Do Women Belong to Their Fathers Until They Get Married?

[Lea101]

It’s easy to pick certain aspects, compare two societies and then announce it was better. In this case, one is focused on things that weren’t accepted then vs now.

When you take a step back though, you would see that it’s probably better to live in 2020 (well ignoring the pandemic of course) than the past because of things that we don’t really stop to think about. Technology, education, freedom, medicine, travel, human rights. As a non white woman for example, I would definitely live today than back then. I would rather raise a family here than back then, where my children could easily die from something that’s preventable now. It’s easy to romanticise the past because most people then would agree with you on certain beliefs.

There’s actually a book about this that a couple of libertarian friends recommended to me but I can’t remember the title at all, if I remember it I will edit it.

 

[redcatholic]

That is a really good point. Though I feel a father has authority over his children and even to some extent his wife spiritually the idea that at 18 the son somehow doesn’t need authority or it reverts to the Church makes zero sense if that doesn’t apply to a daughter just by virtue of different genders. I’m uncomfortable with that type of sexism as a father to both sons and daughters.

 

[Lea101]

Though I feel a father has authority over his children and even to some extent his wife spiritually the idea that at 18 the son somehow doesn’t need authority or it reverts to the Church makes zero sense if that doesn’t apply to a daughter just by virtue of different genders. I’m uncomfortable with that type of sexism.

Exactly. This topic immediately became gendered the moment we brought daughters in specifically, so it’s only fair to focus on the difference between authority over son vs daughter. As we know, the church doesn’t make that distinction.

But to answer your question, I guess the hesitation over a father vs a priest is because of the person’s qualification. Priests go through seminary and are ordained before they become priests, fathers marry and have at least one fun night before they become fathers.

This isn’t to say that all priests have it right while all fathers have it wrong, it’s just not surprising to see someone who will place more weight on what a priest says about spiritual matters. Priests are “professionals” in that sense.

For example, you would listen more to a doctor about a health issue than your wife who claims she knows you more. She may be right this time, but you would listen more to the guy who actually studied this very area.

At the end of the day, we don’t blindly obey a priest or a husband or a father. Back then maybe, when we didn’t have the printing press to see scripture and the catechism for ourselves. But now we have information at our fingertips. If your husband and priest says to use condoms and not NFP, you can easily go online and see actual Church teaching, and then disobey both people.

 

[Montrose]

You don’t like his view so you flagged the thread? Do you speak for all women? Does he speak for Catholics?

He thinks he speaks for all Catholics and even said I was not a Catholic because I disagreed with him. I am a faithful Catholic.
His views on women are extreme and have no place in this day and age. Saying that women who don’t stay at home and care for their children are terrible frankly is a despicable comment to make and certainly reflects his negative views about women in general.

I agree with the flagging of this thread.

 

[redcatholic]

I think the danger of romanticizing goes both ways. Sure many people probably don’t really know what it was like back in the day but similarly we tend to think we are smarter and better than many many wise generations before us. An example is that never before has there been a comprehensive immediate ability to garner any information on any subject at any time. But talk to someone without their phone or tablet or computer near by and it just might be that the illiterate, poor and diseased crippled person that lived in the 1800s and had a life span of 40 years might have been more knowledgeable or more moral, of course they might have been horrible too. When I read the writings of the great minds of history or the saints, they rarely have a contemporary in the modern era Despite knowledge, technology and literacy and health.
What is a greater work of art? The Sistine chapel, or kill bill volumes 1 and 2?

 

[Lea101]

I think the danger of romanticizing goes both ways

This is true.

An example is that never before has there been a comprehensive immediate ability to garner any information on any subject at any time. But talk to someone without their phone or tablet or computer near by and it just might be that the illiterate, poor and diseased crippled person that lived in the 1800s and had a life span of 40 years might have been more knowledgeable or more moral, of course they might have been horrible too.

But this brings me back to my earlier point. When you boil it all down to one area, it’s hard to actually see which is comparatively better. The past may be better for X, the present may be better for Y.

One would need to take several steps back and see the big picture. I feel like most people who said the past is better wouldn’t survive a day because they failed to take into account the little things that make life easier and could actually aid in our spiritual life.

For example, I mentioned the Internet to see actual Church teaching. The past may shun certain things, but if your parish is corrupted, you’re done for.

But of course, I would also be falling into the same trap of looking at things up close.

When I read the writings of the great minds of history or the saints, they rarely have a contemporary in the modern era Despite knowledge, technology and literacy and health.

I don’t know if it’s fair to compare. They gave us a foundation to work on. It wouldn’t be fair to expect an equivalent because we use the very foundation that only the past can give us. That’s how philosophy and science work, isn’t it? We use existing knowledge to find out more. We are also so bombarded with everything that our breakthroughs in research or whatever is simply isn’t that exciting anymore.

What is a greater work of art? The Sistine chapel, or kill bill volumes 1 and 2?

It also isn’t fair to take the best of something to compare it with the worst of something, but I’m guessing you’re being facetious

 

[redcatholic]

You have a much better trust and view of priestly formation than I do. However. Both my wife and I converted, before marriage, I was her sponsor, we grew in faith together, both received theology degrees (which are useless) and have helped formed and befriended men who are now priests while they were in seminary or discerning. It’s fair to say that when it comes to SOME Catholic theology we are far more knowledgeable than a new or even a veteran priest. I recently helped our parish priest learn how to do a baptism in the extraordinary form. As the father of many children I instruct them day in and day out and form them in the faith. Father does not. And more than once I’ve had to say to them, “ no, our parish priest is wrong, what he told you was wrong and what he is doing is wrong”. That’s my authority. And far more formation has gone into my own conversion than most priests have in seminary. But it shouldn’t be a contest of who is smarter or who could win a saint trivia game. Someone has authority. And in my opinion too few parents, or spouses claim it.

 

[Elizabeth3]

I agree with the flagging of this thread.

Wouldn’t it be better to just flag a post rather than the whole thread? Why shut the whole discussion down over one or two questionable comments? Other people are still discussing various aspects of the topic.

 

[redcatholic]

I think the thread got out of control. Hopefully it’s back on track!

 

[redcatholic]

I think the past was better, but I also called a plumber recently because my outdoor faucet looked “weird” and I couldn’t remember if it was always that way or not. A 600 dollar stupid tax that if I lived 300 years ago I know I couldn’t have survived! I am a good shot though… but I’m not good with a sword… but maybe if I was born into it… oh man, this is hurting my head.

 

[Lea101]

It’s fair to say that when it comes to SOME Catholic theology we are far more knowledgeable than a new or even a veteran priest.

“ no, our parish priest is wrong, what he told you was wrong and what he is doing is wrong”.

That would be because you are probably well read on certain issues, not because you’re a father. Which is basically my point. The reason why you can step in and say don’t listen to that priest is because you have the knowledge that your priest doesn’t have.

In other words, dad can’t step in and say “father John is wrong. You can have as much sex as you want with your boyfriend” simply because he has more authority than the priest. No, he can’t do that because he’s spouting nonsense.

Similarly, your child can look at you and say “Dad, you’re wrong. I’m not going to do this because it’s a sin.”

The authority is no longer binding when false teachings are concerned, basically. You being able to go against the words of your priest has nothing to do with the fact that you have more authority than a priest. It has something to do with the fact that your priest said something wrong, and as someone who knows the truth through your own education and access to information, you can step in and say something because you’re the next in line…so to speak. Which is why the Church has said wives can have authority if their husbands fail. Same thing with fathers when priests fail, I guess.

As the father of many children I instruct them day in and day out and form them in the faith. Father does not.

You seem to have a negative view of priests in general though. While your priest isn’t raising your child, it doesn’t mean you automatically know more about spiritual matters.

 

[redcatholic]

But it does mean I know what my children believe how they learn, what they think, how they pray, and what they need far more than our priest.

I wrote out more examples but I deleted them. I don’t want to turn this into anecdotes. But yes, let’s say that I’ve been scandalized by some pretty bad priests. And when people dismiss that and say that it Is rare that it’s like that I wonder, because I’ve been around. I’ve seen greatness and I’ve seen terror.

 

[Lea101]

To bring the post back to its main point, the answer is simple.

Fathers don’t have authority over their adult daughters in a way that they don’t have over their adult sons.

Fathers giving away their daughters in wedding is just a cute thing that people do today, and it is not required to have a valid marriage in a Catholic Church.

That being said, my household completely ignores this. I’m an adult woman and I need to ask permission from my dad if I’m sleeping over or if I want to go overseas. My adult brothers don’t have to do that. Even though we all stay in the same house (Asian culture).

It’s frustrating and the only way I can have total freedom is if I move out completely and have a FT job or get married. Even then I’m sure my dad would try to see if he could still control me. So right now, it’s all about breaking the chains at a slow pace.

So while individuals like him may disagree, it doesn’t change the fact that the Church doesn’t require “extra authority” for daughters specifically.

Adult daughters are just as free as adult sons. That’s all.

 

[Lea101]

But yes, let’s say that I’ve been scandalized by some pretty bad priests. And when people dismiss that and say that it Is rare that it’s like that I wonder, because I’ve been around. I’ve seen greatness and I’ve seen terror.

I don’t think it’s rare. I just don’t think it’s particularly relevant.

That’s like if I tell you fathers in general don’t have more authority over their wives because there’s a lot of terrible ones out there. It may be relevant when we’re figuring out the specifics (e.g. Don’t obey when husbands do XXX).

It’s not helpful when we’re talking about the concept of authority in general.

It’s hard to respond because I don’t exactly know the scenario you have in your mind.

If it’s something neutral like your priest telling your kid to pray in a certain manner and you know it’s not helpful for them and you tell them to pray in another manner, I mean go ahead honestly.

If you’re referring to priests recommending something sinful, my point is simply that you have authority in this case because of their incompetency, not because you’re a dad and they must listen to you and not their priest. It doesn’t mean your kids should always go to you first before a priest.

Your kids can choose to go to a priest about an issue if they feel comfortable with it, and it’s not wrong for them to do so and they’re not defying you. If that helps to clear things up.

 

[twf]

This I can agree with. The father’s spiritual authority to bless his children would extend into adulthood I believe. But this would apply to sons and daughters. And yes a father can bless his children (and probably his wife as well) in a way that a friend or other relative cannot… bless them, not simply pray for them.

 

[babochka]

The father is the spiritual head of the household because he is (or should be) the living icon of Christ. The same applies to the husband.

Most men have abdicated their responsibility as spiritual head of the house, leaving it to the wife or mother to teach the Catholic Faith to the children.

Now if the father is non-Catholic and the mother is Catholic, it becomes harder to teach the children the Faith. Why? Because they don’t have their father’s example.

What about the case of a grown daughter who lives alone and is no longer a part of her parents’ household? What about a widow?

 

[hope]

If I understand you correctly, because he doesn’t agree with you and you feel he has extreme views that his comments should be censored. BTW I don’t agree with him but I do not agree that somehow his remarks should be censored either. Flagging this thread would include your remarks and mine.

 

[Montrose]

Flagging this thread would include your remarks and mine.

Someone else flagged the thread. I just happen to agree with that. Yes the thread could be deleted. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over that.

 

[babochka]

Question;

Would Catholicism within a culture that arranges marriages require that part of the culture be abolished, then? Or could it accommodate?

As long as the ultimate decision n to marry (or not) belongs to the couple, arranged marriages are not a problem. This happens frequently in India, even among Catholics. Families approach families, the couple meets and spends time together, then decides if the match is acceptable.

 

[babochka]

Why would the woman not be under the authority of a priest or bishop while she is unmarried, yet no longer living with her father? How can you explain how a man leaves his father’s authority when he is no longer a part of his father’s household, but a woman does not ? And what if she becomes a widow? Does she revert to her father’s suthority? And if her father is also deceased, what then?