Authentic Male Leadership

[OnTheRock]

I’m the OP from this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=796114

There, the topic came up of authentic male leadership.

I proceed with fear and trembling, as I know well the political incorrectness associated with this topic…

I would like to ask the community for opinions on the correct manner by which a man leads his family:

1. What is the specific difference between the “submission” of wives to their husbands and a dictatorial control?
2. Husbands and wives aim to grow in holiness together. How should the fraternal correction of one partner to another, especially of husband to wife, be performed so as to avoid the real or apparent exertion of control?
3. When dating or courting, at what level should the couple be seeking to grow in holiness together and provide that same fraternal correction? If, to provide a Summertime example, the male in the relationship is weak around immodest swimwear, is it inappropriate for him to make any suggestions that will help avoid occasion of sin? If so, how is this fraternal correction done in an authentic way? Or is this level of talk only relevant to the wedded or engaged?
4. It could be helpful to consider some concrete examples and situations, showing how a dictatorial husband would lead over and against how a authentic husband might behave.

For additional prompting:

St. Thomas Aquinas. Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics.

“For husbands rule over wives, and fathers over children, as free-persons, not as slaves. And these two kinds of rule differ from despotic rule in the latter respect…these two associations are not of the same type. Rather, husbands rule over wives by a political form of rule (i.e., as one chosen to rule is in charge of a political community), but fathers are in charge of sons by a kingly form of rule. And this is so because fathers have full power over sons, just as a king does in his kingdom, but husbands have power over wives only insofar as the law of marriage requires, not full power regarding all things.”

He seems to justify the submissiveness (whatever exactly that means) by an appeal to the female’s stronger emotions:

“But the female, since she is free, has the power of deliberating, although her deliberation is weak. And the reason for this is that her reason, because of the tenderness of her nature, weakly adheres to decisions and is quickly drawn away from them because of particular emotions.” [Noting that this regards deliberative reasoning, not scientific. Aquinas is not saying that women have a weak intellect.]

Well that was a lot Feel free to reply only to a part that interests you.

Thank you for contributing your thoughts!

 

[John1990]

My parents have been married for 25 years… my Mom knows her place in the family and my Dad knows his position as the man of the house…after all this time, he still hasn’t been promoted.

 

[Lamentation]

My parents have been married for 25 years… my Mom knows her place in the family and my Dad knows his position as the man of the house…after all this time, he still hasn’t been promoted.

I was going to say watch a few episodes of Roseanne, but yea that pretty much sums it up.

Incidentally, mine have been married 24 years.

(Somewhat) Joking aside, it means that you should take the initiative to raise and keep your family Catholic. :knight2:

 

[hurting]

The concept of submission is entirely at odds with secular society’s view of marriage. Secular society’s view of marriage has corrupted, in practice, sacramental marriage in the Catholic church, at least in the US. It can not be overstated that the current jurisprudence of domestic relations law in the US has almost completely usurped the sacramental.

In short, a man can not lead his family any longer unless his wife allows him to do so. This, in short, is husbandly submission to his wife.

A marriage is not and can not be a democracy.

“Dictatorial” is in the eye of the beholder. Assuming a husband’s leadership does not result in manifestly sinful behavior, it is to be followed without question. This is not to suggest that he should be arbitrary of capricious purposely, but he deserves the benefit of the doubt in the Church’s eyes.

You’re welcome in advance for me taking the fire on this one

 

[Walking_Home]

The concept of submission is entirely at odds with secular society’s view of marriage. Secular society’s view of marriage has corrupted, in practice, sacramental marriage in the Catholic church, at least in the US. It can not be overstated that the current jurisprudence of domestic relations law in the US has almost completely usurped the sacramental.

In short, a man can not lead his family any longer unless his wife allows him to do so. This, in short, is husbandly submission to his wife.

A marriage is not and can not be a democracy.

“Dictatorial” is in the eye of the beholder. ** Assuming a husband’s leadership does not result in manifestly sinful behavior, it is to be followed without question**. This is not to suggest that he should be arbitrary of capricious purposely, but he deserves the benefit of the doubt in the Church’s eyes.

You’re welcome in advance for me taking the fire on this one

---

Dominate much.

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

American women are spoiled by their fathers from birth and think that their husbands are supposed to spoil them too. That’s why for several years my wife ended all her sentences with, “Or I’m going to get a divorce.”

 

[His_helpmeet]

I’m the OP from this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=796114

There, the topic came up of authentic male leadership.

I proceed with fear and trembling, as I know well the political incorrectness associated with this topic…

I would like to ask the community for opinions on the correct manner by which a man leads his family:

1. What is the specific difference between the “submission” of wives to their husbands and a dictatorial control?
   As a wife, maybe I can speak to this I understand this to mean that ultimately, the husband is the spiritual priest of the family and he is ultimately responsible for the decisions made concerning the temporal welfare of the family. However, it would be a poor husband indeed who would refuse the counsel of his wife. He is to always remember that his model is to be Christ on the cross. I refute arguments of “sexism” by saying that if he does a poor job, he has to answer to HIS Boss (Christ), which should make him very careful about his actions.
2. Husbands and wives aim to grow in holiness together. How should the fraternal correction of one partner to another, especially of husband to wife, be performed so as to avoid the real or apparent exertion of control?
   I tend to go from the premise of “suggestions” and “I” messages. As a nurse, I’m trained in therapeutic communication, and some of the rules apply. For example, rather than saying to my husband, “Quit leaving your socks everywhere! I always have to pick up after you!” I would say, “Honey, I feel frustrated when you leave your socks lying out and I have to pick them up. I would really appreciate if you could please put them in the laundry basket.”
3. When dating or courting, at what level should the couple be seeking to grow in holiness together and provide that same fraternal correction? If, to provide a Summertime example, the male in the relationship is weak around immodest swimwear, is it inappropriate for him to make any suggestions that will help avoid occasion of sin? If so, how is this fraternal correction done in an authentic way? Or is this level of talk only relevant to the wedded or engaged?
   No, I would suggest that dating should be a place where these sorts of discussions can begin. I think if it’s expressed in a respectful manner, there should be no problem. He might phrase it as, “Jane, I would like to take you out to the beach and the pool for dates. However, I feel upset when I see immodest swimwear because it could lead to an occasion of sin for me. I would really appreciate if you could please wear modest swimwear around me to help me in this regard.”
4. It could be helpful to consider some concrete examples and situations, showing how a dictatorial husband would lead over and against how a authentic husband might behave.
   I would say that a dictatorial husband would say something like, “You’re always this way and you need to stop” or “I expect you to do this or that”. I willingly submit to my husband’s authority, but he is always very careful never to exceed his boundaries - i.e. the temporal welfare of the family. He considers this to be part of the practice of good stewardship, because he knows that he has been entrusted with our care and that this is a privilege. He often “corrects” me through gentle teasing or because I’ve asked for his opinion on something - such as how I can be a better wife to him. He treats me like a queen and I’m so lucky to have him!

For additional prompting:

St. Thomas Aquinas. Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics.

“For husbands rule over wives, and fathers over children, as free-persons, not as slaves. And these two kinds of rule differ from despotic rule in the latter respect…these two associations are not of the same type. Rather, husbands rule over wives by a political form of rule (i.e., as one chosen to rule is in charge of a political community), but fathers are in charge of sons by a kingly form of rule. And this is so because fathers have full power over sons, just as a king does in his kingdom, but husbands have power over wives only insofar as the law of marriage requires, not full power regarding all things.”

He seems to justify the submissiveness (whatever exactly that means) by an appeal to the female’s stronger emotions:

“But the female, since she is free, has the power of deliberating, although her deliberation is weak. And the reason for this is that her reason, because of the tenderness of her nature, weakly adheres to decisions and is quickly drawn away from them because of particular emotions.” [Noting that this regards deliberative reasoning, not scientific. Aquinas is not saying that women have a weak intellect.]

Well that was a lot Feel free to reply only to a part that interests you.

Thank you for contributing your thoughts!

 

[EasterJoy]

Does anybody ask this with regards to the Pope and his fellow bishops? We do have to remember that a wife does get to choose her husband. A man doesn’t get to grab some woman he likes by the hair and make himself her husband, any more than a bishop becomes pope by holding the other cardinals at gunpoint. A wise woman will not marry a man who is power-hungry, but chooses a man whose leadership attempts to follow the example of the Lord Himself. Likewise, a man will look for a wife who is willing to concede the deciding vote to him without conceding her duty to bring questions to his attention, to take on the shepherding of the family and all other care of the family as part of a joint work and a joint life between them. They each have to respect each other as someone worthy of a place of leadership and honor within their domestic church, someone who has the prudence and other virtues necessary for their place, or it can’t work.

 

[The_Bucket]

We are all called to follow Christ, but men even moreso are called to follow His model in terms of how to lead. We men have the model of Christ for the day-to-day stuff just as women have the model of Mary to exemplify how to live their day-to-day lives.

And so I give you the words from the Man Himself…

the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many

You want to lead? You want to be a man? You want to be the alpha dog? Be like the ultimate Alpha. You put your ego aside, you put your desires aside, you put your life aside and you pick up your cross and follow Christ. You are here not to be served, but to serve.

 

[hurting]

---

Dominate much.

Ad hominem much?

 

[marymary1975]

I’m the OP from this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=796114

There, the topic came up of authentic male leadership.

I proceed with fear and trembling, as I know well the political incorrectness associated with this topic…

I would like to ask the community for opinions on the correct manner by which a man leads his family:

1. What is the specific difference between the “submission” of wives to their husbands and a dictatorial control?
2. Husbands and wives aim to grow in holiness together. How should the fraternal correction of one partner to another, especially of husband to wife, be performed so as to avoid the real or apparent exertion of control?
3. When dating or courting, at what level should the couple be seeking to grow in holiness together and provide that same fraternal correction? If, to provide a Summertime example, the male in the relationship is weak around immodest swimwear, is it inappropriate for him to make any suggestions that will help avoid occasion of sin? If so, how is this fraternal correction done in an authentic way? Or is this level of talk only relevant to the wedded or engaged?
4. It could be helpful to consider some concrete examples and situations, showing how a dictatorial husband would lead over and against how a authentic husband might behave.

For additional prompting:

St. Thomas Aquinas. Commentary on Aristotle’s Politics.

“For husbands rule over wives, and fathers over children, as free-persons, not as slaves. And these two kinds of rule differ from despotic rule in the latter respect…these two associations are not of the same type. Rather, husbands rule over wives by a political form of rule (i.e., as one chosen to rule is in charge of a political community), but fathers are in charge of sons by a kingly form of rule. And this is so because fathers have full power over sons, just as a king does in his kingdom, but husbands have power over wives only insofar as the law of marriage requires, not full power regarding all things.”

He seems to justify the submissiveness (whatever exactly that means) by an appeal to the female’s stronger emotions:

“But the female, since she is free, has the power of deliberating, although her deliberation is weak. And the reason for this is that her reason, because of the tenderness of her nature, weakly adheres to decisions and is quickly drawn away from them because of particular emotions.” [Noting that this regards deliberative reasoning, not scientific. Aquinas is not saying that women have a weak intellect.]

Well that was a lot Feel free to reply only to a part that interests you.

Thank you for contributing your thoughts!

1. Any time that you take the submissive part out of the entire context of what St Paul is writing, and you isolate the submissive idea then it becomes dictatorial. This is when abuse and control.comes from and this is where the double morals come from. The husband has a duty to love the wife “in the way that Christ loved the church” and that should be the straying point. I’ve always though that this part is just a reflection of the generalized statement that men have a tendency to be more rational while women may have a tendency to be more emotional. The point of the submissive is to allow the more rational head to take a decision that should be taken based on rationalization not based on emotions and that is why the immediate command to the man is to love the wife as Christ loved his church. The minute you think that what the scripture is giving you the authority to boss around your wife and you believe that your wife has to submit to everything you say, you are falling into dictatorial control.
2. I like and agree with what his help.meet said. You have to keep in mind it has to be done with love and respect, the way the Christ loved his church. How Christ loved his church? By putting the example first, by being its servant. So first be the example. If a husband corrects his wife on something he does, he is nothing but a hypocrit. Second by talking in a respectful manera as On the Rock mentioned trying to actually help and looking for a solution for the good of both, not because I want you to do this,
3. Also agree with his help meet. Dating is where you start having this discussions, express things in a respectful manner and most important explain why. If you don’t explain why you fall into the do it because I say so and that is not right. Try to set up your values to the other person so that person knows it and can decide whether the relationship is worth it.
4. As I said a dictatorial husband gives orders and expect the wife to submit to what he says, a good husband engages in a conversation with his wife, sees her point of view and understands her, respect her and love her. Again the standard is the one set up by st Paul, the good husband behaves with his wife on the same way Jesus was with his church.

 

[marymary1975]

A marriage is not and can not be a democracy.

“Dictatorial” is in the eye of the beholder. Assuming a husband’s leadership does not result in manifestly sinful behavior, it is to be followed without question. This is not to suggest that he should be arbitrary of capricious purposely, but he deserves the benefit of the doubt in the Church’s eyes.

You’re welcome in advance for me taking the fire on this one

My issue with what your saying is that the likelihood of a man who “leads” with the belief that marriage is not a demicracy, of not resulting in sinful behavior is close to 0. As I said, the standard is the one set up by Paul. Do you think that Jesus leaded his disciples under the idea of this is not a democracy? So just thinking that way leads you straight into sinful behavior.

 

[The_Bucket]

My issue with what your saying is that the likelihood of a man who “leads” with the belief that marriage is not a demicracy, of not resulting in sinful behavior is close to 0. As I said, the standard is the one set up by Paul. Do you think that Jesus leaded his disciples under the idea of this is not a democracy? So just thinking that way leads you straight into sinful behavior.

Yeah, I think He would have said “this is not a democracy,” put in a radically different way. He told the Apostles to be silent when He washed their feet. This is exactly right; we men are not to put ourselves above anyone and to put ourselves in the service of all.

And there’s no debate about it. There is no debate about whether we should or should not give our lives to our wives, children, community and our God.

Christ taught us all that leadership is service and service is leadership. Service without counting the cost, without expecting anything in return. Total love for our God and our neighbor. This is not a democracy. This is unreserved love.

 

[JackieMom]

I would suggest people not marry others who are in need of much “fraternal correction.” I have no interest in being submissive to my husband, and he has no interest in me submitting to him. What we did ensure before marriage was that we were extremely compatible and like-minded on all the big and small issues, so that neither of us would ever feel the need to pull rank. When a good match is made, there is no need for one spouse to outrank the other, because the decisions are easily made together and rarely does one want something that the other does not.

If both spouses hold tight to a spirit of service, respect, kindness and good reasoning, then the subject of which one is the “boss” will never even come up.

 

[marymary1975]

Yeah, I think He would have said “this is not a democracy,” put in a radically different way. He told the Apostles to be silent when He washed their feet. This is exactly right; we men are not to put ourselves above anyone and to put ourselves in the service of all.

And there’s no debate about it. There is no debate about whether we should or should not give our lives to our wives, children, community and our God.

Christ taught us all that leadership is service and service is leadership. Service without counting the cost, without expecting anything in return. Total love for our God and our neighbor. This is not a democracy. This is unreserved love.

Perfectly said! Your last paragraph is exactly how it is.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Does anybody ask this with regards to the Pope and his fellow bishops? We do have to remember that a wife does get to choose her husband.

For the most part.

A man doesn’t get to grab some woman he likes by the hair and make himself her husband, any more than a bishop becomes pope by holding the other cardinals at gunpoint.

Again, for the most part, not anymore… though “traditionally” many marriages were made in such a way…

A wise woman will not marry a man who is power-hungry, but chooses a man whose leadership attempts to follow the example of the Lord Himself. Likewise, a man will look for a wife who is willing to concede the deciding vote to him without conceding her duty to bring questions to his attention, to take on the shepherding of the family and all other care of the family as part of a joint work and a joint life between them. They each have to respect each other as someone worthy of a place of leadership and honor within their domestic church, someone who has the prudence and other virtues necessary for their place, or it can’t work.

Ugh.

 

[EasterJoy]

For the most part.

Again, for the most part, not anymore… though “traditionally” many marriages were made in such a way…

Ugh.

To my knowledge, when either party has ever been forced into marriage to any degree, it has been against the teachings of the Church. The Church has never invested anyone with the authority to decide who a woman will marry, save the woman herself.

My husband does not force me to do anything against my will, but I do not know how a council of two works unless someone eventually has to cast the deciding vote. Sometimes a decision has to be made, and stalemates cannot go on forever. Yet a man who looks for a woman who will concede to him the “tie-breaking” vote as simply belonging to him alone, without fully voicing her reservations is looking for someone under his subjection, not someone who gives submission from a standpoint of equality in dignity. She has to be able to have her say with the expectation that she will be heard with full respect, even if she does not win the day for her view.

I am saying that this puts a very heavy responsibility on him to justly decide what their decision is going to be. It can’t be a simple matter of his way winning over hers. He is the head of the house, but he is not God. He has the steward’s place, answering to the mastery of Christ over the household. He has to feel the responsibility to cast the final vote for the decision that can be fully theirs, ultimately made in obedience to God, and to do it with the mind of the servant of the marriage and the family as a whole. He is the steward of a family that belongs to God, not a self-justified master of a family that belongs to his as if it were his own personal chattel. Therefore, whenever he has to “cast the deciding vote” it has to be in that sense. If he is using that vote to give his own way preference, he is abusing his authority as the husband.

 

[marymary1975]

To my knowledge, when either party has ever been forced into marriage to any degree, it has been against the teachings of the Church. The Church has never invested anyone with the authority to decide who a woman will marry, save the woman herself.

.

This is true, however don’t forget that many men do lie and are deceitful. I bring this because while technically nobody is forcing the woman if the man is intentionallt lying and deceiving and pretending then you can’t say that the woman is the one who chooses who to marry. I bring this very specificly thinking in precisely the kind of men women should avoid…abusers, stalkers and violent men…are very well known for lying during the dating stages and pretending to be the most charming, loveable men just to turn into an abuser the day after the wedding. So while sometimes the woman was not forces she was deceited into it.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is true, however don’t forget that many men do lie and are deceitful. I bring this because while technically nobody is forcing the woman if the man is intentionallt lying and deceiving and pretending then you can’t say that the woman is the one who chooses who to marry. I bring this very specificly thinking in precisely the kind of men women should avoid…abusers, stalkers and violent men…are very well known for lying during the dating stages and pretending to be the most charming, loveable men just to turn into an abuser the day after the wedding. So while sometimes the woman was not forces she was deceited into it.

OK. I wish a discussion of authentic male leadership within marriage presupposed a valid marriage, but that may not be the case. My point was that in spite of the practice of parents being the brokers for arranged marriages in the past, the Church has never given the parents the authority to decide who their children would marry. The spouses have always had the right and duty to decide for themselves whether they would pledge themselves to a marriage.

It is sadly true that manipulative people will try to twist the principles of others to their own ends: that is, they will invoke the principles that others espouse as a way to manipulate those others to do what they want, rather than in a way that serves moral ends. They will lie in order to extract promises that they pressure the victim of their deceit to honor, even while they are simultaneously going back on their own false promises. I don’t know if this is more common in marriage than in the workplace or other relationships, but it is surely the saddest to see when it takes place in a family.

 

[TimothyH]

We are all called to follow Christ, but men even moreso are called to follow His model in terms of how to lead. We men have the model of Christ for the day-to-day stuff just as women have the model of Mary to exemplify how to live their day-to-day lives.

And so I give you the words from the Man Himself…

You want to lead? You want to be a man? You want to be the alpha dog? Be like the ultimate Alpha. You put your ego aside, you put your desires aside, you put your life aside and you pick up your cross and follow Christ. You are here not to be served, but to serve.

Mary is just as much a man’s model as Christ is a womans’ model. Other than that detail, you have given wise council. Leadership is about service.

Virtuous Leadership by Alexandre Havard.

bks7.books.google.com/books?id=bSfFFx6rszsC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&edge=curl&imgtk=AFLRE71tgyWjBIATAxBFaPhhjmjMBUVPGxvX0AQUmfqyJDeGgq_8lwMh19FIUnCmgeJmfZNFiRGNdJr1J2iZdxdioh8m9FkhwWs5wTGKqBsWL9F_DLKLJBAW7U6HHK2E1G4aQptvsnJQ

-Tim-