Authentic Male Leadership

[Portrait]

If what you are saying this is true, how do you explain that the catholic church has named women as Doctors of the Church. That is quite an inconsistency with what your saying so how do you explain that inconsistency? And give me the official source of the Church (not your own opinion) about the priority of men.

Hello again marymary1975.

Our Church, dear sister, has always profited from the valuable services of women in the instruction of the faithful, nevertheless, women have always been excluded from the teaching and governing mandate of Holy Orders. The Holy Spirit, speaking through St. Paul, says: “I permit no women to teach or to have authority over men” (I Tim. 2: 12). Sacred Scripture is an “official source of the Church”, indeed a source which should, along with Sacred Tradition, be highly venerated by the faithful. A woman may well be a Doctor of the Church, but she still cannot teach and preach in the context of divine worship, in which women are not permitted to be authoritative teachers of doctrine as that would necessarily involve them in having authority over the men in the church. The public teacher of the faithful does not only tell others what they need to know, but in the capacity of such a teacher he stands before the assembly to rule and govern.

“Nowhere did Christ ever commission women to teach in His name and with his authority. St. Paul explicitly forbids women to attempt to exercise such functions (I Tim. 2: 11-12; I Cor. 14: 34). People who would ordain women in the Church seem to believe that they know more about Christianity than St. Paul” (Radio Replies, Fathers Rumble and Carty, Tan Books 1979, p. 78).

St. Paul, dear sister, says that it is the duty of men, not women, to rule and give instruction in the public assembly of the faithful and the reasons for this he adduces from Genesis where it is shown that man was first created and that woman was the occasion of his fall (see I Tim. 2: 11-15). This authoritative teaching from an “official source” has never been disowned by the Church and neither could it be since it is a part of divine revelation.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[hurting]

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.

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?

 

[Litcrit]

Perhaps a hypothetical would illustrate…

Say a loving, married authentically 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?

Has the *wife *ever shown herself to be incapable of making important decisions that impact the family?

1. He is the breadwinner and she is a SAHM to a baby. The opportunity would give them more money in a better neighborhood. She doesn’t want to move because she doesn’t like change and she has just planted some flowers.
2. They both have steady jobs and she makes significantly more. His new job - which is a dream career for him - will bring a bit more money, but she won’t be able to find work there, so their income will effectively be halved. They have a dream house in a great neighborhood near both their families. Their five children are all in school and would be desperate if they had to be uprooted from their friends and cousins. They love Dad and understand his desire to pursue his dream job, but Mom just knows it is not practical at all and the entire family should not have to sacrifice like this.

Which gender stereotype do we prefer? The irrational childish wife and the strong leading husband? Or the pragmatic realistic wife who knows the needs of her family and the childish dreamer of a husband?

Or neither? Each human being is unique. Each couple is different and will find their own ways of coming to decisions together. If they both put Christ first and try to lovingly submit to one another, it’s going to be easier.

 

[Walking_Home]

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.

---

Exactly true.

 

[marymary1975]

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 virtiuous 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 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?

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.

Pax

Portrait, again what you are saying IT IS NOT catholic teaching therefore is wrong. The standing alone concept is not catholic. Do not ask me to read and interpret catholic document with Protestant doctrine because it is not acceptable. If you want to discuss the issue then use catholic doctrine, but don’t bring me a protestant thing and tell me that me that Ias a catholic, have to read it with protestant doctrine because it is plain wrong. I don’t have to be st Augustine to know that using some non catholic idea to interpret catholic writings is wrong.

Second, yes I reiterate you are cherry picking and yes you are turning one text into a pretext to support your own ideas. You asked me to bring it to your attention, well I am: go back in the thread and READ. Wanderer, Bucket, Easterjoy and me have all posted to you the correct catholic teaching which is in total contradiction with what you are saying and you keep ignoring it and regurgitating the same wrong idea. What context are you missing? Didn’t you read what wandered posted from CC or Bucket’s quotes from the Bible? Are you really expecting us to think that your personal idea has more weight than the CC? How else can I point at you that your using a text to support your personal interpretation: why are you have to resort to protestant ideas to support your thinking and specifically the very idea itself that goes against catholicism but fits perfectly to support your personal explanation of a text. Moreover, why haven’t you answered any of the questions that point out the direct inconsistencies in your argument? I have asked you three questions, wandered has asked you a couple of things and you don’t answer them. Why?Because is so clear your argument is inconsistent that you can’t find an answer?

Again, what you say about JPII enciclica is contradictory to what the catholic church says. So not only your idea of one sided domination is rooted in sin but your entire idea of the catholicism is rooted in sin as is based on pride and the arrogance that we should believe you instead of what the CC or established church teaching says. Do not expect me to believe that what you a mortal sinner far away from being agonized is correct and what a person who is Blessed and at the border of canonization is wrong. Is like if you were asking me to go child playing pretend to be doctor to perform an appendix surgery instead of going to a surgeon. Go back, read, read the CC, read the links and bible quotes don’t bring any more Protestantism into the discussion, answer all the questions, understand that JPII knows.better than you, read about what an enciclica is and go and read what Jesus says about Pride.

 

[Litcrit]

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?

Say the breadwinner wife has a wonderful career opportunity that would greatly benefit the family and she wants to take it out of love for her family, but the husband doesn’t want to go for unspecified and thus irrational-sounding reasons?

 

[hurting]

Say the breadwinner wife has a wonderful career opportunity that would greatly benefit the family and she wants to take it out of love for her family, but the husband doesn’t want to go for unspecified and thus irrational-sounding reasons?

I’m glad brought this alternate example up (I was actually going to use a female bread-winner in the hypothetical. Again, who is called to submit to whom? Let us also further assume that there really are legitimate reasons for staying or going regardless of who the breads-winner may be.

 

[marymary1975]

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?

As I told you, it is almost imposible for me to assume loving intentions on the part of the husband as the purpose/final end s not loving. Remember end does not justify the means both have to be licit. A woman that kills her child who suffers from a painful disease to avoid the child suffering, despite of having a loving intention is still sining. In here his final purpose is selfish because is all about him, so even if he has the best of intentions his end is selfish. Therefore, no the wife doesn’t have to submit , as despite having good intentions his end is rooted in sin. However, if we change the hypothetical to a situation where his motive is different…as I did with the second one, then is another story.

 

[EasterJoy]

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…

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, I will hold him responsible for that, not you.”

Now, let us say that instead we have the situation describe by the Lord: “Who, then, is the faithful and prudent servant, whom the master has put in charge of his household to distribute to them their food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master on his arrival finds doing so. Amen, I say to you, he will put him in charge of all his property. But if that wicked servant says to himself, ‘My master is long delayed,’ and begins to beat his fellow servants, and eat and drink with drunkards, the servant’s master will come on an unexpected day and at an unknown hour and will punish him severely and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.” Matt. 24:45-51

Let us say that a wife has a husband who is a bad steward. Is she to just blindly do as he bids, keeping her mouth shut, and blaming him when the Lord returns? Of course not. She is, as we can all see “senior staff”. It is her responsibility to advocate for what she knows to be the dictates laid down by the master for household. She, in fact, is duty-bound to refuse to cooperate when he is abdicating the responsibility he was left with. Likewise, the husband is bound to act like Christ, being a servant and expecting to serve rather than to be served. Like the butler left in charge of a great estate, he is not to conduct himself as if he were the lord of the place, setting himself at the head of the table, taking his ease and helping himself to the choice foods that belong to the true lord. No, he is to work just as industriously as if the lord were obviously in residence. He is to place his own needs last, seeing to the rest of the household first. He will have a place of honor, yes, but that will be because of his fidelity in an unenviable job, not because he takes airs for himself. That is the model for the Christian household, not the model that some would have, where the butler gives himself airs and acts as if he owns the place. If the honor he gets is only the deference due to his position, and due to no fidelity of his, woe to him when the true Lord judges his service.

 

[hurting]

As I told you, it is almost imposible for me to assume loving intentions on the part of the husband as the purpose/final end s not loving. Remember end does not justify the means both have to be licit. A woman that kills her child who suffers from a painful disease to avoid the child suffering, despite of having a loving intention is still sining. In here his final purpose is selfish because is all about him, so even if he has the best of intentions his end is selfish. Therefore, no the wife doesn’t have to submit , as despite having good intentions his end is rooted in sin.

I am seriously unclear as to why you can not assume that the husband’s intentions would not be pure. The woman killing the child is a bad analogy.

The scenario I present is not uncommon at all and probably never has been.

 

[marymary1975]

Has the *wife *ever shown herself to be incapable of making important decisions that impact the family?

1. He is the breadwinner and she is a SAHM to a baby. The opportunity would give them more money in a better neighborhood. She doesn’t want to move because she doesn’t like change and she has just planted some flowers.
2. They both have steady jobs and she makes significantly more. His new job - which is a dream career for him - will bring a bit more money, but she won’t be able to find work there, so their income will effectively be halved. They have a dream house in a great neighborhood near both their families. Their five children are all in school and would be desperate if they had to be uprooted from their friends and cousins. They love Dad and understand his desire to pursue his dream job, but Mom just knows it is not practical at all and the entire family should not have to sacrifice like this.

Which gender stereotype do we prefer? The irrational childish wife and the strong leading husband? Or the pragmatic realistic wife who knows the needs of her family and the childish dreamer of a husband?

Or neither? Each human being is unique. Each couple is different and will find their own ways of coming to decisions together. If they both put Christ first and try to lovingly submit to one another, it’s going to be easier.

I like what you wrote in here, and I think these are the situations refered by Pope Leo where the submission will differ. Each couple is different and you have to look at each and every special circumstance. If they both try to submit and both try to take into account the best for the entire family, it us going to be so much easier. I personally had to take a moving decision with my fiancee in lieu of our wedding with three options. We both took the position of what is best for all of us and reviewing all pros and cons and letting it in the hands of God to guide our decision and can’t tell you how easy it was and how everything worked out one thing after the other. The problem with most people especially with the ones proposing one sided submission is that they are doing it as means to control you do what I want because I say so and I have a crown; this is rooted in sin in consequence is only going to bring more sin and more bad consequences. When you do things thinking in what is the best for everyone, out of love (as defined in the bible) and leave things to God things develop like one miracle after another.

 

[mommamaree]

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

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.

 

[Litcrit]

I’m glad brought this alternate example up (I was actually going to use a female bread-winner in the hypothetical. Again, who is called to submit to whom? Let us also further assume that there really are legitimate reasons for staying or going regardless of who the breads-winner may be.

Let’s then assume two identical hypothetical situations. A good job is offered to the breadwinner of the family, who wants to take it for the sake of the family, but the other spouse refuses to go. Everything is identical but the sex of the breadwinner.

According to those who believe the wife should always ultimately submit, it doesn’t matter what the objective situation is - if the breadwinner is male, the family will move. If the breadwinner is female, the family will stay put. Period.

This is incredibly arbitrary and seems as a perfect breeding ground for temptations. The husband, however wonderful, is tempted to always get his way and become conceited and selfish. The wife, however conscientious, serious, and hard-working, is tempted to give up trying to think about the well-being of the family and just abscond all responsibility, perhaps becoming indifferent and depressed.

 

[marymary1975]

I am seriously unclear as to why you can not assume that the husband’s intentions would not be pure. The woman killing the child is a bad analogy.

The scenario I present is not uncommon at all and probably never has been.

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?

 

[marymary1975]

Let’s then assume two identical hypothetical situations. A good job is offered to the breadwinner of the family, who wants to take it for the sake of the family, but the other spouse refuses to go. Everything is identical but the sex of the breadwinner.

According to those who believe the wife should always ultimately submit, it doesn’t matter what the objective situation is - if the breadwinner is male, the family will move. If the breadwinner is female, the family will stay put. Period.

This is incredibly arbitrary and seems as a perfect breeding ground for temptations. The husband, however wonderful, is tempted to always get his way and become conceited and selfish. The wife, however conscientious, serious, and hard-working, is tempted to give up trying to think about the well-being of the family and just abscond all responsibility, perhaps becoming indifferent and depressed.

Exactly and I just thought when Jesus said you will know them by their fruits, you know an Apple tree because it gives apples. You know actions and lesions are pure and good because the fruits are good if the fruits are bad then the action is sinful… if the result of the decision is a depressed wife, broken family, difficulties then the decision was had and not according to catholic teaching.

 

[mommamaree]

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 have been in this situation at least 10 times in 15 years of marriage. I always moved for the sake of my husband and his career…until this last time. I agreed, I moved, I did my best to manage the transition, I put a happy face on it, but me and the kids…well, we were suffering. I was deeply unhappy. I was overwhelmed. They missed their home and friends. My husband seemed okay. Until one day, I broke down and sobbed about how it all was really falling apart. I regretted submitting in this decision, and I told him so. He admitted his dissatisfaction as well, although his career kept him too busy to think much about it. He quickly made plans to move us back home as we had not yet sold our house. He was unable to move back with us. He changed to contract work temporarily, and was finally able to find employment back home before our baby was born. He has since been able to parlay all of that job-hopping and the move back home into a seriously high-paying position with a stable company. Because I was submissive all the times before, and because I stood firm this last time, I did my part to help him more than double his salary 10 years post-college.
I also set aside all my thoughts of a career at the outset. There was no way we could have built up his career and mine at the same time. And without using his strategy to climb the career ladder quickly, even our combined salary would have been far less. So I am glad I submitted to him. I have a sense of ownership in his prudent yet radical decisions that provided well for our family. But I am also glad to learn that it is my job to identify pitfalls and concerns, to ask questions, and sometimes, to just say no to my husband. How else would I help him to temper and overcome his faults?

 

[marymary1975]

I have been in this situation at least 10 times in 15 years of marriage. I always moved for the sake of my husband and his career…until this last time. I agreed, I moved, I did my best to manage the transition, I put a happy face on it, but me and the kids…well, we were suffering. I was deeply unhappy. I was overwhelmed. They missed their home and friends. My husband seemed okay. Until one day, I broke down and sobbed about how it all was really falling apart. I regretted submitting in this decision, and I told him so. He admitted his dissatisfaction as well, although his career kept him too busy to think much about it. He quickly made plans to move us back home as we had not yet sold our house. He was unable to move back with us. He changed to contract work temporarily, and was finally able to find employment back home before our baby was born. He has since been able to parlay all of that job-hopping and the move back home into a seriously high-paying position with a stable company. Because I was submissive all the times before, and because I stood firm this last time, I did my part to help him more than double his salary 10 years post-college.

Hurting, this is exactly what I was talking! Every single.situation that i have knowledge where the husband, even with good intentions, moved the wife and the kids around, and the wife did not agree, this was exactly what happened. The situation explodes one day everybody is unhappy and the decision caused trouble. Jesus said you would recognize it by its fruits! If the fruit was unhappiness and putting the marriage at a breaking point, then no she probably shouldn’t had followed her husband without questioning him. This is a good example because here obviously he had good intentions (as soon as he became aware his family was suffering he did the right thing) but this shows you that even with the best intention if you don’t take into account your family that is a problem. Jobs and careers can very easily become the masters of our life and we turn into our job’s slaves forgetting that there are other things more important than a career.

And.momamaree I am very glad that you stood firm the last time amd even happier to hear that your husband took the right decision. I can totally see that his career kept him too busy to notice it because that is normal human nature, we humans sometimes get so busy on something, we lose the focus of what really matters for being thinking about job and job and job, that we need someone else to shake our tree to realize what we are doing is not the best. I think you did a great job and should be very proud because instead of falling deeper into the problem you stood up and did the right thing. Good job

 

[EasterJoy]

Let’s then assume two identical hypothetical situations. A good job is offered to the breadwinner of the family, who wants to take it for the sake of the family, but the other spouse refuses to go. Everything is identical but the sex of the breadwinner.

According to those who believe the wife should always ultimately submit, it doesn’t matter what the objective situation is - if the breadwinner is male, the family will move. If the breadwinner is female, the family will stay put. Period.

This is incredibly arbitrary and seems as a perfect breeding ground for temptations. The husband, however wonderful, is tempted to always get his way and become conceited and selfish. The wife, however conscientious, serious, and hard-working, is tempted to give up trying to think about the well-being of the family and just abscond all responsibility, perhaps becoming indifferent and depressed.

No, it is not that simple. As I said, it is more like a situation where senior staff of two are left in charge of a company while the true owner is absent. Of course there is one person left in charge, but also of course the owner will want him to carefully consider the situations where he has sentiments that are totally against the sentiments of the companion left to run the place with him. The ultimate decision is his, yes, but it does not follow from that that he will always follow his own preference. He has to make the decision based on how it is actually going to work out for the organization as a whole, in keeping with the operational standards he has been left. He has to do what he thinks the owner would have him do, not as if he were the only decision-maker, but considering the situation with the staff that he has that was given to him for the purpose of helping him to decide how to run things.

The authority of the husband is always exercised with the understanding that he has stewardship of the household for the sake of the mastery of Christ. He has to work with what he has and with the “vision” of the one given to him to help him guide the household. He is not the master with a bunch of servants, one of whom is older and can make more money than the rest, but who is no more than a servant, all the same. No, he is the senior in a counsel of two of equal dignity and possible one in which the one not in the position of authority still has better common sense. On that account, he will sometimes (and maybe even usually, depending on the couple) do right to give in to his wife’s sense of things, because he sees that in practical terms this is most likely to lead to the best result.

 

[marymary1975]

Hello again marymary1975.

Our Church, dear sister, has always profited from the valuable services of women in the instruction of the faithful, nevertheless, women have always been excluded from the teaching and governing mandate of Holy Orders. The Holy Spirit, speaking through St. Paul, says: “I permit no women to teach or to have authority over men” (I Tim. 2: 12). Sacred Scripture is an “official source of the Church”, indeed a source which should, along with Sacred Tradition, be highly venerated by the faithful. A woman may well be a Doctor of the Church, but she still cannot teach and preach in the context of divine worship, in which women are not permitted to be authoritative teachers of doctrine as that would necessarily involve them in having authority over the men in the church. The public teacher of the faithful does not only tell others what they need to know, but in the capacity of such a teacher he stands before the assembly to rule and govern.

“Nowhere did Christ ever commission women to teach in His name and with his authority. St. Paul explicitly forbids women to attempt to exercise such functions (I Tim. 2: 11-12; I Cor. 14: 34). People who would ordain women in the Church seem to believe that they know more about Christianity than St. Paul” (Radio Replies, Fathers Rumble and Carty, Tan Books 1979, p. 78).

St. Paul, dear sister, says that it is the duty of men, not women, to rule and give instruction in the public assembly of the faithful and the reasons for this he adduces from Genesis where it is shown that man was first created and that woman was the occasion of his fall (see I Tim. 2: 11-15). This authoritative teaching from an “official source” has never been disowned by the Church and neither could it be since it is a part of divine revelation.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Portrait, I am going to back down a little here with you because I just realized you converted to catholism from anglicanism which totally totally explains why you are holding the view you have. Portrait you are mixing anglicanism and catholicism, at this point I don’t think you are doing it intentionally maybe you have been trained to think that way and now that you are catholic you are just confusing things. But I have to tell you, you steering on many things, wrong wrong wrong. The way anglican and Catholics see things is very very different and you need to erase the anglican tape from your head. You are confused on basic ideas from the churchs. I am going to particular address this issue because you obviously have no idea what a doctor of the church is. A doctor of the church is a “teacher of the doctrine” yes doctors of the church are teachers and they do teach the faithful. Their writings and views are considered teachings of the catholic church and anyone with the title of Doctor teaches and preaches. Saying that a woman can be a doctor but can’t teach and praise makes no sense, no sense at all because a doctor of the church teaches and preaches and that is why they have that title and not every saint has it. Doctors of the church have authoritative teaching of the doctrine and the catholic church has named four women as.doctors of the church which is one of the highest titles someone.in the church can get. Your view is wrong and comes from a concussion with non catholic religions. The reason why women can’t be ordained as priest has nothing to do with what st Paul said. I am going to go further because I realize tour problem is that you don’t know the fait well and have an anglican mindset but you need to correct that. Several Catholics are telling you here you are wrong, and is because if something. I really recommend you to learn the.catholic doctrine properly because you don’t know it and land on earth a little.

 

[Litcrit]

On that account, he will sometimes (and maybe even usually, depending on the couple) do right to give in to his wife’s sense of things, because he sees that in practical terms this is most likely to lead to the best result.

In practice, I interpret what you wrote to actually mean: it really depends on the couple, and, in some couples, the husband will actually always submit.

I tend to agree with you a lot because you are sane and intelligent.

In this case, I don’t even see a difference between what you are saying here, in practice, and what I’d like to see happening, in practice.