Authentic Male Leadership

[thewanderer]

This is great!

Please continue!!

Here’s my current thoughts:

“Mutual submission” does not undermine a “one-sided” submission, but merely completes the picture. That is, the husband submits to wife and wife to husband in different ways.

I would consider Christ’s act of washing the Apostles feet as an act of “lowering himself” (The Greek for “submissive” is “hypotássō”, literally “under-arrange.”) in submission to his beloved. But this in no way diminishes their subjection to him in terms of authority–he was nonetheless their King. In a proper marriage, it would seem that the husband stands in as a “steward” of Christ in his family, and he must be treated as such insofar as he fulfills that role.

A mistake I think is often made is that we read the second part of "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them." as some of negation of the first part. It seems that we’re intellectualizing:

“Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands… Husbands, through your love for your wife, reject her offer of submission.”

That being said, the wife’s submission is not unqualified. As CC states,

“27. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife”

But what this cannot mean is an unqualified:

“The wife submits to the husband as long as she fully agrees with what he says.”

For then her submission is not to her husband but to herself.

Of course that is not entirely what it means, she is ultimately subject to God, just as her husband is. Does that mean that her role and her husbands are identical? No, not at all. But does that mean that she is not to use her own reason to determine when she is and when she is not required to obey her husband? Of course not. How else is she to determine what she is supposed to do but through her own God-given reasoning. CC is very very clear that women are not to be viewed or treated as minors as if they are not capable of using their reason correctly or making sound judgements. So it is clearly wrong and against Church teaching to make any claim about the role of men and women based on the assumption that women are less capable of rational thought or good judgement. That is clear Church teaching and so must be respected and accepted. Does that mean that the woman is free to choose for herself in a selfish manner when to obey and when not to obey her husband? Of course not. She must always do so for the good of the family as a whole, in line with God’s will. But it is still ultimately up to her to determine whether or not obeying her husband is the right thing for her to do.

My studies of this have mostly been in the context of politics, and I think it is the proper way to understand it.

St. Thomas Aquinas held a very strong view of the importance and authority of the Law, but reserved the right for insurrection among the people. But the reasons needed to be grave, for we are weighing the good for which the people aim through insurrection with the good of stability within the political community–and a stable political community is a very great good.

Likewise, a stable family is a very great good. If the submission of the wife to the husband reduces to “I will do whatever you say as long as it is what I want to do” then we’re not talking about any real submission at all. “Right reason” is an important qualification, but I don’t think it is intended to be so destructive on the wife’s submission.

This is not at all necessitated by saying that it is ultimately up to the woman to determine when she ought to submit and when she ought not to.

Further, Aquinas appeals to the female’s stronger emotions as his primary reason for submitting her to her husband. This is an anthropological appeal, not one of custom or “a certain time.” Pius XI seems to agree: “[This submission] forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.”

And, here, I must say, we must reject Aquinas’s argument. And please believe me when I say I do not say such a thing lightly. I have the utmost respect for Aquinas and his teachings and there are very, very few of them that I would question. But this argument is contrary to the official teaching of the Church as laid out in Casti Conubii and so I have no option but to reject it in favor of official Church teaching.

 

[marymary1975]

This is great!

Please continue!!

St. Thomas Aquinas held a very strong view

Further, Aquinas appeals to the female’s stronger emotions as his primary reason for submitting her to her husband. This is an anthropological appeal, not one of custom or “a certain time.” Pius XI seems to agree: “[This submission] forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.”

Thank you for bringing that up! I knew one of the doctors of the church had this view but couldn’t remember which one. Just like st Thomas aquinas explained the idea of the husband being the head is not rooted in culture or anything else but in the anthropological factor that generally speaking men tend to be more rational and respond to difficulties more rationally while generally speaking women tend to be more emotional and react more emotionally under stressful situations. Hence, men the head, women heart because emotions creates a balance. But this is a generalization which doesn’t apply to everybody and is not like that all the time and that is why Pope Leo further explains that the subjection may vary depending on the time (women in st Paul given their cultural conditions were way less capacitated to act rationally that women now a days) and the person (if a woman is more rational than a man and he makes bad decisions because he is too emotional then he is not in a position to be the head)

 

[marymary1975]

And, here, I must say, we must reject Aquinas’s argument. And please believe me when I say I do not say such a thing lightly. I have the utmost respect for Aquinas and his teachings and there are very, very few of them that I would question. But this argument is contrary to the official teaching of the Church as laid out in Casti Conubii and so I have no option but to reject it in favor of official Church teaching.

I am curious about this. I read Aquinas a long time ago…I dint even remember it was him…and I don’t remember seeing it was contrary to church teaching, am I missing or forgetting something?

 

[thewanderer]

I am curious about this. I read Aquinas a long time ago…I dint even remember it was him…and I don’t remember seeing it was contrary to church teaching, am I missing or forgetting something?

Well, I’m referring to this passage of Casti Connubii which I already quoted earlier

1. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs.

This clearly says that the submission of wife to husband in no way implies that the wife is not capable of mature judgement etc. So the argument given by St. Thomas for the submission of wives cannot fit with the actual reasons for this Church teaching.

What I find especially interesting about that is that, as you pointed out, St. Thomas’ argument is only a generalization, and so will not apply in all circumstances. Yet Casti Connubii makes it clear that the Church teaching about the structure of marriage will always stand. Although, keeping that in mind, it is also interesting, as I previously noted, that Casti Connubii explicitly states that the form of this love/submit or head/heart marital relationship will differ depending on not only the people, but also the place and the time. Which, again, seems to contradict St. Thomas’ reasoning on this matter.

Does that make sense?

 

[EasterJoy]

Before I comment I just want to say I don’t think anyone alive can really talk about this issue since one’s pride is going to be offended and rise against the other. I think one should take this issue up with God and hope for the best. The simple fact is neither men nor women will ever reach consensus or truth on it without God’s guidance.

In light of that I do want to comment on the bolded. If I understand correctly you are saying “as long as the man does the right thing the woman will automatically follow.” I think that denies woman’s free will. A man can be doing the right thing and his wife can still desire and do something entirely different or even sinful. Just because a man does that which is favorable to the Lord does not mean his wife will follow suit. Remember when Lot was told by God to leave Sodom and Gomorrah and not to look back? Wife disobeyed but Lot did not. I can think of numerous examples in my life where the husband was a God-fearing man but the wife marched to her own beat and made his life a living “hot place.”

What is important is that the particular man and the particular woman married to each other agree about it, or that (as is usually the case), they each have an opinion that gives the other more room than the other thinks is necessary. If anyone comes around thinking some fellow gives into his wife too much or that the wife gives in to her husband too much, they can go jump in a lake.

I’m not getting your meaning at all about a woman’s free will. Who on earth has a right to do what is against the will of God? No one does, not the husband or the wife! No, this is about the couple discerning together between multiple options, all of which are morally permissible, and deciding which they will follow as a couple and as a family. If a woman is intent on sin, if she is intent on throwing off submission to God himself, adding the charge that she is not submitting to her husband is a parking ticket on top of a felony! If a man does that, he’s in the same boat…that is, if he ignores her objections when he is choosing to sin, of course it is him and not her who is in the wrong! Of course she does nothing wrong by refusing to sin in order to “submit” to him.

If the master leaves a servant in charge of his house and the servant beats the other servants while the master is away…woe to that servant! The master will blame the one who abused his power, not the ones abused who dared to stand up to him! That does not mean that in the best of cases there was a democracy going while the master was gone. No, it means that the steward was handling the things according to the way the master charged him to do it, and so of course he would expect questions from his 2nd in command, if he departed from that. Since she is given to him as a consultant and companion, and not a slave, of course he is expected to consult with her. No, it is only that the final decision about how the household is to follow the master’s will is ultimately up to him. If he thinks that means running everything according to his personal tastes, he is much mistaken! The head of a family is just like that steward. He is the head of the family, but not for himself, because the real head and master of the family, the real party that everyone answers to and whose pleasure must be of the highest concern, is God and God alone! He had better treat everyone in his family accordingly, from the least to the greatest, but especially the one given to him to have authority second only to his…and he, like Christ, is bound to have a Christ-like authority, the authority of the one who seeks to serve, not to be served. If he indulges himself at her expense, or even if they indulge themselves at their children’s expense, he will have the master to answer to, and make no mistake!

 

[Pilosopo]

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…

** Yes, to talk of “authentic male leadership” immediately caught my attention, but I guess I understand the long tradition where men assumed leadership, and women, not. With that said, I wouldn’t refer to the contentious label of “political correctness.” I would refer simply to the clear experience that some men are really bad leaders whereas some women are really good leaders.
Further, in some cases, there are real circumstances where a woman truly has to take the lead (and the man be led.)

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?

** I’ve found making the distinction between “authoritarian” and “authoritative” helpful. The former speaks to dictatorial aspects, whereas the latter comes from the vantage point of care, attentiveness, openness and wisdom.

Thank you for contributing your thoughts!

**Thanks for bringing this up…

 

[The_Bucket]

We’ve certainly gone round and round here and I think the whole issue over the marital relationship has run its course. Keep in mind that the OP a) is NOT in a marital relationship and b) referred back to a thread where he concedes that he was heavily involved in pornography in the past and now wishes to become a “real man” as it were. Maybe we should, as they say in Anonymous groups, “focus on the solution, and not the problem.”

Speaking as someone who remains in recovery from the same addiction, I’d caution that it’s a long and tortuous process. I was an emotional and spiritual cripple for probably about a decade. Even when I was not active in my addiction I still didn’t grow; pornography cut off my spiritual and emotional growth at age 14. So my concept of God and my relationship to the world was frozen in time right there. As you might imagine, I became a very fearful, anxious, nervous person who lashed out in anger pretty much constantly because I could not deal with reality and all its responsibility.

Unfortunately I dragged a wife and (then) two children right down with me. My eldest, a boy, still suffers from anxiety and his symptoms probably are exacerbated because of the damage I inflicted. My marriage continues to recover but it is also wounded. I personally have remained “sober” but still tempted and still have committed sins of lust in ways outside of actual pornography and/or masturbation.

Like I said, it’s a long and tortuous road when you are on this journey. Looking to Christ might not be the best way depending on where you are right now. Bizarrely He can be too intimidating; after all, He was perfect! So perhaps look at recovering addicts and how they are exploring the world with eyes anew. There’s a support group for Impurity Addiction here on CAF. Perhaps look into attending in-person meetings and see firsthand how recovering addicts are revitalizing their relationships and becoming “real men.” Just because you are out of the addiction now doesn’t mean you’re free of temptation. You’re a man. You’re gonna be tempted. Actually, more accurately, you are a human being, you will have temptations of the flesh.

 

[hurting]

A quick check back at his history would note that he’s admitting to emotional abuse in his own marriage. He’s also been hurt… so I just give him a pass and pretty much ignore the content of his posts. And Portrait… well… that’s a long story. Though I very much doubt, marymary, that even that poster would say that husband’s have the right to buy fancy cars while their families go hungry.

Bucket - to be clear, I have been accused.

 

[hurting]

Perhaps a hypothetical would illustrate…

Say a loving, married authetically Catholic couple are presented with an opportunity to move the family across the country to allow the husband to pursue career advancement. The couple has debated the matter, prayed and consulted trusted advisors but find themselves at an impasse - he wants to go but she does not. Assume that the husband has never shown himself to be incapable of leading his household at the Church expects of him (in his imperfect human state).

A decision has to be made, and yes, not going is a decision. Is the wife not called to submit and follow her husband?

 

[fpt]

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:

Before all thing,* it is important, essential and necessary for each member of couple to agree with, intellectually speaking, morally speaking and thus doctrinally speaking, what is following:*

The married woman is or should be the " New Eve of her Man " and the " Saint Mary Magdalena of her husband ", I mean: the Female, the Fiancée, the Bride, the Sweetheart, the Love, the Mistress, the Lover, the Beloved, the Muse, the Friend, the Best-friend, the Girlfriend, the Helper, the Soul-Mate, the Companion, the Partner, the Associate, the Educator, the Teacher, the Professor, the Thinker, the Philosopher, the Schoolgirl, the Pupil, the Student, the Follower, the Female Opposite Number, the Alter Ego, the Alterity, the Complementarity, the Princess, the Queen, the Doctress, the Nurse, the Guide of her Husband and the Person who reveals in him, his part of feminity and helps his masculinity: his Wife and the Potential Mother of their future children. A catholic wife should have a huge consideration for her male. In her mind, man would be the most beautiful creature of the creation, he would be on the top of the natural creation wanted by God. He is her lover, her husband and her potential father of her children. For a catholic woman, he is her natural complementarity and her husband who is so divine, as he is coming from the creation of God. The bashing of man / husband coming from the wife is a social scandal and a moral scandal.
And
The married man is or should be the " New Adam of his Woman " and the " Holy Beloved of his wife ", I mean: the Male, the Fiancé, the Bridegroom, the Sweetheart, the Love, the Lover, the Master, the Beloved, the Pygmalion, the Friend, the Best-friend, the boyfriend, the Helper, the Soul-Mate, the Companion, the Partner, the Associate, the Educator, the Teacher, the Professor, the Thinker, the Philosopher, the Schoolgirl, the Pupil, the Student, the Follower, the Male Opposite Number, the Alterity, the Complementarity, the Prince, the King, the Doctor, the Nurse, the Guide of his Wife and the Person who reveals in her, her part of masculinity and helps her feminity : her Husband and the Potential Father of their future children. A catholic husband should have a huge consideration for his female. In his mind, woman would be the most beautiful creature of the creation, she would be on the top of the natural creation wanted by God. She is his lover, his wife and his potential mother of his children. For a catholic man, she is his natural complementarity and his wife who is so divine, as she is coming from the creation of God. The bashing of woman / wife coming from the husband is a social scandal and a moral scandal.

======> Each member of couple has to avoid the Manichaeism, the Catharism, the Jansenism, the neo-Jansenism, the Puritanism, the neo-Puritanism, the Victorianism, the neo-Victorianism, the quietism, the fideism, the theoretical providentialism, the quiverfull movements, the absolute procreationsim, the absolute physiologism, the primary anti-personalism, the primary anti-phenomenologism, the radical feminism, the sexism from female, the misandry, the negationism of alterity and of the complementarity of male and female coming from women, the negationism of alterity and of the complementarity of male and female coming from men, the negationism of the sexuation coming from women, the negationism of the sexuation coming from men, the relativism of the sexuation coming from women, the relativism of the sexuation coming from men, the philosophical absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality, the theological absurdism of the conjugal sexual morality, the moralism, the rigorism, the externalism, the judgmentalism, the pharisaism, the scrupulism. All those heresies and all these ideologies are morally wrong, each member of couple has the moral obligation to battle against each one of them. The marriage means a mutual and reciprocal submission via the mutual and reciprocal donation of persons (union of souls and union of bodies, but not the fusion of souls and the fusion of bodies, there is a sharing, the vow of going in the same way), in the respect of the equality and the equity of each one. Both of them (equity and equality) are cumulative conditions, cumulative obligations, the cumulative duties, the cumulative rights: the egalitarism is wrong.

There are the common rights of wife and of husband, there are and the special rights of wife and of husband. The same reasoning for the obligations and for the duties.

 

[fpt]

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?

*The husband is not the boss of wife, is not the father of wife, is not the chief of wife, is not the president of wife, is not senator of wife, is not the deputy of wife, is not the judge of wife, is not the dictator of wife, is not the tyran of wife.

The wife is not the boss of husband, is not the mother of husband, is not the chief of husband, is not the president of husband, is not senator of husband, is not the deputy of husband, is not the judge of husband, is not the dictator of husband, is not the tyran of husband.*

The fraternal correction of one partner to another can be done and useful, but it is mutual and reciprocal: the reciprocity, the parity, the bilaterality, the equality and the equity are the rules.

 

[fpt]

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?

Before all thing, this man has to agree with (intellectually speaking and morally speaking) that* by nature, in itself, by itself, from itself, of itself, for itself, wearing of the bikini, of the swimwear are not immoral and are not sinful.* The fact of going to the beach and of wearing a swimsuit or a bikini are not deeply wrong, per se.

If he has many personal difficulties about that after this necessary mental agreement, he has to fight against his own scrupulism, against his mental wrong acception about those topics, and he has to visit priests, ethicists, psychologists, doctors for purifying his body, his soul, his psyche, his mentality, his body, his deep mind and has to study the catholicism in the details with all subtelties.

 

[EasterJoy]

Perhaps a hypothetical would illustrate…

Say a loving, married authetically Catholic couple are presented with an opportunity to move the family across the country to allow the husband to pursue career advancement. The couple has debated the matter, prayed and consulted trusted advisors but find themselves at an impasse - he wants to go but she does not. Assume that the husband has never shown himself to be incapable of leading his household at the Church expects of him (in his imperfect human state).

A decision has to be made, and yes, not going is a decision. Is the wife not called to submit and follow her husband?

See, this is the thing…among the couples I know, if it were really as you say, the wife would usually give in and express a willingness to move even though she did not think it a good idea, but the husband would also not move her unless he felt they were both convinced. She would say, “OK, I don’t think this is going to be worth the sacrifice, but I’ll give in.” Then he would say, “I’m not going to uproot you from our home unless you are convinced we ought to go, too. This is a big thing, and we need to both be on board with it.” Eventually, they would decide together that one way or the other was in the family’s best interest, in spite of the closeness of the pros and cons.

What we cannot have is a pitched fight about it. You can’t expect a cross-county move to work out happily if one spouse is dragged kicking and screaming. You can’t nail someone to a town they hate and think you’ve achieved domestic happiness by getting your way.

What is far more common are the “trivial” questions, the ones where one or the other is tempted to dig in and get their own way not because it is best for the family, but because they want what they want. That doesn’t happen nearly so often on the big stuff. When there is a pattern of this kind of self-serving wrangling, however, it erodes the relationship. If that is what you have, there is no way to run the decision-making in the marriage that is going to work!

Again: The wife is subordinate to Christ as the Church to the Lord, and the husband is the head as Christ is the head. The headship of the husband is entirely “that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” The husband is charged with leading his domestic church to be something that can be presented not to himself personally, but to Christ himself. This changes the nature of how his authority is exercised entirely.

Really, I am convinced that in practice this business of mutual submission in Christ–which is not “sometimes I win my way and sometimes he wins his” but “we actively give way to each other’s sense of things”–and the business of the wife submitting to the husband–which is as often will feel as if he’s burdened with the decision as it is that he is entitled to anything!–is a semantic difference.

When the couple is not intent upon making their decisions so as to have a domestic church to present to Christ, as if they were the two household servants in charge of a great estate whose master has left them in charge, there always being turf wars between the factions of the domestic staff, there is not a method of governance that will not have more than its share of strife. We can argue all day about it, but it is the truth! You can’t have a democracy of two. You can’t have a dignified submission to someone who when all is said and done is only in it for his own interests. You may as well argue about whether cannibalistic capitalism is better than atheistic communism. Both systems will lead to a rotten government! But you can have an estate left in charge of two, with one charged as the one with the ultimate decision when it is unclear how to proceed, a decision that he knows will be judged according to how it pleases the master, which includes the way in which he made life good for those under him, pleasing himself last. Even if his decision is not right, if his second is content that he made the decision from the right heart–that is, with a heart that asks how to please the master, and not himself–she can say “we decided”, and live with it without resentment. If a wife does not get that, then she ought not be criticized for finding her time serving with that steward as a great trial, no matter what she does. I am saying, though, that in the case where the steward is bad, the second in command will be judged by how she balanced her charge to respect the position he was given while also digging in and defending the instructions given by the master for doing their jobs. Yes, it is possible that in an extreme case the second in charge will have no choice than to stage a coup…it could happen, yes! Why is that? Because she must submit as to the Lord. She is submitting to the Lord’s choice of this fellow as steward. If he is a bad steward, she has to use her prudence and submit as to the master, not as to the selfish interest of the steward. What is her choice otherwise?

Even if she makes mistakes, digging in when she ought not to have and submitting when she ought not to have, it will be the rotten steward who faces the stiffest charges. A wife with a husband who is abusing his place ought to proceed (IMHO), with that analogy in mind. Likewise, a steward who is stuck with a second in command who undermines him is both bound to insist that he has the authority to overrule her and yet will in all wisdom be temperate in how he goes about exerting his authority. If he gives way to her as the less of two bad outcomes open to him, it will be her who faces the greater judgment, for part of his job description is to run the estate as the master would do it. He must not let the ends he is entitled to be used to justify means that are forbidden to him.

 

[marymary1975]

Perhaps a hypothetical would illustrate…

Say a loving, married authetically Catholic couple are presented with an opportunity to move the family across the country to allow the husband to pursue career advancement. The couple has debated the matter, prayed and consulted trusted advisors but find themselves at an impasse - he wants to go but she does not. Assume that the husband has never shown himself to be incapable of leading his household at the Church expects of him (in his imperfect human state).

A decision has to be made, and yes, not going is a decision. Is the wife not called to submit and follow her husband?

I can answer this. However because you are being short on one details I am going to have to speculate a little and make two scenarios:

What you have wrote says only and solely that the moving is exclusively for the husband’s professional advancement; that he wants to go and the wife doesn’t. Now I have a big problem with assuming that the husband has lead the house in the proper catholic way because if you remember leadership is service, which means that a man who actually leads would never ever in his life move his family solely with the purpose of benefiting his own self. This is not real service so the two aspects in your hypothetical are incompatible, therefore in this hypothetical I can’t assume that. If I go by what you specificly wrote this moving is selfish-centered: he wants to go only because it is going to benefit him career wise only. There is a high probability that the wife doesn’t want to go because precisely he is not thinking about the welfare of the family, he is only thinking of his own personal benefit and not thinking about the others. He hadn’t considered how a move is going to after t the children, how the children feel about the move, what professional options the wife may have in the new place, of the wife’s life is going to be negatively affected by the move, in short he is only thinking about himself and his career success. maybe the wife has told him that it would be impossible for her to get a job, child care would be more expensive and difficult, they would be taken away from family and friends with no possibilities of help for the wife, but he just doesn’t get it and is thinking of his professional advancement. Under this scenario, no the wife doesn’t have to obey because he is being selfish and he is not following the model of service given by Christ.

Now let’s go to a different scenario and eliminate that the husband wants to move because of career development. Let’s say the couple has young children and live in a poor, bad and dangerous area with bad schools and gangs are abundant. The wife has lived and grew in that area her entire life and doesn’t know any better. She is a stay at home mom. Basically they live in that area because when they got married they were tight economically but now the husband is doing very good at his job earning more money and he wants to move to a different area. The area where he wants to move is a better, secure area, with a strong church community and great schools. This area is closer to husband’s job making his commute easy and allows him to spends more time home. The wife as a stay at home mom is going to have a very low impact because she doesn’t have to worry about looking for a job and she still can visit friends and family in the other area. The children are under five so their impact will be low too. The main reason why the husband wants to move is because it will allow a better life and education for the children and the wife, the husband is thinking about the best for ALL of them not only for what is best for him. In this case we can safely assume that this man has lead his family according to catholic teaching and they are a practicing faithful catholic couple. However the wife refuses based only on that she has lived in the dangerous area her whole life. Does the wife has to obey in this case, I bet yes! In this case the husband is following the model properly so his wife does have to go. At the moment she might not be happy about it but the move IS beneficial for her so probably her unhappiness will not last, the children will go to a good school, have a better education, the wife and kids will be safe, and when the wife sees that their life improved for better then she is going to be glad she listened to her husband.

On your first scenario where the move is caused due to the husband’s selfish desire, the move is not benefiting anybody else and the wife and children will remain unhappy. To that you can add that usually the kind of man that moves his family pursuing only his career advancement is the kind of man who is hardly involved with his family (as all he thinks is.money and job), doesn’t listen to wife and kids, is stranged from the family, the wife is the one that does every single thing in the house and with regard to the kids, and he just gets home to eat and sleep and is more of another child for the wife than a husband. In this case when he moves the family, not only the family will remain unhappy but that is likely to create more drama in the household, the children will rebel, the wife will get unhappier and most likely this is going to end up in divorce with rebel kids who don’t listen to the parents. If this is the outcome of father’s decision, then no, father is not fulfilling his role properly.

 

[fpt]

The conjugal life is not a life of single person!!! The wife is not a nun!!! The mother is not a nun!!! The family is not a seminary!!! The family is not a monastery!!! The children are not pre-monks, are not pre-nuns, are pre-priests!!!

We are not prudish, not puritan, not puritanist, not victorian, not victorianist, not protestant, not moralist, not rigorist, not jewish, not muslim…etc.

Your girl-friend, your fiancée, your bride, and then your wife (your conjugal female love, your conjugal female lover, your conjugal mistress, your conjugal female complementarity, your conjugal female alterity) is your female alter ego. Your wife is your first devotion. For the husband, she is the first person, in the order of the natural creation.
*
The forced execution of decisions of husband on the body of the wife or on the psyche of the wife, as human being, are deeply very immoral and very sinful. *

In the past times, the civil law, the penal law, the administrative law, and even the canon law, sometimes, were very wrong, unfair, immoral for females, because of some moral views on the wife and on the woman that were full of some ideologies and of some heresies. The words in " ism "!!!

 

[fpt]

the conjugal life is not a life of single person!!! The wife is not a nun!!! The mother is not a nun!!! The family is not a seminary!!! The family is not a monastery!!! The children are not pre-monks, are not pre-nuns, are not pre-priests!!!

we are not prudish, not puritan, not puritanist, not victorian, not victorianist, not protestant, not moralist, not rigorist, not jewish, not muslim…etc.

your girl-friend, your fiancée, your bride, and then your wife (your conjugal female love, your conjugal female lover, your conjugal mistress, your conjugal female complementarity, your conjugal female alterity) is your female alter ego. your wife is your first devotion. For the husband, she is the first person, in the order of the natural creation.
*
the forced execution of decisions of husband on the body of the wife or on the psyche of the wife, as human being, are deeply very immoral and very sinful. *

in the past times, the civil law, the penal law, the administrative law, and even the canon law, sometimes, were very wrong, unfair, immoral for females, because of some moral views on the wife and on the woman that were full of some ideologies and of some heresies. The words in " ism "!!!

the mutual and reciprocal donation of persons, equity and equality (rights, duties, obligations), liberty, communication, discussions, prayers, natural goodness, catholic charity, natural love, mutual and reciprocal submission, conjugal romantism, conjugal love… Are the keys.

Only love.

 

[EasterJoy]

the mutual and reciprocal donation of persons, equity and equality (rights, duties, obligations), liberty, communication, discussions, prayers, natural goodness, catholic charity, natural love, mutual and reciprocal submission, conjugal romantism, conjugal love… Are the keys.

Only love.

The problem is that this is a lot of jargon without practical definitions. How many times have you heard, “We loved each other, but we just couldn’t make it work?” Obviously, “love only love” only works when the parties have some idea what that means and are willing to dig in for the long haul when it seems like they are the only one on board with the ideal priorities of marriage.

It’s like the mother who was making her kids pancakes. When the first one came off of the griddle, her two boys started to argue over who ought to have it. She chided them, reminding them that they ought to do what Jesus would do. To this, one said to the other: “Jake, you be Jesus this time.” The temptation to take on that attitude is the practical problem of the Christian life, including the vocation to marriage!

 

[Portrait]

First, your idea of stand on its own is not catholic. That is protestant and you are doing exactly what protestants do: cherry picking the ideas that fit your own interpretation ignoring the rest of the teaching. Catholic faith is understood under the light of its entire teaching. Right now you are being no different that the protestant that argues that virgin Mary had more children other than Jesus because the Bible says in one sentence “Jesus’s brothers.” If anything in your idea contradicts any part of the whole of the church teaching then is wrong. Your notion of cherry picking becomes also clear when you speak about st Paul. You are again cherry picking sentences from st Paul and giving them an interpretation separate and negating the entire context of what he writes. That is not catholic. If the paragraph you cite would stand on its own and was so unambiguous then it would be only one page and wouldn’t have several pages after that explain or clarify that paragraph. Again you need to read the link and stop cherry picking the parts that fit your personal idea while disregarding the rest of the teaching.

snip/

Third Pope Leo was not wrong, your personal interpretation of what he wrote is wrong. Again if you read the entire enciclica without cherry picking Pope Leo leans exactly towards what JPII wrote. Again read the link! What is wrong is your cherry picking of certain phrases to make them match your own ideas.

Dear MaryMary1975,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your response.

With respect, dear sister, to the passage from the Arcanum Encyclical on Christian Marriage, it is not context dependent and thus its contents can be quite easily discerned on their own, without having to read other parts of the document for clarification. Similarly, the next section (12) regarding the virtuous rearing of children is also quite capable of standing on its own and Christian parents could quite easily ascertain what their parental duties are from it, without having to read other sections of *Arcanum *. Thus it is plainly taught that they must take care as regards their children’s education and godly upbringing, ensuring that they are corrected and disciplined when necessary. All of this is clearly seen in that passage and thus consulting any other section of the Encyclical is unnecessary. This is exactly the same with Section 11 where it is expressly stated that “The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him…”. Later Pope Leo speaks of the husband who “commands” and of the wife who “obeys”, which incontrovertibly suggests a one-sided submission set up in the marriage, if words mean anything at all. In view of this, the issue of being selective simply does not arise because the passage itself stands on its own and is quite unequivocal. If you feel that I have ignored some ‘larger’ context and turned the text into a pretext to lend support to my personal opinions, then would you kindly bring to my notice, dear sister, what this larger context is in Arcanum. What other sections of the Encyclical do you believe “explain” and “clarify” Section 11 so as to give it an entirely different meaning to the most natural one that I have assigned it? How is my alleged “personal interpretation” at variance with Pope Leo’s, since I understand his words in their most plain and obvious sense, which is exactly the same way that the Church has always understood them. Having read the Encyclical several times I cannot see how anything within its contents clarifies/explains the passage so as to qualify it or give it an entirely different meaning to the most obvious one.

St. Paul’s words in the Ephesians Epistle regarding the headship of man and the proper subjection of women is both clear and unmistakeable, thus, dear sister, can you tell me where I am “negating the entire context of what he writes”? What is this “entire context” in Ephesians to which you refer? Any authority worthy of the name cannot co-exist with the notion of ‘mutual subjection’ and an absence of the ruler-subject relation between the spouses. Surely that is a simple matter of logic, for how can you have a subject without a ruler? How can the Church or family have two heads? The precise teaching of the Ephesians Epistle relates to the order of* authority*, as Pope Leo XIII made abundantly clear. Now in the order of authority there cannot be mutual subjection, at least not without authority being destroyed. Moreover, whilst husband and wife may be ‘one flesh’ that does not set aside the teaching of St. Paul or Holy Mother Church. H.H.JPII is simply speaking on the different but complimentary nature of men and women in Mulieris Dignatatem.

H.H.JPII, dear sister, most definitely presents his teaching in Mulieris Dignatatem as a personal “meditation” written in the first person, which can hardly be said to portray definitive Church teaching which must not be questioned. The level of authority and binding nature of this document is far from apparent. However, many contemporary Catholics, especially those with liberal leanings, have a habit of ascribing a creeping infallibility to unofficial papal pronouncements etc. in order to give some supposed magisterial weight to their novel and unorthodox theories. The teaching of the husband being head of the wife and of the wife’s humble submission to her husband has not been officially abrogated by Holy Mother Church and Pope Leo’s Encyclical on Christian marriage remains standing Church teaching.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[thewanderer]

Portrait, did you read the sections I posted from CC?

 

[Baelor]

Portrait, did you read the sections I posted from CC?

thewanderer, it is not even worth asking. Portrait will adhere to his beliefs even when they are in direct conflict with the sources he quotes as support for his beliefs. He is the opposite of a critical thinker and would certainly drive Socrates up a wall. He is clearly uninterested in learning and refining thought, but rather simply wants to use this forum as a soapbox for his preaching, which is both badly-written and factually incorrect.