloody death on the Cross. Women are called to submit to their husbands mission to lead their families to Heaven, and men are called to sacrificial love.

Marriage was never intended to be about controlling another person. It shouldn’t be about one being the “boss”. It shouldn’t be about exerting power or lordship over another. It shouldn’t be about “obeying” and “disobeying” a spouse.

To be clear, I do NOT think that is what the husband is doing. I believe that the OP and his wife’s hearts are both well intentioned. It’s sad to see some of these comments against this man’s wife as she is probably unaware of so many judging her intentions, and in some posts, blatantly mocking her choices in dress and questioning her mental capacity. I just wanted to respond to this particular post as it seems that a few good intentioned people have this view as well.

By false devotions for the wife, I mean:

The refusal of having the conjugal act on Sunday before the mass or after the mass;
The refusal of having the conjugal act before or just after the rosary;
The refusal of having the conjugal act before or after the Holy Confession;
The refusal of having the conjugal act during the Holy Days;
The refusal of having the conjugal act during the pregnancy;
The refusal of having the conjugal act during breastfeeding;
The fact of imposing the daily mass to the family;
The fact of imposing the daily rosary to the family;
The fact of refusing the sport in family on Sunday;
The fact of refusing the secular leisures in family on Sunday;
The fact of refusing to go to the beach in family during Summer Holidays;
The fact of dressing like a conjugal nun, a puritan wife, a mormon wife, an amish wife…etc;
The fact of imposing only the extraordinary form of mass;
The fact of refusing the marital act now, for going to the mass of week: the systematically waiting of the husband for the marital act for a religious reason.

…ETC.

**
The state of marriage is not the state of nun. ** She is catholic, she is not a member of other christian confessions.

 

[Evania]

By false devotions for the wife, I mean:

The refusal of having the conjugal act on Sunday before the mass or after the mass;
The refusal of having the conjugal act before or just after the rosary;
The refusal of having the conjugal act before or after the Holy Confession;
The refusal of having the conjugal act during the Holy Days;
The refusal of having the conjugal act during the pregnancy;
The refusal of having the conjugal act during breastfeeding;
The fact of imposing the daily mass to the family;
The fact of imposing the daily rosary to the family;
The fact of refusing the sport in family on Sunday;
The fact of refusing the secular leisures in family on Sunday;
The fact of refusing to go to the beach in family during Summer Holidays;
The fact of dressing like a conjugal nun, a puritan wife, a mormon wife, an amish wife…etc;
The fact of imposing only the extraordinary form of mass;
The fact of refusing the marital act now, for going to the mass of week: the systematically waiting of the husband for the marital act for a religious reason.

…ETC.

**
The state of marriage is not the state of nun. ** She is catholic, she is not a member of other christian confessions.

The OP never mentioned having a problem with his wife in these areas.

 

[10thCrusader]

Yes. You don’t just put one on, there’s an actual enrollment into the Brown Scapular Confraternity with investiture performed with a priest. Promises and commitments are made.

Ack:

Apologies to folks who like this, but I am gagging.

But, hey, it’s a great look for anyone who’d like to be mistaken for a Mormon fundamentalist polygamist!

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/10/timestopics/polygamy2_395.jpg

This is exactly what I’m talking about. The exaggerations and distortions of this type get overlaid onto anyone who attends the EF Mass, creating all kinds of false suppositions and prejudices against those who attend the EF Mass. It’s a very uncharitable thing to do to your Catholic brothers and sisters.

Besides, I go more for a 1940’s look than a Laura Ingalls look.
http://media-cache-ec4.pinterest.com/192x/4b/91/69/4b9169353def37f370105874374e1a12.jpg

 

[AnnArbor]

**She is not a nun, you are not a monk, **she is not the boss, according to the traditional catholicism you could be the boss, the leader, the chief, the chief of the family: traditional role of husband, she has to obey you. The fact of being of a submissive wife is her duty, because she is in the ways of abuses and of excess, in my humble opinion.

Although I think the husband is right in this instance, and has some cause for worry about his wife’s drastic change in behavior, this reasoning would just play into that. Also, it would be a very negative message for their daughters --leading them to believe that husbands are somehow “in charge” of the family, including his wife.

 

[agnes_therese]

Tonight we are going to sit down after the kids go to bed and talk. She dis not blow up about the letter which is good news!

That is indeed good news!

 

[mcc804]

The point here about the clothing is not that it’s unfashionable or dowdy to the posters, but that it isn’t the preferred clothing this man wants to see his wife wear. There are some men who are in complete support of their wives dressing in the look you see in the photo of the Mormon polygamists.

I agree that is uncharitable to attack women who wear these types of clothes. If they and their husbands are fine with this than that’s all that matters. They are not wrong or bad in and of themselves.

Think about how many women dress terribly for other reasons? There are an infinite number of truly unattractive modern hairstyles and clothing styles that we see in church, at the store, at work. Some ladies choose colors and patterns that are objectively unflattering, inappropriate. Others favor hairstyles that are not in their best interest, cut and /or color. That’s far more common than an old fashioned look, long dresses and long, plain hair.

 

[floresco]

You agree that they should pull their kids out of a good Catholic school where they are happy and thriving, and that the wife should dress in matronly prairie clothes and make her daughters do the same? You think the girls should be pulled from competitive sports? You think that full-time hair covering is a positive change? You think it’s okay that the mom ridicules the OF Mass and wants to force her family to attend the EF exclusively? That the entire family should be required to wear scapulars, which are a private devotion? That ESPN should be banned from the husband’s life?

Really?

Yes, really.

I think that homeschooling is, in general, better than school. I always wear long skirts and I like the prairie look. I do not think that competitive sports are good for girls. I see nothing very wrong with full-time hair covering, although personally I only cover before the Blessed Sacrament. I would love for my family to attend the EF exclusively and that is my preferred form. My family does not have cable and I think that TV is a terrible influence on people.

Those are my personal opinions and I have no interest in arguing about them in this thread. My point was that, even though I agree with the things she wants in themselves, I think it is wrong to impose them on her family.

 

[floresco]

The Church does not say that the EF is better than the OF, that veiling,dressing Amish makes a woman more devout. Neither does the Church say that homeschooling is to be preferred, nor that a woman cannot have a career.

Nevertheless we are allowed to have opinions and preferences about these things and mine are similar to the wife’s.

 

[floresco]

For the record - it has never been a custom of the Church to cover up one’s hair full time, right? Isn’t that Jewish or Amish?

This has been the custom for Catholics at various periods of history but not recently. About a hundred years ago, in Western culture, women usually wore hats in public.

If she does it now, people will assume that she is not Catholic and it actually hides her faith. Perhaps you could point this out to her.

 

[floresco]

That’s all fine. I still don’t like Latin for more than, say, 5% of a Mass. (And I did know it was Vulgar, not Classical Latin – one teacher taught us one, and the next year we got the other.)

Vulgar Latin was spoken thousands of years ago and is the ancestor of modern Romance languages. It is unlikely you were taught it in school. You probably learned Ecclesiastical Latin.

 

[severus68]

Nevertheless we are allowed to have opinions and preferences about these things and mine are similar to the wife’s.

Yes, we are and thank you for making it clear on CAF that it is only your opinion and preference . It is not about being more devout or reverent. The OP’s wife seems to have adopted the opinions of others.