Authentic Male Leadership

[severus68]

Hmmm. Explain to me who in Christendom has authority, and how they come to have it?

When you are done with that, name an organization you have been in where anyone who believes themselves to have the best vision has been free to grant themselves authority over the whole organization? How did that work for them? Have you felt dominated in every organization you have been in where you didn’t have the final decision on things? Do you think that the Church won’t be free of “domination” until it becomes a democracy? This seems to follow from what you are saying about the impossibility of submission fitting into the teachings of Christ.

Please also tell me where Christ taught that Christian leadership was one-sided domination. It seems to me very clearly that he said that the Church would not be without “the greatest”, but rather that the greatest would be the servants of all, which is what I’m describing. Where you go the idea that there would be no greatest among Christians or that Christ did not select certain men for positions he did not grant to any of his much-appreciated women disciples, even the ones who were supporting him financially, I am not sure.

Well?

Marriage is not a business, a company, a political institution, a government body or an autocracy with the husband the king/lord. Mutual submission is not about one spouse dominating the other. No one-sided wifely submission does not mean wife’s domination. We are talking about marriage, not man made organisations.

Just because only men can priests, does not mean that women are under the authority of and subordinate to men. Your arguements, if valid, would mean just that.

 

[Portrait]

With all due respect, your contention that this matter is “quite easily discerned” is naïve to the point of being flippant.

For instance, let us look at this passage: “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word, 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.” Eph. 5:21-27.

This might surprise you, but some people read this to mean that a wife ought to submit to her husband without question, just as the Lord deserves to be submitted to without question. But that is not right at all! No, it is like the situation where the master of the house leaves the butler and the cook in charge. Their duty is to run the estate as if the master were there to direct it, knowing as they do what his heart is in all matters. In this case, the master would be expected to say, “The butler is in charge. If a question comes up, he is to consult with the senior staff, but then he is to decide what to do. Unless he is clearly in the wrong, the rest of you are to do as he says. Provided he is not in violation of the habits of discernment I have taught all of you,
will hold him responsible for that, not you.”

snip/

Dear EasterJoy,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

No educated and pious Catholic man would, dear friend, distort Church teaching by saying that a woman must unconditionally submit to her husband in everything without question, for that would contradict Casti Connubii which plainly states that a wife’s godly subjection does not “bid her obey her husband’s every request if it is not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to the wife…” (27). This may be the case with some very bizarre Protestant groups, but mainstream Protestants would never espouse such a warped viewpoint, certainly not Anglican High Churchmen or Conservative Evangelicals.

Many contemporary Catholics, if these boards are really indicative of trends, appear to think that it is the greatest disrespect for a woman to be in godly subjection to her husband. However, such an unorthodox opinion is not consonant with Sacred Scripture or the constant teaching of the Church, which I have discussed in my previous posts. St. Paul does says quite plainly: “Wives be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives be subject in everything to their husbands” (Eph. 5: 22-24). Now the teaching that “the husband is head of the wife” is as equally valid as the next part of St. Paul’s sentence, namely that “Christ is head of the Church” (v. 23). That, dear friend, is a very close knit argument and both parts must be true for the analogy to be valid and make any sense. Moreover, as Catholics we do not selectively take what we deem to be acceptable in scripture, whilst ignoring or rationalizing those parts which displease us because they do not chime with our pre-conceived feminist or false egalitarian notions. That is to embrace an un-Catholic ‘a la carte’ approach to our religion and allow warped secular ideology to take precedence over both Scripture and Church teaching. Official magisterial teaching has never disavowed the teaching of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians, on the contrary, Holy Mother Church has continually upheld it throughout the ages.

It is certainly true, dear friend, that women enjoy an equal status with men as regards redemption (Gal. 3: 28), but both St. Paul and Holy Mother Church teach the primacy of the husband with respect to his wife and her subjection and “willing obedience” (Casti Conubbii, 26). Moreover, contrary to modern egalitarian ideology, the Church does declare a one-sided submission by speaking of the man as being the ruler of the family and head of the woman (CC, 29). If words mean anything at all then that is incontrovertibly a ‘ruler-subject’ set up and I think that many non Catholics would be the first to acknowledge that. If there was any doubt you only have to turn to the Arcanum Encyclical, which decidedly does speak the language of a one-sided subjection when it speaks of the husband as “him who commands” and the wife as “her who obeys” (11), albeit “heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties”. There cannot be two people that command, for that is a recipe for interminable disorder and disunity within the family, the very sort of thing that we are increasingly witnessing today in modern style ‘family’ arrangements where both men and women are now regarded as having full equality.

This will be my final post in this thread, dear friends, but may I take this opportunity to wish you all a jolly splendid weekend and thankyou for your time.

God bless and goodbye.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[Walking_Home]

EasterJoy:

Hmmm. Explain to me who in Christendom has authority, and how they come to have it?

When you are done with that, name an organization you have been in where anyone who believes themselves to have the best vision has been free to grant themselves authority over the whole organization? How did that work for them? Have you felt dominated in every organization you have been in where you didn’t have the final decision on things? Do you think that the Church won’t be free of “domination” until it becomes a democracy? This seems to follow from what you are saying about the impossibility of submission fitting into the teachings of Christ.

Please also tell me where Christ taught that Christian leadership was one-sided domination. It seems to me very clearly that he said that the Church would not be without “the greatest”, but rather that the greatest would be the servants of all, which is what I’m describing. Where you go the idea that there would be no greatest among Christians or that Christ did not select certain men for positions he did not grant to any of his much-appreciated women disciples, even the ones who were supporting him financially, I am not sure.

Well?

Marriage is not a business, a company, a political institution, a government body or an autocracy with the husband the king/lord. Mutual submission is not about one spouse dominating the other. No one-sided wifely submission does not mean wife’s domination. We are talking about marriage, not man made organisations.

Just because only men can priests, does not mean that women are under the authority of and subordinate to men. Your arguements, if valid, would mean just that.

---

Ditto.

 

[Fairwinds]

In other words a Catholic woman will obey her husband in everything that pertains to his legitimate authority and in everything that is not contrary to faith and morals.

how’s that working out for you?

…Of course a woman can have her own thoughts and interests and neither would a decent Catholic chap argue against a little give and take in a marriage.

mighty generous.

 

[EasterJoy]

Marriage is not a business, a company, a political institution, a government body or an autocracy with the husband the king/lord. Mutual submission is not about one spouse dominating the other. No one-sided wifely submission does not mean wife’s domination. We are talking about marriage, not man made organisations.

Just because only men can priests, does not mean that women are under the authority of and subordinate to men. Your arguements, if valid, would mean just that.

I don’t understand your answer. My arguments mean no such thing. Women hold authority in the Church–abbesses, and even the chancellor of our archdiocese–and that is not a man-made organization. No, my point is that being in a position of subordination does not make someone a dominated second-class citizen. That is the secular talk of willful people who hate the idea that someone else has authority that they didn’t personally have the power to give or take away, IMHO, and I hate the way it is creeping into the Church. (Present company excluded–I do not mean to accuse you or those debating here of any such thing, but talk about my frustration with the “to be under authority is to be dominated” talk that is so prevalent in the US these days!)

Re-read my posts; I most clearly did not put the husband in the position of a king, but as a head among servants, and a head bound to treat everyone in the household not as he would, but as God would have the house run. He is bound to lead as Christ dictated, which is in clear contrast to the way the leaders of the secular world “make their importance felt.” He is also bound to treat his wife as his equal helpmate, and to take her opinions fully into account as to how the decisions are to be made. He is in no sense whatsoever the king of the house. If that is the model, where the husband is a king beholden to no one, then that is a perversion of marriage.

Under the headship of Christ, mutual submission and the authority of the husband in the home are not at cross-purposes. They are a full description which are only paradoxical if decision-making is seen in a secular way. For heaven’s sake, St. Paul put those two concepts side-by-side in Ephesians for a reason!! The two go together, and one does not stand without the other. He laid it all out very carefully.

Honestly, this conversation has been like listening to two sides argue about whether light is a wave or a particle. There is no contradiction, and experimental evidence shows that this is true.

 

[LightBound]

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.

 

[EasterJoy]

Dear EasterJoy,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

No educated and pious Catholic man would, dear friend, distort Church teaching by saying that a woman must unconditionally submit to her husband in everything without question, for that would contradict Casti Connubii which plainly states that a wife’s godly subjection does not “bid her obey her husband’s every request if it is not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to the wife…” (27). This may be the case with some very bizarre Protestant groups, but mainstream Protestants would never espouse such a warped viewpoint, certainly not Anglican High Churchmen or Conservative Evangelicals.

Many contemporary Catholics, if these boards are really indicative of trends, appear to think that it is the greatest disrespect for a woman to be in godly subjection to her husband. However, such an unorthodox opinion is not consonant with Sacred Scripture or the constant teaching of the Church, which I have discussed in my previous posts. St. Paul does says quite plainly: “Wives be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife as Christ is head of the Church, his body, and is himself its Saviour. As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives be subject in everything to their husbands” (Eph. 5: 22-24). Now the teaching that “the husband is head of the wife” is as equally valid as the next part of St. Paul’s sentence, namely that “Christ is head of the Church” (v. 23). That, dear friend, is a very close knit argument and both parts must be true for the analogy to be valid and make any sense. Moreover, as Catholics we do not selectively take what we deem to be acceptable in scripture, whilst ignoring or rationalizing those parts which displease us because they do not chime with our pre-conceived feminist or false egalitarian notions. That is to embrace an un-Catholic ‘a la carte’ approach to our religion and allow warped secular ideology to take precedence over both Scripture and Church teaching. Official magisterial teaching has never disavowed the teaching of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians, on the contrary, Holy Mother Church has continually upheld it throughout the ages.

It is certainly true, dear friend, that women enjoy an equal status with men as regards redemption (Gal. 3: 28), but both St. Paul and Holy Mother Church teach the primacy of the husband with respect to his wife and her subjection and “willing obedience” (Casti Conubbii, 26). Moreover, contrary to modern egalitarian ideology, the Church does declare a one-sided submission by speaking of the man as being the ruler of the family and head of the woman (CC, 29). If words mean anything at all then that is incontrovertibly a ‘ruler-subject’ set up and I think that many non Catholics would be the first to acknowledge that. If there was any doubt you only have to turn to the Arcanum Encyclical, which decidedly does speak the language of a one-sided subjection when it speaks of the husband as “him who commands” and the wife as “her who obeys” (11), albeit “heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties”. There cannot be two people that command, for that is a recipe for interminable disorder and disunity within the family, the very sort of thing that we are increasingly witnessing today in modern style ‘family’ arrangements where both men and women are now regarded as having full equality.

This will be my final post in this thread, dear friends, but may I take this opportunity to wish you all a jolly splendid weekend and thankyou for your time.

God bless and goodbye.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

Dear Mr. Portrait, I am afraid to tell you that there is plenty of misunderstanding among educated and pious Catholics on this point, and sometimes over the course of this thread I have wondered if you are not among them. Marriage is not by any means a simple “ruler-subject” setup, but a stewardship set-up where the authority of the husband is entirely to be exercised according to the dictates of God and where the husband must lead by being the servant of all.

You cannot talk about a man “commanding” in his own home without pointing him to the washing of the feet at the Last Supper…that is the way “rulers” conduct themselves in the Kingdom of God! Any other interpretation of this matter is a misrepresentation of Christian marriage. Alas, it is not uncommon for the error of secular “rulership” to seep in, by all accounts most commonly among Protestant men who read the Bible without understanding. The suffering and confusing caused by such men in their own homes, in fact, leads the very natural objections arising that we’ve been debating here. So do not be so flippant about how simple this is. It is not an easy concept to put into practice, for it requires a great deal of self-restraint and generosity on both sides, particularly when circumstances are difficult and particularly when the generosity is (temporarily, we hope) one-sided, and it is misleading to imply that it is anything else.

 

[marymary1975]

Dear Mr. Portrait, I am afraid to tell you that there is plenty of misunderstanding among educated and pious Catholics on this point, and sometimes over the course of this thread I have wondered if you are not among them. Marriage is not by any means a simple “ruler-subject” setup, but a stewardship set-up where the authority of the husband is entirely to be exercised according to the dictates of God and where the husband must lead by being the servant of all.

You cannot talk about a man “commanding” in his own home without pointing him to the washing of the feet at the Last Supper…that is the way “rulers” conduct themselves in the Kingdom of God! Any other interpretation of this matter is a misrepresentation of Christian marriage. Alas, it is not uncommon for the error of secular “rulership” to seep in, by all accounts most commonly among Protestant men who read the Bible without understanding. The suffering and confusing caused by such men in their own homes, in fact, leads the very natural objections arising that we’ve been debating here. So do not be so flippant about how simple this is. It is not an easy concept to put into practice, for it requires a great deal of self-restraint and generosity on both sides, particularly when circumstances are difficult and particularly when the generosity is (temporarily, we hope) one-sided, and it is misleading to imply that it is anything else.

Easterjoy, he is an anglican who just converted to catholicism. He is misunderstanding everything because he is basing his theories on an anglican view not under catholism. He is making up his own personal theory on the matter and looking for the specific text that may back up his personal theory and ignoring the rest of the church teaching and when he can’t back up his theory then he contradicts himself and make things up. Not much we can do about his confussion as he refuses to see it.

 

[Fairwinds]

Easterjoy, he is an anglican who just converted to catholicism. He is misunderstanding everything because he is basing his theories on an anglican view not under catholism. He is making up his own personal theory on the matter and looking for the specific text that may back up his personal theory and ignoring the rest of the church teaching and when he can’t back up his theory then he contradicts himself and make things up. Not much we can do about his confussion as he refuses to see it.

as a former Anglican myself, I can assure you that portrait’s personal fantasy view of marriage is not Anglican.

 

[EasterJoy]

as a former Anglican myself, I can assure you that portrait’s personal fantasy view of marriage is not Anglican.

I would not blame his view on the Anglicans. It does make me think, however, that he has never actually been married. A man with his own wife to love would not talk about her that way. After all, when Christ talked about his own Church, after which Christian marriage is modeled, he said, “I come not to be served, but to serve”.

This is how the Model of husband talked about his authority:
Jesus cried out and said, "Whoever believes in me believes not only in me but also in the one who sent me, and whoever sees me sees the one who sent me. I came into the world as light, so that everyone who believes in me might not remain in darkness. And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day, because* I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak.** And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me*."
John 12:44-50

That is the only authority a husband has.

 

[marymary1975]

as a former Anglican myself, I can assure you that portrait’s personal fantasy view of marriage is not Anglican.

Lol I like your description of personal fantasy lol. Well good to know his fantasy is not anglucan but what I know for sure is that it is not catholic.

 

[Fairwinds]

I would not blame his view on the Anglicans. It does make me think, however, that he has never actually been married. A man with his own wife to love would not talk about her that way. After all, when Christ talked about his own Church, after which Christian marriage is modeled, he said, “I come not to be served, but to serve”.

This is how the Model of husband talked about his authority:
Jesus cried out and said, "Whoever believes in me believes not only in me but also in the one who sent me, and whoever sees me sees the one who sent me. I came into the world as light, so that everyone who believes in me might not remain in darkness. And if anyone hears my words and does not observe them, I do not condemn him, for I did not come to condemn the world but to save the world. Whoever rejects me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the word that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day, because* I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and speak.*** And I know that his commandment is eternal life. So what I say, I say as the Father told me."
John 12:44-50

That is the only authority a husband has.

that’s a good quote. I agree on servant leadership as a model for a husband.

the dynamic of a successful wife-husband partnership is difficult to explain on an internet board, but is well known to anyone who has this kind of a relationship. its anything but a chain of command.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Assume loving intentions on the part of the husband - he’s not doing this to benefit himself but his family (I thought I implied this in my original hypothesis), but they’re still at impasse. All of the debate, praying and consultation has concluded and it’s decision time. Is not the wife called to submit to her husband’s judgment?

Yes.

 

[severus68]

Easterjoy, he is an anglican who just converted to catholicism. He is misunderstanding everything because he is basing his theories on an anglican view not under catholism. He is making up his own personal theory on the matter and looking for the specific text that may back up his personal theory and ignoring the rest of the church teaching and when he can’t back up his theory then he contradicts himself and make things up. Not much we can do about his confussion as he refuses to see it.

That is not the Church of England /Anglican view. As you say, it is all his own and he chooses what to quote.

 

[EasterJoy]

that’s a good quote. I agree on servant leadership as a model for a husband.

the dynamic of a successful wife-husband partnership is difficult to explain on an internet board, but is well known to anyone who has this kind of a relationship. its anything but a chain of command.

Yes. The “I’m the boss here, say what you want but in the end we do what I say” is a secular model of leadership. That is not how the Lord’s authority works, and he said so himself many times in the Gospels…over and over and over!

“It is not to be that way among you…”

 

[Fairwinds]

Yes. The “I’m the boss here, say what you want but in the end we do what I say” is a secular model of leadership. That is not how the Lord’s authority works, and he said so himself many times in the Gospels…over and over and over!

“It is not to be that way among you…”

and in the right place, its not a bad model. for example, the military needs this, and in a situation where there is a chain of command, the boss has to make the final decision because he’s getting paid for it and its his responsibility.

but this model doesn’t work in a marriage unless there’s something really dysfunctional or creepy going on.

 

[hurting]

Maybe I am not explaining myself clearly and I am going to attempt to explain it better. As you say this is not an uncommon scenario. Just like Easterjoy said every single good faithful husband I know who is happily married would have a major difficulty proceeding with a move knowing their wife does not agree with it…Every good husband and father I know would rather sacrifice his own opportunities just for the happiness of their wife and family and I even know two couples who let go major job opportunities and big dreams just because one of them was not comfortable with the decision and still those two couples are happily married thinking that not taking those opportunities was the best decision. Being said that , I think if the wife’s reasons to not.move are plainly irrational, not true and the result of I want x because I want it, then yes the wife should obey. However, every instance I have knowledge where a husband decides to make a major move in pursuit of career advancement and the wife disagree and he proceeds with the move, has been the result of selfish reasons where the husband is not listening to the wife and children, he is too abort with his job and money and is completely estranged from the family, and is not taking into account the wellness of the family. He moves because he wants it and he doesn’t care with the rest. That is why I am having such a hard time believing the husband’s intentions are not pure. Again if the move is going to bring a better outcome for every single member of the family and the wife is just being irrational, then his intentions are ok but I have never seen this in real.life. I have seem though one husband moving the family under career advancement with the disagreement of the wife (because she was a doctor and she used to make more money than him and a move would mean she wouldn’t be able to work and less income) just to end in that the real reason for the move was to follow his mistress to then leave the wife and kids stuck with nothing, penniless to be with his mistress and I have seen a husband moving his wife and teenage kids for career advancement and that husband was the typical deadbeat non existent father who never cared about his family just to end in divorce because his obsession with money. I don’t know if now I am explaining.g myself better?

I certainly understand that mistakes can be made and that a caring husband should certainly involve his wife in any decision of import to the family. Decisions are almost always made on the basis of imperfect information, however, and leadership (headship, if you will) involves making decisions based on that imperfect information and sometimes contrary to the wishes of others for the betterment of those others.

The examples you offer are buttressed by a relaxing of the assumption that the husband was not acting in good faith. Changing this assumption changes everything.

 

[hurting]

Hurting,
To the bolded statement…
In my 15 years of marriage thus far, one thing that I have learned is that as helpmate for my husband, it is my job to raise pertinent and timely questions. He makes a preliminary decision and tells me. I either give an immediate vote of confidence, or if I see concerns, I mention them. Then we troubleshoot together. I may or may not suggest a different decision, depending on what thoughts I have to offer on the topic. Then he ponders all the information and makes the final decision. Then off we go to implement his decision, with me as the one who “fleshes out” his plan for and with him. If I were to follow his decision “without question” as you say, I would be failing him horribly! He and I have learned that the hard way, because for so many years, I thought that I should not make my preferences known, and should not make him aware of pitfalls, but should let him fail (even as I was hoping against hope that I was wrong and his plans would succeed) and learn his own lessons of leadership, because if I said anything I would disrespect him. How wrong I was then! And how alone he felt in being able to understand the needs of his family and how hard it was for him to meet our needs! He is away from home most of the day, how could he possibly know what it is like running a home, taking care of little children all day? In addition, how could he know what a woman wants or needs? He is a man, obviously, and had no idea of what me or our family needed until I started SPEAKING UP and not meekly backing down and remaining silent in the face of impending disaster. And these are not even moral issues. Even purely practical matters are enough to destroy family life and cause a family to be thrust into crisis! So, no I firmly believe you are wrong here. A wife has a duty to speak up and to respectfully question, to notice her husband’s weaknesses and build him up there and to help him to become aware of his blind spots. A good wife will help her husband be the leader God means for him to be, and she cannot do that if she does everything he says without question.

I thoroughly concur that a wife should raise issues with her husband. My point is though, assuming she has raised them, he has taken them into account and is motivated by pure intentions and yet disagrees, who is called to yield at the point of impasse?

 

[fpt]

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 rule of the reason, the rationality, the reasonability, the law of love, the law of natural goodness, the law of charity are useful, helpful and necessary for the management of life of the family. Only, the objective, realistic, lovable and charitable decisions are relevant and fair, thus moral. Otherwise, the decisions coming from the couple, or the wife or the husband are not very good.

In the couple, each member is* the alter ego of the other, in the sexual complementarity and the sexual alterity: EQUALITY AND EQUITY.*

 

[hurting]

You seem to want to come up with an example of the ideal situation removed from human faults and failings. Realistically, that just isn’t going to occur very often, if ever, in real life, but if you want to hear my understanding of it, then here goes.

Perfect couple. Husband and wife disagree about whether they should stay or move. Both options are equally good for their family. Wife submits to the husband by giving him final say. Husband then proceeds to “submit” or, if you don’t like using that term that way, defer, to the wishes of his wife out of sacrificial Christ-like love for her and so gives her what she wishes rather than taking what he wants. That is the ideal in the scenario where it is purely a matter of one spouses wishes against another.

There are, however, many other scenarios. For instance, if one situation is objectively better for the family than the other then it doesn’t matter whose wish it is, that is the path the family ought to take. And, depending on the scenario and how much better it is for the family, it may become the duty of the wife to challenge her husbands wishes and decisions, to refuse to submit to them, for the good of the family. The thing about the above ideal scenario is that it is removed from the notion of one option being objectively better than another, when in reality that situation rarely, if ever, occurs.

It is also true that husband and wife can disagree about which is better for their family. They may both be well meaning, but just simply disagree. How do they deal with such a scenario? The wife is convinced that her preference is better for the family. However her husband disagrees. What is the correct option for her? Should she give the decision entirely into her husbands hands, even if it means allowing her family to suffer on account of it? Or should she continue to try to convince her husband that her preference is better for the family?. There are so many factors to consider. The main consideration, however, is whether or not, in that particular circumstance, trying to convince her husband of her point of view will harm the family more than simply submitting to his preferences. If she perceives that it would be more harmful for her family if she submitted to her husband, then she actually has a duty to not submit and continue to press for what she perceives to be best for her family. However, it seems very unlikely that a couple who are both well-intentioned and truly trying to discern God’s will and were careful to choose a spouse who has similar morals and worldviews would ever get to a point where her resistence would be necessary, but still, if she perceives it as neccessary for the goood of her family then that is how she is morally obliged to act. Yes, the wife is supposed to submit to her husband for the good of her family via preserving the unity of the spouses whenever such is in the best interests of the family. However, real life can complicate that issue. And it is very very important to keep that in mind so that the husband does not gain an attitude of deserving to always get the last say and feeling resentful if his wife will not submit. Because it is not true that his wife has a duty to submit to him whenever he deems it right for her to do so. If the husband begins to feel as though this is the case it will lead to a breaking down of the marital relationship. It is imperative that the husband recognize that his wife has a duty to do what she perceives as best for the family, even if he disagrees with her. And so, even if he thinks she ought to be submitting in a given scenario, he can recognize that she is actually doing what she must. (assuming good faith and intentionss on her part rather than selfish reasons and motivations). Yes, the Church teaches that the wife should submit to the husband (as well as that the husband should always put her desires before his own, unless the good of the family demands otherwise) but it is not a simple matter of the wife always and unquestioningly doing what her husband wants. Reality and life is far more complicated than that. I reiterate again that as soon as the husband feels entitled to his wifes submission whenever he deems it necessary he is failing to love his wife as Christ loves the Church and failing to lead her as Christ leads. He has lost his way and begun to view his wife in a very unchristian way. This midsight of entitlement to submission whenever desired must be eradicated from Christian marriages as it is contrary to the true image and model of the submit/love relationship model set up by Christ.

I don’t want to come up with anything in the way of a scenario. I proffered a perfectly possible one for the purpose of discussion.