C
- Status
R
Razanir
Guest
Tu quoque much?
L
Litcrit
Guest
I agree wholeheartedly.
In our household, in practice, if it ever happens that we don’t see eye to eye on an issue, whoever is more personally invested in it and will suffer the consequences of the decision more is the one who has the final say.
Thus, because I’m the mother, I decide when we stop co-sleeping, breastfeeding, etc. Because he’s the SAHD, he decides on everything concerning kitchen utensils and household products and home renovations and decorations. Stuff like that.
We don’t really disagree, though.
C
catholicmamajoy
Guest
C
catholicmamajoy
Guest
In our marriage of 20+ years, a decision that must be made when an agreement cannot be reached generally goes to the one with more knowledge, experience, interest, etc, in that area.
For example, I made the call regarding an educational choice with a child…he wanted one approach, and having been the one that dealt with the school, the homework, etc, I thought a different approach was best. Another example would be when we were looking for a new vehicle. He made a final call, even though I would be the primary driver. I wanted a certain vehicle, he knew from looking it over at the dealership and the reading the indepth reviews we should get something else. I have a better knowledge on what educational options are best for our children and he knows his cars and trucks.
Concerns where we don’t agree are a rarity, because like you and your husband and JackieMom and her husband, we are compatible and like-minded on most issues
H
hurting
Guest
Sorry, do not follow.Tu quoque much?
R
Razanir
Guest
Tu quoque. Latin for “You, too.” It’s a logical fallacy where you point out the fallacies in others’ arguments
H
hieukazuo4
Guest
Topic thú v? ph?t, mình cung d?nh nói ý ki?n nhung ch?ng bi?t gi?i thÃch th? nÃo
H
hieukazuo4
Guest
Topic thú v? ph?t, mình cung d?nh nói ý ki?n nhung ch?ng bi?t gi?i thÃch th? nÃo
R
Razanir
Guest
Yes, yes, intriguing. Tell me more about how this has been REPORTED
M
MJJean
Guest
In our household there is a discussion and then a “tie-breaker” if needed. My husband is often the 'tie-breaking" decision maker.
Basically, we each give our point of view and our arguments supporting our point of view. Most of the time, one of us will concede that the other has made their case and we will agree.
Rarely, we reach a stalemate and my husband will make the final decision. When that happens, he will sometimes decide in favor of my opinion in the interest of marital harmony or because he realizes that I will bear the brunt of the consequences of the choice or simply because he knows it is something I feel strongly about and he will concede out of love. Sometimes, he will decide in favor of his opinion and I will agree to accept that decision in the interest of marital harmony, because I realized he was right and just didn’t want to admit it earlier, or because I know it is something he feels very strongly about and will concede out of love.
And sometimes we simply negotiate and reach a compromise.
In practice, I rarely “have to” submit because we agree on the big issues, take each others opinion into consideration, respect and trust each other.
Basically, we each give our point of view and our arguments supporting our point of view. Most of the time, one of us will concede that the other has made their case and we will agree.
Rarely, we reach a stalemate and my husband will make the final decision. When that happens, he will sometimes decide in favor of my opinion in the interest of marital harmony or because he realizes that I will bear the brunt of the consequences of the choice or simply because he knows it is something I feel strongly about and he will concede out of love. Sometimes, he will decide in favor of his opinion and I will agree to accept that decision in the interest of marital harmony, because I realized he was right and just didn’t want to admit it earlier, or because I know it is something he feels very strongly about and will concede out of love.
And sometimes we simply negotiate and reach a compromise.
In practice, I rarely “have to” submit because we agree on the big issues, take each others opinion into consideration, respect and trust each other.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
My rule is that when I decide to give in, then we have made a decision. There is no “I told you so” when it turns out my original opinion was a better read of the situation. My husband has never denied me a chance to have my say, though. He always listens to what I have to say and so yes, the vast majority of the time we work it out by going with whoever has the strongest feelings on the subject. Neither of us wants to try to force the other into anything and certainly neither of us want to take the “because I said so” tack. We both want to come to a situation where we’re both satisfied that the best answer has been reached. If the decision-making is done with a “my way” vs. “your way” struggle for control, it is missing the mark, no matter whose “way” eventually wins out.
My other rule, though, was that if you haven’t found someone for whom you’d gladly live in a house you hate, don’t marry them. The right person ought to be one for whom you’d give way because of the pleasure it gives you to see them getting something that pleases them. That way, you can look at *that awful color *and have a little pleasure that having to look at it is, wow, really a gift! You can even get an affection for these things, like the affection you get for pets that are so ugly that they’re cute.
B
Baelor
Guest
That submission exists; to it we can add the concept of mutual submission as articulated by Pope JPII.
The number of instances in a marriage in the US in which the husband would actually have to compel the submission of his wife is zero. Also bear in mind that the submission is not a carte blanche and with unlimited jurisdiction. The husband has the especial role of guiding the spiritual well-being of his family. He does not have the right to demand that his wife change shirts because he does not like the color of the one she is wearing now.
Again, as some posters have stated, if the marriage is functioning properly, the husband should basically never have to compel anything. The wife must also assume that spiritual headship if the husband is not fulfilling his duties; the headship is not a mere position of authority but a spiritual obligation.
As stated, this ultimately means that there are very few instances in which the husband would actually have to “pull rank.”
With charity.
I would frame it as an impediment to your participation. But you, qua man, have no particular authority or obligation to correct your girlfriend.
B
Baelor
Guest
A marriage is not a democracy; it is a duarchy.
This is simply not Catholic teaching.
Again, not Catholic teaching.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear hurting,The concept of submission is entirely at odds with secular society’s view of marriage. Secular society’s view of marriage has corrupted, in practice, sacramental marriage in the Catholic church, at least in the US. It can not be overstated that the current jurisprudence of domestic relations law in the US has almost completely usurped the sacramental.
In short, a man can not lead his family any longer unless his wife allows him to do so. This, in short, is husbandly submission to his wife.
A marriage is not and can not be a democracy.
“Dictatorial” is in the eye of the beholder. Assuming a husband’s leadership does not result in manifestly sinful behavior, it is to be followed without question. This is not to suggest that he should be arbitrary of capricious purposely, but he deserves the benefit of the doubt in the Church’s eyes.
You’re welcome in advance for me taking the fire on this one
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said and bang on target.
A spurious egalitarianism, itself fuelled by a defiant radical feminism, has ensured that the words of St. Paul regarding the rightful submission of women to their husbands (Ephesians 5: 21-25) are offensive to modern ears, including, I regret to say, the ears of many contemporary Catholics. This is a monumental tragedy and deeply saddening, evincing clearly the extent to which the Devil has invaded man’s social structures.
The proper submission, dear friend, of the wife to her husband can even be seen in natural law, for men and women each have a profoundly different function in the building block of society which is the family. This will be manifestly evident to any woman who has not been tainted by the rebellious liberal and warped egalitarianism of our godless age. However, it has been explicitly confirmed in the New Testament by St. Paul in the passage I referenced in the preceding paragraph. A husband has, by virtue of the Sacrament of Marriage, always to imitate Christ in His love for the Church, likewise a wife has always, by virtue of the same Sacrament, to imitate the Church in her love for Christ. The man is the head of his wife in all things lawful and not contrary to Church teaching and has the duty to take leadership, whilst the wife must be humbly submissive and learn to be dependent upon her husband. In an arrogantly rebellious age, when many are attempting to increasingly blur the distinction between the sexes and when fanatical stress is placed on the emancipation of women, this no doubt sounds unpopular and offensive doctrine. Nevertheless in the family, for its order and its unity, there must be leadership, and the responsibility of that leadership rests with the husband and father, and his authority must be accepted.
Pope Leo XIII explicitly treats of this topic, dear friend, in his Encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae, 1880, which continues to be authoritative Church teaching that has not gone mouldy with the passage of time:
"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: not, indeed as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honour or dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the woman represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven born love guiding both in their respective duties. For “the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church…Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives bee to their husbands in all things (Eph. 5: 23-24)”.
As the nature of man is immutable, dear friend, so also is the natural law and thus this divine order of the husband being head of the wife is not subject to change with so called more enlightened or ‘maturer’ thinking. If they are to resist the corruption of nature and God’s supernatural gifts, then husbands and wives must needs remember that they do not belong to this present godless world, otherwise modern day feminism and liberalism will utterly succeed in destroying the family. Pious Catholic husbands will consequently take responsibility and leadership, even when they feel inadequate, and pious Catholic wives will take delight, denying their own subversive will, gladly obeying their husbands and submitting to them “as unto the Lord” (Eph. 5: 22).
To contend that what the Pauline passage treats of is a ‘mutual subjection’ is surely to divest the text of any sense and undercut biblical and Church teaching, for example* Arcanum Divinae Sapentiae* cited above, so as to make it chime with a false modern day egalitiarian and radical feminist ideology. Nobody would honestly deny, save for polemical purposes and secular principles of equality, that St. Paul is speaking of a one-sided submission. The fact that this is how his words have been universally understood until the emergence of the warped opinions of a liberal egalitarianism is, I think, jolly telling. Truly feminine and devout wives will abhor this false ideology, treating it with the contempt that it rightly warrants, and will practice the submission and obedience which both nature and grace incline them.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
S
severus68
Guest
S
severus68
Guest
Not the position of the Catholic Church. Which truly Christian man goes into marriage intending to dominate his wife when marriage should be about mutual respect, trust and love?The concept of submission is entirely at odds with secular society’s view of marriage. Secular society’s view of marriage has corrupted, in practice, sacramental marriage in the Catholic church, at least in the US. It can not be overstated that the current jurisprudence of domestic relations law in the US has almost completely usurped the sacramental.
In short, a man can not lead his family any longer unless his wife allows him to do so. This, in short, is husbandly submission to his wife.
A marriage is not and can not be a democracy.
“Dictatorial” is in the eye of the beholder. Assuming a husband’s leadership does not result in manifestly sinful behavior, it is to be followed without question. This is not to suggest that he should be arbitrary of capricious purposely, but he deserves the benefit of the doubt in the Church’s eyes.
You’re welcome in advance for me taking the fire on this one
Blessed JPII said marriage is about mutual submission, that the historical dominance of men over women was about sin.
M
marymary1975
Guest
Thanks for posting exactly what I was going to post. Indeed JPII was the one who said that marriage is about mutual submission so the idea that marriage is one sided submission is wrong and sinful.
H
hurting
Guest
Portrait,
Thank you for articulating this view much more eloquently than I presently have to time to proffer. Mutual submission is impossible as is duarchy. A body can only have one head.
I would wholeheartedly concur that potential spouses should avoid marrying someone where there is apt to be a good deal of “deciding vote casting”, but Casti Connubi is clear as to the proper roles of a husband and wife.
- With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.”[30]
R
ringil
Guest
WOW, are you married?The concept of submission is entirely at odds with secular society’s view of marriage. Secular society’s view of marriage has corrupted, in practice, sacramental marriage in the Catholic church, at least in the US. It can not be overstated that the current jurisprudence of domestic relations law in the US has almost completely usurped the sacramental.
In short, a man can not lead his family any longer unless his wife allows him to do so. This, in short, is husbandly submission to his wife.
A marriage is not and can not be a democracy.
“Dictatorial” is in the eye of the beholder. Assuming a husband’s leadership does not result in manifestly sinful behavior, it is to be followed without question. This is not to suggest that he should be arbitrary of capricious purposely, but he deserves the benefit of the doubt in the Church’s eyes.
You’re welcome in advance for me taking the fire on this one
- Status