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

[LemonAndLime]

It depends on what you mean by women’s “rights.”

In Catholic theology, a person’s rights are related to his obligations. So, a parent has the right to make decisions regarding his child’s education, *because he has primary responsibility to see that the child is educated. *

A wife generally cares for the home, and these are her obligations. Her rights to be supported in that *by the husband *put an obligation on the husband–it is not all cake and tea for him while she has the onerous tasks!

What if the wife was employed while the husband was unemployed?

You may have noticed I used a lot of “boss” analogies in my replies. Here’s another: the boss is the manager–he delegates responsibilities.

He is responsible for the overall output of the department to *his *boss, but he delegates responsibility for certain aspects of the department’s tasks to various people within the department.

Just as the husband is responsible to *God, *and he delegates responsibility also. the husband may decide to let the wife decorate the house, or he may decide that decorating the house at that time would interfere with saving some money for retirement and that they should wait. Etc.

Why is that the husband should be making those decisions? Also, why does anyone have to be the “manager”. An equal partnership with two hands on the steering-wheel instead of one is better.

I was brought up in a very traditional family. My dad was the breadwinner while my mum was always a SAHM. However, rather logically I think, my mum made all the decisions. She was at home all the time, so while my dad went out to work she would plan the finances/organise bills, write the food shopping list, arrange appointments. She definately made more decisions than my dad as she was at home more so had a better picture of what was going on. So even if we had this ideal situation I guess you’re hinting at, is the husband, who is away for most of the day, really the one best placed to know what is best for the family? I think it then turns the leadership thing into a farce if my dad had to come home then and say yes or no when he was getting all his information from my mum. Why not just cut out the middleman, so to speak, and let my SAHM make the decisions?

In addition, the husband’s responsibility to Gos is very high–he is also partly responsible for the souls in his care! If the husband makes a mistake, and as a result, a member of the family loses his soul, then God will hold the husband responsible for that loss.

Bible/CC quote? Not questioning you just interested.

If my husband and I were equally pulling on oars in a rowboat, we would go around in circles, because he is stronger than I am.

Are you talking about physically or emotionally/mentally here?

If my husband and I were each pulling an oar, who would decide when to turn? If he decided to turn one way, and I rowed so as to subvert that turn?

Two people reaching a mutual decision. That’s the point of the analogy. And one used in one of Jane Austen’s book’s - Persuasion. If you’re familiar with the book I could possibly even find the page number for you.

 

[carn]

Oh. You see, I thought women’s rights included stuff like the right to vote, own properly, education, to work, have a bank account. But yeah, I guess the Church hasn’t got involved in any type of woman’s rights incase it ends up being all about abortion.

My remark was meant to be about the situation the past 50 years or so. In that time womans right ended up nealy always being about abortion.

What?

You ask what that role of the husband means.
It means he has to swim, if the boat can hold only one.

 

[LemonAndLime]

My remark was meant to be about the situation the past 50 years or so. In that time womans right ended up nealy always being about abortion.

Well within the last 50 years or so women have had huge changes in terms of their rights and no mention of abortion. For example - up until the 1970s in the UK there was no such thing in law as a rape within marriage. I would say that came under women’s rights.

You ask what that role of the husband means.
It means he has to swim, if the boat can hold only one.

You confused me somewhat as I thought you were referring directly to my boat analogy and the boat had enough for 2 in mine!

 

[St_Francis]

What if the wife was employed while the husband was unemployed?

Why is that the husband should be making those decisions? Also, why does anyone have to be the “manager”. An equal partnership with two hands on the steering-wheel instead of one is better.

I was brought up in a very traditional family. My dad was the breadwinner while my mum was always a SAHM. However, rather logically I think, my mum made all the decisions. She was at home all the time, so while my dad went out to work she would plan the finances/organise bills, write the food shopping list, arrange appointments. She definately made more decisions than my dad as she was at home more so had a better picture of what was going on. So even if we had this ideal situation I guess you’re hinting at, is the husband, who is away for most of the day, really the one best placed to know what is best for the family? I think it then turns the leadership thing into a farce if my dad had to come home then and say yes or no when he was getting all his information from my mum. Why not just cut out the middleman, so to speak, and let my SAHM make the decisions?

Bible/CC quote? Not questioning you just interested.

Are you talking about physically or emotionally/mentally here?

Two people reaching a mutual decision. That’s the point of the analogy. And one used in one of Jane Austen’s book’s - Persuasion. If you’re familiar with the book I could possibly even find the page number for you.

There is a *principle *in Catholic teaching that the wife submits to the husband, and the husband loves his wife and be willing to give up his life for her.

You are asking about *personal particulars. *Each marriage is different. In your parents’ next-door neighbor’s family, it may have been the husband who made those decisions that your mother made, because the husband was better at it, knew more, or was more decisive.

Now, let’s look at the *principle, *and not the current politically correct ideas and all that other temporary stuff. Overall, what we have here is a situation which God has mandated, in which the husband has to be willing to sacrifice everything, up to and including his life, for his wife. All that his wife has to do is cooperate in his protecting her and giving up his life for her.

Do you *really *think that this principle means that the wife is instructed to be a doormat for a husband who is instructed to be a domineering tyrant? It certainly doesn’t look that way to me.

 

[LucyLight]

**There is a *principle ***in Catholic teaching that the wife submits to the husband, and the husband loves his wife and be willing to give up his life for her.

You are asking about *personal particulars. *Each marriage is different. In your parents’ next-door neighbor’s family, it may have been the husband who made those decisions that your mother made, because the husband was better at it, knew more, or was more decisive.

Now, let’s look at the *principle, *and not the current politically correct ideas and all that other temporary stuff. Overall, what we have here is a situation which God has mandated, in which the husband has to be willing to sacrifice everything, up to and including his life, for his wife. All that his wife has to do is cooperate in his protecting her and giving up his life for her.

Do you *really *think that this principle means that the wife is instructed to be a doormat for a husband who is instructed to be a domineering tyrant? It certainly doesn’t look that way to me.

This is just wishful thinking on your part. I’ll go with Pope John Paul II over you.

 

[St_Francis]

This is just wishful thinking on your part. I’ll go with Pope John Paul II over you.

Where does what I say conflist with what the Pope wrote?

 

[Shin]

Duties Of A Husband

It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honourably. It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion. The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion. Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers, that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man; as, on the other hand, she was not formed from his head, in order to give her to understand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband.

The husband should also be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice.

He is also to keep all his family in order, to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties.

Duties Of A Wife

On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.

To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.

Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.

• Catechism of the Council of Trent

'In like manner also let wives be subject to their husbands: that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives. Considering your chaste conversation with fear. Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: But the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands:

As Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well, and not fearing any disturbance. Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel, and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered. ’

1 Peter 3:1-7

That the husband is the head of the family, and the wife is under obedience to him, is unchangable Catholic teaching. God Himself is a patriarch and this is the model and order He has given to the family and society.

This is why it is important to choose a good husband, and if you would have a problem with a particular potential husband being in authority over you, not to marry. Because afterwards, it is a matter of virtue and sin. Obedience is a virtue and sanctifies us and gains us interior holiness and reward in Heaven. If a husband absconds from his role, that’s a sin – and so too if a wife usurps it, this is what Eve did, and so the children of Eve are constantly tempted this way, because of a predisposition to this failing now being a part of original sin. Just as the husband is tempted to either allow it, or attempt to us it wrongly to satisfy some sinful passion rather than virtuously, which is its sole purpose.

To people who have long been propagandized by both Communist originating Feminism and an over individualism that defies any subjection, these things can be at best foreign ideas. But they’re written in the natural and divine law and so we can appreciate the goodness in them, rather than mistakenly follow the propaganda, if we are open to doing so and seek to do so.

“Subjection” to God is a good thing. Subjection to those God places in authority over us is too. Obedience is how saints are made, and virtue gained. Obedience of children to parents, religious to religious superiors, and wife to husband, penitent to the confessor…

If an archangel, if such were imaginable, should envy and dislike and say it us unfair not to be in the Choir of Seraphim rather than the Choir of Archangels… what kind of respect to God in Heaven would this be? So it is not unfitting that some be in one position, and others be in another.

 

[Walking_Home]

OP you could show your son two letters written from Pope John Paul II which speak to his concerns. I highlighted a few parts.

JOHN PAUL II ON THE
DIGNITY AND VOCATION
OF WOMEN

Pope John Paul II says when explaining the analogy of human marriage to Christ and the Church says, "However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the
Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between
husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual."

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

LETTER OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO WOMEN

In this letter he says, “And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the Gospel vision. When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance and tenderness. In this way he honoured the dignity which women have always possessed according to God’s plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this Second Millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves: how much of his message has been heard and acted upon?”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html

---

 

[St_Francis]

Originally Posted by LucyLight forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*OP you could show your son two letters written from Pope John Paul II which speak to his concerns. I highlighted a few parts.

JOHN PAUL II ON THE
DIGNITY AND VOCATION
OF WOMEN*

Pope John Paul II says when explaining the analogy of human marriage to Christ and the Church says, "However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the
Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between
husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual."

[vatican.va/holy_father/jo…itatem_en.html](http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...p-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html)

From the same document: This statement in Genesis 3:16 is of great significance. It implies a reference to the mutual relationship of man and woman *in marriage. *It refers to the desire born in the atmosphere of spousal love whereby the woman’s “sincere gift of self” is responded to and matched by a corresponding “gift” on the part of the husband. Only on the basis of this principle can both of them, and in particular the woman, “discover themselves” as a true “unity of the two” according to the dignity of the person. The matrimonial union requires respect for and a perfecting of the true personal subjectivity of both of them. *The woman cannot become the “object” of “domination” and male “possession”. *

LETTER OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO WOMEN

In this letter he says, “And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry. May this regret be transformed, on the part of the whole Church, into a renewed commitment of fidelity to the Gospel vision. When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance and tenderness. In this way he honoured the dignity which women have always possessed according to God’s plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this Second Millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves: how much of his message has been heard and acted upon?”

vatican.va/holy_father/jo…_women_en.html *
*From the same document: Women’s dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. *
*It seems that the ideas of some people of women’s submitting themselves to their husbands who are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the Church for which He gave up His life have been conditioned by the Protestant notion that a husband can beat his wife as long as the stick is no bigger around than his thumb, which does not even sound remotely like what the Bible tells us. *

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Since there is a problem of understanding St Francis, look at the numbers of the discrimination christian ideas produced in respect to the worth of women and men:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic#Survivors_and_victims
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first#History
“Although never part of international maritime law, the phrase was popularised by its usage on the RMS Titanic,[6] where, as a consequence of this practice, 74% of the women on board were saved and 52% of the children, but only 20% of the men.”
Certainly serious discrimination those from our point of view hard-core christians on the Titanic displayed, but from disrespect for women?

And where does this nasty discrimination stem from?
“The practice of women and children first arose from the chivalrous actions of soldiers during sinking of the Royal Navy troopship HMS Birkenhead in 1852, which was memorialized in newspapers and paintings of the time,”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry#Medieval_literature
“The medieval development of chivalry, with the concept of the honor of a lady and the ensuing knightly devotion to it, not only derived from the thinking about the Virgin Mary, but also contributed to it.”

Of course in societies like in the US or Europe, where dramatic or even life threatening situations are fortunately less common, the aspect of the mans duty to lay down his life for his wife is less important and therefore his duty to lead (in such situations) has to be readjusted. But i cannot see anything wrong about it, it just treats women and men differently, which often does make sense.

I don’t consider wikipedia a reliable source (at least for anything but common knewledge type information).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
What if he ordered you to do something evil or insane?
Like murdering someone or giving away everything to charity (so that there wasn’t even enough left to feed the family).

why do you like to give worst case scenario? Is cases of sin even children are not obligated to obey.
Ubenedictus

Because that’s when the authority really matters.

Even if they disapproved of monarchy, most people wouldn’t mind (that much) living under a benevolent king who seldom used his power and never abused it. It would probably be easy to forget (or at least not think of) the fact that there even was a king in such a monarchy for long periods.

Its when people try to selfishly use and abuse their power that the limits of their authority are revealed.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
This is more along the lines of what experience has taught me to expect from people of faith.

The fact of the matter is, if I actually believed the things that St.Francis is saying, I would conclude that men are indeed better than women (due to the fact that they automatically have a superior position in the divine hierarchy).

well in my childhood day my elder brother was above me in the family hierarchy and in my culture where a younger person vacates his sit because of a older person who has no sit you can imagine the implications. My elder brother gets to throw some his weight around and all that, he is suppose to do the harder work e.t.c. Even in this case my brother is not not greater he is just my elder and i choose to respect him.** I really dont get the idea that say if the husband is higher in hierarchy that means the the woman is inferior.**Ubenedictus

Because the way that it usually works is that the higher ranking person is valued more, has both more authority and leeway, and commands more resources. Then there’s the fact that people can easily abuse their subordinates in a hierarchy for their own benefit (generally speaking).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

There is a *principle *in Catholic teaching that the wife submits to the husband, and the husband loves his wife and be willing to give up his life for her.

You are asking about *personal particulars. *Each marriage is different. In your parents’ next-door neighbor’s family, it may have been the husband who made those decisions that your mother made, because the husband was better at it, knew more, or was more decisive.

Now, let’s look at the *principle, *and not the current politically correct ideas and all that other temporary stuff. Overall, what we have here is a situation which God has mandated, in which the husband has to be willing to sacrifice everything, up to and including his life, for his wife. All that his wife has to do is cooperate in his protecting her and giving up his life for her.

**Do you *really ***think that this principle means that the wife is instructed to be a doormat for a husband who is instructed to be a domineering tyrant? It certainly doesn’t look that way to me.

It does if you interpret the text literally:

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
-Ephesians 5

Now of course you don’t have to interpret the text literally, but if you leave yourself free to interpret Scripture at your own discretion then it could mean anything.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by LucyLight
This is just wishful thinking on your part. I’ll go with Pope John Paul II over you

Where does what I say conflist with what the Pope wrote?

A lot of the official documents Pope John Paul II released concerning women stressed their equal value and dignity (in relation to men). He also wrote about how it was unfair to reduce them to servitude.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**Duties Of A Husband

It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honourably. It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion. The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion. Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers, that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man; as, on the other hand, she was not formed from his head, in order to give her to understand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband.

The husband should also be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice.

He is also to keep all his family in order, to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties.**
Duties Of A Wife

On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.

To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. **The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.**Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.

• Catechism of the Council of Trent

'In like manner also let wives be subject to their husbands: that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives. Considering your chaste conversation with fear. Whose adorning let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: But the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands:

As Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well, and not fearing any disturbance. Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel, and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered. ’

1 Peter 3:1-7

That the husband is the head of the family, and the wife is under obedience to him, is unchangable Catholic teaching. God Himself is a patriarch and this is the model and order He has given to the family and society.

This is why it is important to choose a good husband, and if you would have a problem with a particular potential husband being in authority over you, not to marry. Because afterwards, it is a matter of virtue and sin. Obedience is a virtue and sanctifies us and gains us interior holiness and reward in Heaven. If a husband absconds from his role, that’s a sin – and so too if a wife usurps it, this is what Eve did, and so the children of Eve are constantly tempted this way, because of a predisposition to this failing now being a part of original sin. Just as the husband is tempted to either allow it, or attempt to us it wrongly to satisfy some sinful passion rather than virtuously, which is its sole purpose.

To people who have long been propagandized by both Communist originating Feminism and an over individualism that defies any subjection, these things can be at best foreign ideas. But they’re written in the natural and divine law and so we can appreciate the goodness in them, rather than mistakenly follow the propaganda, if we are open to doing so and seek to do so.

“Subjection” to God is a good thing. Subjection to those God places in authority over us is too. Obedience is how saints are made, and virtue gained. Obedience of children to parents, religious to religious superiors, and wife to husband, penitent to the confessor…

If an archangel, if such were imaginable, should envy and dislike and say it us unfair not to be in the Choir of Seraphim rather than the Choir of Archangels… what kind of respect to God in Heaven would this be? So it is not unfitting that some be in one position, and others be in another.

The first part could also appropriately be titled Powers and Privileges of the Husband.

I find it particularly telling that wives are commanded to fear their husbands. Moreover, the lines about how women are weaker and must ask their husbands if they even want to leave the house dis-spell any illusion that women are considered equal from this point of view.

 

[LucyLight]

From the same document: This statement in Genesis 3:16 is of great significance. It implies a reference to the mutual relationship of man and woman *in marriage. *It refers to the desire born in the atmosphere of spousal love whereby the woman’s “sincere gift of self” is responded to and matched by a corresponding “gift” on the part of the husband. Only on the basis of this principle can both of them, and in particular the woman, “discover themselves” as a true “unity of the two” according to the dignity of the person. The matrimonial union requires respect for and a perfecting of the true personal subjectivity of both of them. *The woman cannot become the “object” of “domination” and male “possession”. *

*From the same document: Women’s dignity has often been unacknowledged and their prerogatives misrepresented; they have often been relegated to the margins of society and even reduced to servitude. *
*It seems that the ideas of some people of women’s submitting themselves to their husbands who are supposed to love their wives as Christ loved the Church for which He gave up His life have been conditioned by the Protestant notion that a husband can beat his wife as long as the stick is no bigger around than his thumb, which does not even sound remotely like what the Bible tells us. **

I think that at least in America we have a lot of protestant influences meshing with Catholicism. Catholocism at its purest believes that the dignity of women is equal to men. The subjecation of women was predicted in Genesis as a result of sin. Both letters go along way in helping Catholics like myself sit right with the Church by acknowledging what women have and still endure. The pope says the husband and wife should both submit to each other. He does speak of a order but the order is one of love. “The Bridegroom is the one who loves. The Bride is loved: it is she who receives love, in order to love in return.” This makes me think of how traditionaly a man asks a woman to marry him and not the other way around. I think its kind of sweet.

 

[St_Francis]

It does if you interpret the text literally:

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
-Ephesians 5

Now of course you don’t have to interpret the text literally, but if you leave yourself free to interpret Scripture at your own discretion then it could mean anything.

I really do not understand. A husband is enjoined to sacrifice himself even unto death, and you’re complaing about the *wife’s *situation?!?!?!

 

[Shin]

The first part could also appropriately be titled Powers and Privileges of the Husband.

I find it particularly telling that wives are commanded to fear their husbands. Moreover, the lines about how women are weaker and must ask their husbands if they even want to leave the house dis-spell any illusion that women are considered equal from this point of view.

I read that as the husband fearing the grace of the Christian wife. The thing is, it isn’t ‘privileges’ that is the wrong attitude. It is a virtuous responsibility. It’s also something that cannot be put down even if the husband wishes to.

This also reflects the natural order that has women protected in the household, rather than in the dangers of society. The father has responsibility for the daughter until she is married.

The world is a dangerous place. When the natural order is followed, both men and women are safer. Instead, in an upside down society, we have the large prevelance of violence, assaults, lack of chastity – I think it is easy to see that following this method, the amount of crime against women goes down immensely, and the respect and protection goes up.

The family protects the mothers and daughters this way.

God is a patriarch. It is no surprise that He orders creation on this model. But the negative connotations society has to it are not its reality. In Christian life there’s a proper way to live it that brings out the good in everything.

 

[St_Francis]

I think that at least in America we have a lot of protestant influences meshing with Catholicism. Catholocism at its purest believes that the dignity of women is equal to men. The subjecation of women was predicted in Genesis as a result of sin. Both letters go along way in helping Catholics like myself sit right with the Church by acknowledging what women have and still endure. The pope says the husband and wife should both submit to each other. He does speak of a order but the order is one of love. “The Bridegroom is the one who loves. The Bride is loved: it is she who receives love, in order to love in return.” This makes me think of how traditionaly a man asks a woman to marry him and not the other way around. I think its kind of sweet.

I thin we’re turning around and finding out we’re on the same page

 

[St_Francis]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
What if he ordered you to do something evil or insane?
Like murdering someone or giving away everything to charity (so that there wasn’t even enough left to feed the family).

Have we neglected to mention that an immoral order is *not *to be obeyed?

Because that’s when the authority really matters.

Even if they disapproved of monarchy, most people wouldn’t mind (that much) living under a benevolent king who seldom used his power and never abused it. It would probably be easy to forget (or at least not think of) the fact that there even was a king in such a monarchy for long periods.

The thing is that authority is connected with responsibility. People do not get authority just for fun; they get it because they have responsibilities. The husband is *responsible *for his family; he is responsible for their safety and their condition–fed, clothed, housed, educated. The husband is responsible for taking care of his family.

I think the problem is that when we live in relative safety as most Americns do, that we lose sight of what it means to be responsible for a family’s safety. But I have heard that children in some parts of the city cannot go out and play because it has become so dangerous. Their parents keep inside *to keep them safe. *

And the same goes for other times and places. There are still places where it is not all that safe for women to go out and about on the streets by themselves. It’s going too far to make a law against it, but wouldn’t you tell your mother or your sister to stay away from some parts of town after dark? Evwn if nothing really bad happeneed, would you want them to be accosted by men asking how much?

These rules are not tailored to Life in Suburban America in the 21st Century–they are tailored to all of history all over te world.

Its when people try to selfishly use and abuse their power that the limits of their authority are revealed.

And do you think whdn it says in the bible that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves His Church that husbands are being told to be dommineering abusive husbands?