Are women still considered in a "state of subjection?"

[Armyvet007]

Calling it propaganda implies that its not true.
But those are in fact traditional forms of *Biblical *marriage.

Mcdonalds is an evil cult [fast food is bad] obsessed with ritual food preperation and ritual cleaning.

Support for my argument- cherry picked citations covering food prep and employee washing hands/wearing gloves from the Mcdonalds employee handbook.

Take this info, turn it into a pretty graphic, ensure pretty graphic is designed in such a way as to retard intellectual thought/discussion and promote an emotional reaction, have it go viral on the internet.

By your criteria above, McDonalds being an evil cult obsessed with ritual food prep and ritual cleaning must be at least somewhat true. The fact that I twisted/improperly used factual out of context citations from the Mcdonalds handbook IOT prove my preconceived conclusions apparently has no bearing on the issue.

 

[Armyvet007]

ArmyVet007,

I should clarify something here. I am in agreement that the the spouses tend to naturally take on different roles(eg. the husband takes care of the lawn, the wife takes care of the finances). Its more of a dividing up of the tasks. I don’t however believe that the husband is always responsible for things outside of the home and the wife is always responsible for things within the home (correct me if that’s not what you’re saying). This might naturally happen in a lot of marriages but I don’t see why this would serve any purpose to have this as a hard rule. When generalizing the sexes we can see that men tend to gravitate towards certain tasks and women tend to gravitate towards certain tasks. This doesn’t mean that there needs to be a rule about it though. I still like your chain of command example.

I’ll try to clarify.
-Husband is always responsible for the “big picture” outside
-Wife is always responsible for the “big picture” inside
-The “little picture” outside/inside stuff depends on a lot of variables [skillsets of each, family situtation, level of overlap, etc].
-If an “outside” little picture could be better handled by the wife, then the husband would cede the “final say”/“in charge” and responsibility to the wife [it would be rather stupid and dishonest to make the wife responsible for something without her having the “final say”/“in charge”]
-From my understanding of what the Church teaches and the social history of Man [humans for those who for some reason think “Man” is sexist] the “hard rule”/can’t change if one wants a healthy family is the “big picture” part.
-Term “hard rule”- yeah, I don’t really like that term. I don’t really see it as a “rule” [you have to follow the rules] but as a “necessary condition” [these are the conditions necessary for a successful and healthy family]
-And like all my previous posts, this one is based on the assumption of a husband and wife that respect and love each other and hold God as “the Boss.”

I think part of the problem is that I’m trying to squeeze a complex mental image [hey the flowchart/diagram makes perfect sense in my head] into a compressed internet forum post. The other part being that I am also trying to translate my thoughts from military to civilian [yes, being in the military for an extended amount of time changes how one thinks (and no, not always in a bad way)]. Example- in my mind “big picture” is strategic level and “little picture” is tactical level [google military definitions for those and you would get a more accurate understanding of what I mean].

If I haven’t confused you, let me know and I’ll try again.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Saying your wife is subject to you is the greatest disrespect. Why does a man, secure in himself, need his wife to submit to him?

Choosing parts of Scripture to suit your views does not make your views doctrine.

You are quite right. While all men and women can reap great rewards by reading the Scriptures, we are not the authoritative interpreter of them. The Holy Catholic Church is.

The Church has clearly and consistenly (thanks to the protection of the Holy Spirit) taught that there is a natural order to the family, and that the husband is its head.

Just as one can not pluck verses out of the Bible and declare them doctrine on their own authority, one can not cite modern philosophies, such as feminism, and declare them doctrine.

Severus, I and many others on here have shown you citation after citation of Church teaching stating that a husband is the head of the family.

You can not show one citation of Church teaching stating that the husband is not the head of the family. You have tried in the past by referencing “mutual submission” but mutual submission and male headship are perfectly compatible.

Pax

 

[Ubenedictus]

It is a list of marriage arrangements which are considered ok in the Bible but would not be by today’s standards. Such as - if a man rapes a virgin he has to marry her, a man has to marry his brother’s widow, Moses ordering that everyone is killed apart from women who are spoils of war, as well as polygamy. There’s a few slavery-related ones too.

wow bad new, i think that style is called ad hominem. I thought every one in this forum aware of the difference between judaism and xtainity. Posting the old testament in matters were it has been superceeded doesnt even help this discussion.
Ubenedictus

 

[LightBound]

Ahhhhh! Finally, now all of the “usual suspects” that have a fetish having females in their life submit to them have shown up and posted on the thread!

And what a treat…we have a female who likes seeing her husband playing her “daddy” in that role, too!

I’m beginning to see the darker side of Catholicism with this obsession about womanly submission! Maybe you guys that get into that sort of thing should be posting on this thread, too: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=677351

 

[LightBound]

My oldest son recently informed me he strongly believed The Church still actively promoted the idea that women are the “weaker sex” and he pointed to a couple of writings by Thomas Aquinas as proof.

The first quote is “women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.”

The second quote reads “women are in a state of subjection.”

Does the Church still hold these Aquinas writings as complelely valid?

I listed this in the Social Justice catagory because my son believes this to be an outrage to all catholic women. He further believes not allowing women as priests is a discriminatory practice. I can easily defend the aspect of women not being able to receive the sacrament of holy orders due to their sex, but could use some help on the Church’s perspective concerning the nearly 800 year old writings of Aquinas.

Much Thanks

To answer the OP…No, the Church doesn’t still teach that women are in subjection to their husbands…although several of the regulars that live for these kinds of threads on CAF have posted their usual “wifely submission” fetishes, and one woman did share her desire that her husband be her “daddy”. Other than that, it’s business as usual around here.

Aquinas had numerous issues (hating women was one of them) and poor St Paul got to the pearly gates and was informed that his writings will be misinterpreted and used for centuries to oppress women. Jesus was not pleased with either of these men who managed to confuse centuries of people instead of continuing to teach what He taught while here on Earth!!

How is that for stirring the pot today?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The OP would have to define “subjection” better.

1. If he means “a duty to obedience” then yes, wives are just as subject to their husbands in 2012 as they were in 200 or the days of St. Thomas Aquinas. I’d recommend reading Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubbii for a very insightful commentary on what this means.
2. If he means “oppression” then the main thing oppressing modern women in the western world in 2012, is marxist feminism and the culture of death. The two greatests missions a woman can have in this life are to be a virgin and to be a mother. Our Lady Mary is, by the grace of God, the only woman to have been both. Through the evil of contraception which is at the heart of “women’s liberation” mankind seeks to intentionally make women neither virgins nor mothers.

Pax Christi

Actually thanks to modern medicine, women can be both virgins and mothers.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Calling it propaganda implies that its not true.
But those are in fact traditional forms of Biblical marriage.

Mcdonalds is an evil cult [fast food is bad] obsessed with ritual food preperation and ritual cleaning.

Support for my argument- cherry picked citations covering food prep and employee washing hands/wearing gloves from the Mcdonalds employee handbook.

Take this info, turn it into a pretty graphic, ensure pretty graphic is designed in such a way as to retard intellectual thought/discussion and promote an emotional reaction, have it go viral on the internet.

By your criteria above, McDonalds being an evil cult obsessed with ritual food prep and ritual cleaning must be at least somewhat true. The fact that I twisted/improperly used factual out of context citations from the Mcdonalds handbook IOT prove my preconceived conclusions apparently has no bearing on the issue.

That’s* your *criteria.
You are making very big assumptions about the thought processes of the people who disagree with you.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You are quite right. While all men and women can reap great rewards by reading the Scriptures, we are not the authoritative interpreter of them. The Holy Catholic Church is.

The Church has clearly and consistenly (thanks to the protection of the Holy Spirit) taught that there is a natural order to the family, and that the husband is its head.

Just as one can not pluck verses out of the Bible and declare them doctrine on their own authority, one can not cite modern philosophies, such as feminism, and declare them doctrine.

Severus, I and many others on here have shown you citation after citation of Church teaching stating that a husband is the head of the family.

You can not show one citation of Church teaching stating that the husband is not the head of the family. You have tried in the past by referencing “mutual submission” but mutual submission and male headship are perfectly compatible.

Pax

In what way, shape, matter, or form is that true?

 

[Dan_Daly]

The word submission can be used in different senses.

Submission can be sacrifice, self-denial. A husband and wife in a marriage both practice sacrifice and self-denial for the good of each other (and their children if they are so blessed).

Submission can be obedience to a higher authority. The teaching of the Church is that the husband is the head of the family (the wife is the heart).

The two go together beautifully.

Modern life often tries to tells us that things are either/or choices:

Liberal or Conservative

Equality or Diversity

Freedom or Law

The correct CATHOLIC answer in each case is BOTH. Catholicism, is about integration and harmony, not about conflict like almost all modern philosophies (like Marxist Feminism which pits men against women).

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

Actually thanks to modern medicine, women can be both virgins and mothers.

No they can’t. Not in the manner that Our Lady was a virgin, and not in the manner a consecrated virgin is a virgin.

If you are referring to IVF, engaging in a perversion, for a man or a woman, is not the same thing as virginity.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

Another aspect of mutual submission is the marriage debt. What that stick figure diagram above refers to as “submit to husband sexually”. Yes a wife does have to submit to a husband sexually…and a husband has to submit to his wife sexually.

Pax

 

[LemonAndLime]

wow bad new, i think that style is called ad hominem. I thought every one in this forum aware of the difference between judaism and xtainity. Posting the old testament in matters were it has been superceeded doesnt even help this discussion.
Ubenedictus

So why is it then is it included in the Bible if it is irrelevant to Christianity and the thinking which influences its opinion of women?

Also, call my “style” whatever you like, you can’t dismiss my argument by labelling it.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Mcdonalds is an evil cult [fast food is bad] obsessed with ritual food preperation and ritual cleaning.

Support for my argument- cherry picked citations covering food prep and employee washing hands/wearing gloves from the Mcdonalds employee handbook.

Take this info, turn it into a pretty graphic, ensure pretty graphic is designed in such a way as to retard intellectual thought/discussion and promote an emotional reaction, have it go viral on the internet.

By your criteria above, McDonalds being an evil cult obsessed with ritual food prep and ritual cleaning must be at least somewhat true. The fact that I twisted/improperly used factual out of context citations from the Mcdonalds handbook IOT prove my preconceived conclusions apparently has no bearing on the issue.

Unless you could find a citation from the employee handbook which explicity says they need to do such in a ritualist fashion, no I don’t think so. The most you’d get is “they have to wash their hands and prepare food hygenically! All the time! Every time!”… wow. Bad example.

Fact is, there is nothing incorrect in the image I posted. It’s all bare facts. Sure it doesn’t include all the happy marriages featured in the Bible but there’s nothing in there that is incorrect or taken out of context. It is a list of morally acceptable marriages as considered by Biblical standards. No getting around that I’m afraid.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Actually thanks to modern medicine, women can be both virgins and mothers.

**No they can’t. Not in the manner that Our Lady was a virgin, and not in the manner a consecrated virgin is a virgin. **

If you are referring to IVF, engaging in a perversion, for a man or a woman, is not the same thing as virginity.

Pax Christi

So what?

The fact remains that virgin motherhood is no longer an impossible ideal, the way it was when most of the Marian doctrines were developed.

Moreover, virginity is not particularly impressive in of itself.
My kitten is a virgin, and no one cares

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No they can’t. Not in the manner that Our Lady was a virgin, and not in the manner a consecrated virgin is a virgin.

**If you are referring to IVF, engaging in a perversion, for a man or a woman, is not the same thing as virginity. **

Pax Christi

Of course it is.
A woman who has never had sex (consensual or otherwise) is pretty much the textbook defintion of a virgin (did you ever notice how members of the Abrahamic religions aren’t nearly as concerned about male sexual activity?).

But that doesn’t make a woman better or more moral.

The opposite might be true.
Speaking from personal experience, I have mellowed out a bit and don’t obsess about sex nearly as much since I lost my virginity.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Another aspect of mutual submission is the marriage debt. What that stick figure diagram above refers to as “submit to husband sexually”. Yes a wife does have to submit to a husband sexually…**and a husband has to submit to his wife sexually. **
Pax

Not if he’s in charge

Honestly, it seems somewhat disingenuous to me, the way that so many people in this thread insist that the men must have the authority, but then try to deny what having power actually means in practice.

 

[LightBound]

Way too many Catholic men like posting about their fetishes on "“wifely” and “womanly” submission on these forums, under the guise of following “Church teaching”. I would bet they just lie in wait for the next thread with the word “submission”. We certainly seem to have the usual suspects repeating the same stuff each time this comes up and this thread was no exception.
This time around though, we were also treated to the comments of a female who envisions her husband taking the role of her “daddy”. This thread is a virtual smorgasboard of creepy fixations!

 

[FaithBuild18]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Actually thanks to modern medicine, women can be both virgins and mothers.

So what?

The fact remains that virgin motherhood is no longer an impossible ideal, the way it was when most of the Marian doctrines were developed.

Moreover, virginity is not particularly impressive in of itself.
My kitten is a virgin, and no one cares

Are you kidding me? If a human being, a very attractive one especially, is, say 25 years old, and is still a virgin, I think that’s incredibly impressive. Do you have any idea how much of a challenge that is to accomplish? How much discipline, self control, and sacrifice that takes?

Or are you so desensitized by gratuitous amounts of sex in our culture that you see absolutely no meaning to it? Even if that was the case, it really sounds like you’re just trying to rationalize away the importance of virginity in a manner that screams “reassurance.”

 

[FaithBuild18]

Not if he’s in charge

Honestly, it seems somewhat disingenuous to me, the way that so many people in this thread insist that the men must have the authority, but then try to deny what having power actually means in practice.

You mean, you think it’s disingenuous that people with power should be responsible? Does power to you mean complete and total totalitarian control? Let’s hope you don’t get elected into any position of leadership.