Authentic Male Leadership

[fpt]

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.*

**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. 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 general, 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. 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 "!!!

 

[marymary1975]

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.

The problem with that is that decisions should not be made on the basis of imperfection. What we strive for in catholism is not imperfection, we are called and we must seek what is right and take decisions based on what is right overcoming imperfections. Leadership based on imperfect information is what the secular world.proposes. the leadership men are called to follow is that of Jesus Christ which is perfect leadership. Jesus came to be the example and the husband leadership has to follow Jesus. If the husband’s leadership is based on imperfect information then that is secular leadership.which is not what the bible calls for and in consequence that leadership is going to cause bad outcomes.

The examples I gave you are real.life examples what happens is that those example have the secular concept of leadership. and I said that the husband may be acting with good intentions, see momamaree’s example, but good intentions are not enough. If the leadership is imperfect and does not follow Jesus Christ, then is wrong. You can’t change the assumption unless you change the outcome because the assumption that the husband is following Jesus leadership can only take to the consequence of taking into consideration the wishes of his wife because that is what Jesus would do. Asking to change the assumption in this case is like saying assume that a shoplifter is a faithful catholic who lives immerse in prayer and adheres fully to the teachings of the church. Someone who adheres to the teachings of the church and lives in prayer is not going to shoplift, which makes it impossible to believe that a shoplifter is a fully compliant catholic. Same thing in here.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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?

The wife. With grace and humility.

 

[thewanderer]

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.

Do you agree with what I have written in my post?

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

Even in the military, the greatest leaders are known by those who serve under them to not be men who command at their own pleasure, but for the greater good. As in all things, even those who act according to natural law come to recognize what is right and proper, and are recognizably praiseworthy.

 

[thewanderer]

The wife. With grace and humility.

This depends. If the wife is correct that her desired path is the best path for her family, and the other path will be harmful to her family, and she can see that that is true, and that it would be better for her family to put her foot down on this matter than let her husband have his way and cause damage to the family then it is her duty in such a case to refuse to submit for the good of the family. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned the husband is, what matters is what course of action will be the most harmful for the family, temporary disagreement about a course of action, or whatever harmful consequences will come from following the husbands preferred path. There is no one clear answer to this question. It depends entirely on the particular situation. Which is why it is wrong for a husband to feel entitled to the last say. He is not entitled to the last say, even though he has a certain role of authority.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

This depends. If the wife is correct that her desired path is the best path for her family, and the other path will be harmful to her family, and she can see that that is true, and that it would be better for her family to put her foot down on this matter than let her husband have his way and cause damage to the family then it is her duty in such a case to refuse to submit for the good of the family. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned the husband is, what matters is what course of action will be the most harmful for the family, temporary disagreement about a course of action, or whatever harmful consequences will come from following the husbands preferred path. There is no one clear answer to this question. It depends entirely on the particular situation. Which is why it is wrong for a husband to feel entitled to the last say. He is not entitled to the last say, even though he has a certain role of authority.

No, in the scenario that hurting proposes, the husband has always proven to be faithful and is a good leader for his family. The wife has NO REASON to question that he is taking his family’s needs into account. He has led her in other situations to her benefit, in other words. He is the spiritual and moral leader of the family, and he is a faithful Catholic. I would advise her to trust him, and to follow him with an open mind and heart.

 

[Fairwinds]

Even in the military, the greatest leaders are known by those who serve under them to not be men who command at their own pleasure, but for the greater good. As in all things, even those who act according to natural law come to recognize what is right and proper, and are recognizably praiseworthy.

my experience is that if you’re the boss, you’re the one who ultimately has to decide. you can take advice, and often you have to know how to ask for it or how to listen when its being given, but the buck stops at the desk of the guy who makes decisions and lives with the consequences.

there were a lot of very successful military leaders who were total egotistical jerks (Custer’s civil war record, or Patton’s career). this is why the military model isn’t a good one for a marriage.

 

[thewanderer]

No, in the scenario that hurting proposes, the husband has always proven to be faithful and is a good leader for his family. The wife has NO REASON to question that he is taking his family’s needs into account. He has led her in other situations to her benefit, in other words. He is the spiritual and moral leader of the family, and he is a faithful Catholic. I would advise her to trust him, and to follow him with an open mind and heart.

How do you know she has no reason? Even a good and faithful spouse can make a bad decision. If the decision he is trying to make would be harmful enough to their family it is her duty to stand up against it. Period.

The point being that there is no such thing as a universal necessity for the wife to submit to the husband. It all depends on the particular circumstances. And because of this it is wrong for the husband to feel entitled to universal submission from his wife. Casti Connubii makes this quite clear, just as it makes it clear that it is not correct to claim that men have authority due to better reasoning or judgement as well as to look upon wives as though their reasoning and judgement faculty is lesser than that of the husbands.

 

[EasterJoy]

my experience is that if you’re the boss, you’re the one who ultimately has to decide. you can take advice, and often you have to know how to ask for it or how to listen when its being given, but the buck stops at the desk of the guy who makes decisions and lives with the consequences.

there were a lot of very successful military leaders who were total egotistical jerks (Custer’s civil war record, or Patton’s career). this is why the military model isn’t a good one for a marriage.

No, marriage is not the military! (And I have heard military wives say that it is sometimes necessary to point out the difference…)

 

[marymary1975]

How do you know she has no reason? Even a good and faithful spouse can make a bad decision. If the decision he is trying to make would be harmful enough to their family it is her duty to stand up against it. Period.

The point being that there is no such thing as a universal necessity for the wife to submit to the husband. It all depends on the particular circumstances. And because of this it is wrong for the husband to feel entitled to universal submission from his wife. Casti Connubii makes this quite clear, just as it makes it clear that it is not correct to claim that men have authority due to better reasoning or judgement as well as to look upon wives as though their reasoning and judgement faculty is lesser than that of the husbands.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, in the scenario that hurting proposes, the husband has always proven to be faithful and is a good leader for his family. The wife has NO REASON to question that he is taking his family’s needs into account. He has led her in other situations to her benefit, in other words. He is the spiritual and moral leader of the family, and he is a faithful Catholic. I would advise her to trust him, and to follow him with an open mind and heart.

Provided that it is equally understood that he has NO REASON to prefer his own way over hers just because it is his way, when all things are equal (which they rarely are) or when the question is one of mere personal preference. If he gives himself his own way just because it is his, that is not something he takes out his rightful place as head of the household.

The Ephesians passage that is sometimes translated as “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.” can also be translated as “Give way to one another in obedience to Christ.” That is the foundation that St. Paul lays before he describes the roles of husbands and wives. I would not criticize a wife who says, “Whoa! Blue carpet instead of red is not a matter where you discerned that God wants you to give yourself your own way. We need to keep at this until we work something out.” When there is an argument over mere preference, to be blunt if neither will back down and someone just seizes their own way, no one has done anything worthy of praise or has a complaint to take to Heaven.

In the matter of moving, quite frankly, the one who is being more spiritually sane at the moment will usually be the one who backs down. As Steven Covey put it: The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. How is a move going to work out when you’ve based it on “consent” that is going to lead to passive-aggression and resentment? How do you expect that you keep a secure and happy home by nailing your spouse in the place you specified to please yourself? The husband would be like the fellow who proceeded into an intersection because he had the green light, in spite of the truck running the red: He’d be dead right. Your marriage is the foundation of your family’s welfare, and you do not improve it by trying a power play take-down. For a husband to overrule his wife when she had no intention of submitting willingly, he would have to be convinced that such heavy-handedness was impossible to avoid without serious consequences in their ability to provide for their family. In that case, though, the wife is seriously going out on a limb. She had better not do that unless she, too, was defending the family, and not her own wants. In general, however, with a Christian couple, one hopes it never comes to that.

I grew up in a family where the father was indisputably the head, but also in one where the greatest error any of us could make was to fail in his rule that we give our mother her preference. She, in turn, gave him his. My dad said that his grandparents used to fight, and his father decreed that there would be none of that in his house. “It takes two to have a fight,” and he was right. Neither my dad nor my grandfather would ever have had dug in against their wives except over a non-negotiable principle. They were, however, the arbiters of principle; their wives had chosen them precisely because they had a moral code that they found worthy of their allegiance. In the end, though, generally the one who chose to submit did so out of love.

Again: “Above all, let your love for one another be intense, because love covers a multitude of sins. Be hospitable to one another without complaining. As each one has received a gift, use it to serve one another as good stewards of God’s varied grace. Whoever preaches, let it be with the words of God; whoever serves, let it be with the strength that God supplies, so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” 1 Peter 4:8-11

And from the famous passage in 1 Corinthians:
“Love is patient, love is kind…it does not seek its own interests…bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” It is better to bear wrong-headedness from your spouse, be that husband or wife, than to give up love for the sake of what in the end is a preference or a human guess at the best course of action. Whatever you decide and however you decide to get your way, after all, you are going to mutually pay the price for how you get where you are going. That must always be figured into the cost of freight.

So, do I think it is the wife’s place to submit? Yes. Do I think it is the Christian spouse’s place to submit, each to the other? Yes. This falls under my rule that “if you are wrong, you ought to apologize, even if you are not the most wrong”. I am the wife, so I think the wife ought to submit. If my brother’s wife asked me that, I’d tell her that. If my brother’s wife would not submit, and he came to me instead of her, I’d tell him to look for a way to give way to her, out of affection for her. Sell it all, brother, and buy the pearl of great price. That is the way to live.

I realize that this all sounds like begging the question, and maybe it is. I don’t think so, though. I think this is what the passage in Ephesians means. Christian leadership requires the imitation of Christ, that much is indisputable. Within that, some are given real authority, although it is borne as a head servant carries out the authority of a master’s instructions. That is the part that absolutely cannot be dispensed with. Within that framework, I find no reason to resent that Scriptures gives that authority to the husband, which I believe it does.

 

[thewanderer]

How do you know she has no reason? Even a good and faithful spouse can make a bad decision. If the decision he is trying to make would be harmful enough to their family it is her duty to stand up against it. Period.

The point being that there is no such thing as a universal necessity for the wife to submit to the husband. It all depends on the particular circumstances. And because of this it is wrong for the husband to feel entitled to universal submission from his wife. Casti Connubii makes this quite clear, just as it makes it clear that it is not correct to claim that men have authority due to better reasoning or judgement as well as to look upon wives as though their reasoning and judgement faculty is lesser than that of the husbands.

And I just want to make it clear that I absolutely agree that the husband has a position of authority that the wife doesn’t in marriage. But it is neither one sided nor universal. And if the husband ever starts to feel entitled to obedience from his wife he has lost his way and begun to look at the marital relationship in a way contrary to the Catholic understanding of the marital relationship.

 

[EasterJoy]

And I just want to make it clear that I absolutely agree that the husband has a position of authority that the wife doesn’t in marriage. But it is neither one sided nor universal. And if the husband ever starts to feel entitled to obedience from his wife he has lost his way and begun to look at the marital relationship in a way contrary to the Catholic understanding of the marital relationship.

Yes. It is not his job to subject her to him, but to be the point-man in submitting the household to Christ.

*If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve,
the gods your fathers served beyond the River
or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling.
As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.
Josh 24:15
*

The authority of the husband in a marriage, being modeled after the authority of Christ himself over the Church, is entirely and without any exception given in order to achieve submission of all to the will of God. That is all, no authority that comes from God is given for any reason other than that, and nothing may be added to it. The moment it becomes self-serving, it is not of God, and there is no hand of God in any authority seized for any other ends. The husband who forgets that ought to remember the words of the Lord to Pilate, and amend himself. Jesus submitted himself to Pilate, but Pilate was culpable for misusing his authority. (And it could be argued without unfairness that the husband who takes authority within a promise to love and honor and then turns that on his wife to achieve her subjugation is not without resemblance to Judas…this is an authority to be held within the fear of God!)

*So Pilate said to him, “Do you not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you and I have power to crucify you?” Jesus answered (him), “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.” *John 19:10-11

 

[thewanderer]

Yes. It is not his job to subject her to him, but to be the point-man in submitting the household to Christ.

If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve,
the gods your fathers served beyond the River
or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling.
As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.
Josh 24:15

The authority of the husband in a marriage, being modeled after the authority of Christ himself over the Church, is entirely and without any exception given in order to achieve submission of all to the will of God. That is all, no authority that comes from God is given for any reason other than that, and nothing may be added to it. The moment it becomes self-serving, it is not of God, and there is no hand of God in any authority seized for any other ends. The husband who forgets that ought to remember the words of the Lord to Pilate, and amend himself.

What really gets me about this whole debate (in general, not particularly this thread) is that people who argue for one-sided or universal domination/authority always refer you to Casti Connubii, the Church’s official teaching on marriage. But when I finally went and took a look at Casti Connubii, it very clearly spoke against this one-sided universal idea of obedience. Church teaching on this matter is very clear. It is just so sad that so many people still spread the error of one-sided and universal authority of the husband over the wife and that such authority comes from woman’s lack of ability to make correct judgements on account of her emotions. Both of these attitudes are so detrimental to marriage as laid out by Christ and his Church that it is terrible to see them preached as though they were actually Church teaching. Perhaps we should remember to pray now and again for all those whose marriages and lives are suffering because of this pernicious error.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

How do you know she has no reason? Even a good and faithful spouse can make a bad decision. If the decision he is trying to make would be harmful enough to their family it is her duty to stand up against it. Period.

The point being that there is no such thing as a universal necessity for the wife to submit to the husband. It all depends on the particular circumstances. And because of this it is wrong for the husband to feel entitled to universal submission from his wife. Casti Connubii makes this quite clear, just as it makes it clear that it is not correct to claim that men have authority due to better reasoning or judgement as well as to look upon wives as though their reasoning and judgement faculty is lesser than that of the husbands.

But that is not the situation that hurting described. All other things being equal, if the wife has no reason to suspect that her husband is doing anything that will hurt the family in any way, or her in any way, and that he is caring for the family and leading them spiritually and morally, then she has a duty to trust him and follow his leadership. When the decision MUST be made, the husband’s leadership should be trusted.

 

[thewanderer]

But that is not the situation that hurting described. All other things being equal, if the wife has no reason to suspect that her husband is doing anything that will hurt the family in any way, or her in any way, and that he is caring for the family and leading them spiritually and morally, then she has a duty to trust him and follow his leadership. When the decision MUST be made, the husband’s leadership should be trusted.

Ah, that would explain our disagreement, the above scenario is not the one presented by hurting to which you replied the wife must give in on. Here is all that hurting said.

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?

In other words, he claimed that as long as the husband has good intentions the wife can do no more than advise her husband of her misgivings. This is not true.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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?

thewanderer, here is hurting’s original post. I say she submits, and goes.

 

[thewanderer]

thewanderer, here is hurting’s original post. I say she submits, and goes.

That was not the post you responded to, but even in such a scenario it is still possible for it to be the wifes duty to refuse to move. It depends on how moving will effect the family.

 

[marymary1975]

What really gets me about this whole debate (in general, not particularly this thread) is that people who argue for one-sided or universal domination/authority always refer you to Casti Connubii, the Church’s official teaching on marriage. But when I finally went and took a look at Casti Connubii, it very clearly spoke against this one-sided universal idea of obedience. Church teaching on this matter is very clear. It is just so sad that so many people still spread the error of one-sided and universal authority of the husband over the wife and that such authority comes from woman’s lack of ability to make correct judgements on account of her emotions. Both of these attitudes are so detrimental to marriage as laid out by Christ and his Church that it is terrible to see them preached as though they were actually Church teaching. Perhaps we should remember to pray now and again for all those whose marriages and lives are suffering because of this pernicious error.

Yeeees that was exactly what happened to me too. I went and read the enciclica and speaks against the one side submission. Sadly I think the people who argue for this is just that they are control freaks and want to use religion as justification. And I agree a lot of prayer needs to be done for all the households and broken families thanks to this idea.