A
Avocadomom
Guest
Well that verse is just boring! It doesn’t seem to promote anything controversial or upsetting when taken out of context, therefore is decidedly dull message board fodder.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
These couple of threads began with a male OP quering what submission would look like in the face of irreconcilable conflict in marriage. It seems some feel submission should mean the same thing for a husband and wife as they are equal in every way except the genitals.Is submission one-sided or not? If it is one-sided, then what sense can we make of this verse:
Originally Posted by Eph 5:21
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
…which directly precedes the verses that others are focusing on here.
The side I support are those who say that man and woman are complimentary parts of the one flesh like the head and the heart and one submits by leading with love and the other submits by following with love because that is what God made them for.
A
Avocadomom
Guest
What about women who don’t have stereotypically feminine qualities, and are geared toward being more assertive, opinionated, independent, matter-of-fact — is there room for them in the paradigm you support?These couple of threads began with a male OP quering what submission would look like in the face of irreconcilable conflict in marriage. It seems some feel submission should mean the same thing for a husband and wife as they are equal in every way except the genitals.
The side I support are those who say that man and woman are complimentary parts of the one flesh like the head and the heart and one submits by leading with love and the other submits by following with love because that is what God made them for.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Avocadomom said:
“What about women who don’t have stereotypically feminine qualities, and are geared toward being more assertive, opinionated, independent, matter-of-fact — is there room for them in the paradigm you support?”
Good question.
“What about women who don’t have stereotypically feminine qualities, and are geared toward being more assertive, opinionated, independent, matter-of-fact — is there room for them in the paradigm you support?”
Good question.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Of course! Do you not think that there have been strong women in marriages who although deferring to the leadership of her husband, are strong, influential, vibrant independent and visible?What about women who don’t have stereotypically feminine qualities, and are geared toward being more assertive, opinionated, independent, matter-of-fact — is there room for them in the paradigm you support?
One of the problems is that some women think that expressing their strength justifies being dominent, nasty, insulting and demoralising to force their way in marriage… that’s just not a marriage made in the image of Christ and the Church.
A
Avocadomom
Guest
Thanks for responding! What I was also asking was - what if the woman is not suited to be the “heart” of a home? What if she is better suited to be a head? Not a nasty, shrill wife - but one who simply does not have “snuggly” qualities that someone characterized as the “heart” should have.Of course! Do you not think that there have been strong women in marriages who although deferring to the leadership of her husband, are strong, influential, vibrant independent and visible?
One of the problems is that some women think that expressing their strength justifies being dominent, nasty, insulting and demoralising to force their way in marriage… that’s just not a marriage made in the image of Christ and the Church.
As to leadership, I honestly can’t relate to the idea of only one spouse taking that role. I can’t even discuss the concept very well because the idea sounds so odd to me.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Avocadomom said:
“As to leadership, I honestly can’t relate to the idea of only one spouse taking that role.”
Yes–what’s to become of the family when the head is gone, which is all day long (and weeks or months or a year at a time for others)? What if dad dies? Is there suddenly no head? No leadership, no decisions being made? And if mom dies, is there suddenly no heart? One needs a bit more redundancy in a family system for it to function properly.
“As to leadership, I honestly can’t relate to the idea of only one spouse taking that role.”
Yes–what’s to become of the family when the head is gone, which is all day long (and weeks or months or a year at a time for others)? What if dad dies? Is there suddenly no head? No leadership, no decisions being made? And if mom dies, is there suddenly no heart? One needs a bit more redundancy in a family system for it to function properly.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
In your parish, what would you think if the pastor listened to no one else and paid no attention to expertise that his parishioners have that he does not? Yes, the business can get done, and it can even get done better if the pastor does not micromanage. Surely, the pastor would be out of bounds if he did not treat the faithful as adults and every bit as competent as human beings as he is–and in some areas, more competent than he is, since he cannot be an expert in everything! In some parishes, the pastor will literally not be the expert on anything, in terms of knowing the most about that topic in a scholarly or practical way. Yet is a parish without a pastor just a parish with no one to say Mass and hear confessions, and nothing more? I don’t think so.Avocadomom said:
“As to leadership, I honestly can’t relate to the idea of only one spouse taking that role.”
Yes–what’s to become of the family when the head is gone, which is all day long (and weeks or months or a year at a time for others)? What if dad dies? Is there suddenly no head? No leadership, no decisions being made? And if mom dies, is there suddenly no heart? One needs a bit more redundancy in a family system for it to function properly.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
It isn’t about what you do or what you are capable of doing, it is about *who you are *that makes you the head or the heart so to speak. Along the lines of you saying that you have all the qualities of a great father doesn’t make you a father and nothing can. You will only ever be the mother in the family.Thanks for responding! What I was also asking was - what if the woman is not suited to be the “heart” of a home? What if she is better suited to be a head? Not a nasty, shrill wife - but one who simply does not have “snuggly” qualities that someone characterized as the “heart” should have.
As to leadership, I honestly can’t relate to the idea of only one spouse taking that role. I can’t even discuss the concept very well because the idea s?ounds so odd to me.
This relates in a similar way to why a woman can’t be a Priest regardless of having all the qualities we might ascribe to a good Priest.
So in marriage, the recent question that was posed was how does this dynamic between the submission of the wife and husband manifest in reality? Much of the time it is never addressed in any depth until the couple have irreconcilable differences. Where the differences relate to opinion or preference, that is the time for a wife to defer to her husbands leadership of their family, not as an act of weakness… but as a mark of respect for the leadership role of husbands in the Christian family.
M
mommy_k
Guest
When reading some of the bible, we have to caution ourselves not to become like protestants, ie:Sola scriptura. We use the ten commandments, and ccc as well.
The ten commandments do not say: wives honor your husbands.
When ever a writing comes up that is not easily understood, we as Catholic are instructed not to put our own interpretation to it.
When in doubt, seek someone who has Church authority and ask-perhaps a deacon or priest.
A lot of St. Pauls writings were relevant at the time He wrote them.
We are all called to bring peace to a marriage using innate gifts from God.
The ten commandments do not say: wives honor your husbands.
When ever a writing comes up that is not easily understood, we as Catholic are instructed not to put our own interpretation to it.
When in doubt, seek someone who has Church authority and ask-perhaps a deacon or priest.
A lot of St. Pauls writings were relevant at the time He wrote them.
We are all called to bring peace to a marriage using innate gifts from God.
P
petra22
Guest
This is important and thanks for sharing. I heard somewhere that our biggest responsibility as being a spouse is to get our spouse to Heaven. If we aren’t trying to do that, then we’re not doing our job. And I know some people have a real struggle with “bad” spouses…People will twist the Holy Scriptures to justify just about anything. Sadly, this is one of those things some (I repeat some) people do this. Also, what people seem to forget is if the husband or wife is not fulfilling their roles as they should, but the other is, the first is to blame for their actions while the other is not. In other words, a bad husband or wife does not justify the other being bad in return. My godmother was a perfect and beautiful example of this. Her husband was not a good man for many years, but as a direct result of her being the wife she was called to be, he did become a good man and Christian. Had she not been the wife she was called to be, he would never have become a better person.
P
petra22
Guest
Yes, Jesus could have zapped anyone who disagreed with Him and turned them into a withered tree. But, He didn’t. He “loved” to a fault.Of course! Do you not think that there have been strong women in marriages who although deferring to the leadership of her husband, are strong, influential, vibrant independent and visible?
One of the problems is that some women think that expressing their strength justifies being dominent, nasty, insulting and demoralising to force their way in marriage… that’s just not a marriage made in the image of Christ and the Church.
X
Xantippe
Guest
EasterJoy said:
“In your parish, what would you think if the pastor listened to no one else and paid no attention to expertise that his parishioners have that he does not?”
We actually had two of those in a row after a well-loved and very prudent and capable pastor was reassigned. It was a financial and spiritual disaster for the parish and the damage is probably permanent and may well cause the closing of the parish. One or the other of the two bad pastors managed to blow through money that was supposed to be for a planned major repair. I believe there may have been serious mental health issues in both cases–but that was not initially clear. This all happened in the course of a single year–we had four pastors within the space of about four months.
It does happen.
“In your parish, what would you think if the pastor listened to no one else and paid no attention to expertise that his parishioners have that he does not?”
We actually had two of those in a row after a well-loved and very prudent and capable pastor was reassigned. It was a financial and spiritual disaster for the parish and the damage is probably permanent and may well cause the closing of the parish. One or the other of the two bad pastors managed to blow through money that was supposed to be for a planned major repair. I believe there may have been serious mental health issues in both cases–but that was not initially clear. This all happened in the course of a single year–we had four pastors within the space of about four months.
It does happen.
X
Xantippe
Guest
mommyk said:
“A lot of St. Pauls writings were relevant at the time He wrote them.”
More than that, we have it on fairly high authority that St. Paul’s writings are not crystal clear. I can’t find it at the moment, but St. Peter himself says something to that effect.
Oh, found it!
This is 2 Peter 3: 15-16
“And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”
I believe St. Peter is specifically speaking about salvation here, but the general principle holds–that one should not expect St. Paul to be perfectly clear.
“A lot of St. Pauls writings were relevant at the time He wrote them.”
More than that, we have it on fairly high authority that St. Paul’s writings are not crystal clear. I can’t find it at the moment, but St. Peter himself says something to that effect.
Oh, found it!
This is 2 Peter 3: 15-16
“And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”
I believe St. Peter is specifically speaking about salvation here, but the general principle holds–that one should not expect St. Paul to be perfectly clear.
A
Avocadomom
Guest
All the justifications, convoluted explanations and analogies given here remind me of a certain Orwell book… “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.”
To me, it is really no consolation to say “The male is the ultimate head of the family - but hey, at least he won’t abuse you! He might even give you respect and consult you when making decision!” Like the fact that he isn’t a tyrant makes it acceptable? I could never live in a family knowing that, when it came down to it, I was really number two or, in euphemistic terms - “the heart!”
But again, I really can’t relate to the idea of one spouse having the trump card for these so-called. “Permanent impasses.” I’ve just never had such a staunch disagreement with my husband.
To me, it is really no consolation to say “The male is the ultimate head of the family - but hey, at least he won’t abuse you! He might even give you respect and consult you when making decision!” Like the fact that he isn’t a tyrant makes it acceptable? I could never live in a family knowing that, when it came down to it, I was really number two or, in euphemistic terms - “the heart!”
But again, I really can’t relate to the idea of one spouse having the trump card for these so-called. “Permanent impasses.” I’ve just never had such a staunch disagreement with my husband.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Does it bother you that your bishop has authority that you don’t? That your pastor has authority that you don’t? Are elected officials and people with authority in government the only “first class” citizens? The principal has the ultimate authority at a school–does that make it impossible for self-respecting teachers to work there? Does it mean he or she has some right to be a tyrant? Do you think your children are second-class persons because you have responsibility over them? Are they second-class citizens at their school, or does the whole working of the school revolve around their welfare?All the justifications, convoluted explanations and analogies given here remind me of a certain Orwell book… “All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.”
To me, it is really no consolation to say “The male is the ultimate head of the family - but hey, at least he won’t abuse you! He might even give you respect and consult you when making decision!” Like the fact that he isn’t a tyrant makes it acceptable? I could never live in a family knowing that, when it came down to it, I was really number two or, in euphemistic terms - “the heart!”
But again, I really can’t relate to the idea of one spouse having the trump card for these so-called. “Permanent impasses.” I’ve just never had such a staunch disagreement with my husband.
There is no euphemism needed in order to find full dignity in a position that is in submission to authority. Essentially* every one of us* is in submission to somebody, after all! All of us depend on someone to act responsibly on the behalf of some unified effort we are a part of or some human organism that we are in. All of us in authority are bound to listen to those that we lead and ultimately to serve those we lead ahead of ourselves, to fully respect the wisdom they have to offer us in the burden of decision-making. Any of us who are in a submissive position to someone in authority but who is abusing his or her position have the standing to speak up about it, too. Abusers of authority may rightfully be made to account for themselves–that is no disloyalty, but a loyalty to the body they are supposed to be leading! This is just as true in marriage as with any other position of authority that God may give to someone, and probably more so, because there is no one in authority who is more under a burden to honor the trust put into him without fail than is a husband and a father.
Honestly, if submission cannot be reconciled with full and equal dignity, then the Trinity is an impossibility. It just cannot be, Jesus had to have been feeding us a line about what existed between Himself and the Father and the Holy Spirit, and that is all there is to it.
L
Luna_Lovecraft
Guest
I’m not married to my pastor or my bishop. I have a totally different relationship with them than I do my husband.Does it bother you that your bishop has authority that you don’t? That your pastor has authority that you don’t?
If I don’t like my elected officials, and I work to get them out of office. Bureaucrats work for someone else, and I can complain to that person if I feel as if I’m being mistreated. Besides, these are jobs, not vocations.Are elected officials and people with authority in government the only “first class” citizens?
Principals report to someone, whether that’s a superintendent, the school board, or the board of regents. Teachers can and do have somewhere to go if they’re dissatisfied with their working conditions. If the situation at a school site is truly intolerable, they will teach elsewhere.The principal has the ultimate authority at a school–does that make it impossible for self-respecting teachers to work there? Does it mean he or she has some right to be a tyrant?
Ultimately, the people who control a school site are the parents whose children attend the school. If they’re unhappy with the principal, that person isn’t going to last long. I’ve seen it happen many times in my career.
There’s no outside human force who’s going to improve my marriage if I’m dissatisfied with it, unless my husband also is dissatisfied and both wants and is able to improve things. I can’t take my marriage elsewhere like I can take my career.
The concept of citizenship/rights in this context doesn’t apply to children because they’re minors. However, citizenship and rights do very much apply to their parent/guardian, who will vociferously defend those rights if they’re kids are not having their educational needs met.Do you think your children are second-class persons because you have responsibility over them? Are they second-class citizens at their school, or does the whole working of the school revolve around their welfare?
On the other hand, I am an adult and very much deserve to be treated like one.
My husband isn’t my bishop or pastor. He’s not my principal or president of my school board. He’s not my parent. He’s my husband, and he needs to treat me like the adult woman and life partner that I am.
A
Avocadomom
Guest
It does not bother me when someone else has earned a position of authority or expertise that I don’t have. I just don’t think that having certain genitalia means you’ve earned any additional authority in my marriage.Does it bother you that your bishop has authority that you don’t? That your pastor has authority that you don’t? Are elected officials and people with authority in government the only “first class” citizens? The principal has the ultimate authority at a school–does that make it impossible for self-respecting teachers to work there? Does it mean he or she has some right to be a tyrant? Do you think your children are second-class persons because you have responsibility over them? Are they second-class citizens at their school, or does the whole working of the school revolve around their welfare?
There is no euphemism needed in order to find full dignity in a position that is in submission to authority. Essentially* every one of us* is in submission to somebody, after all! All of us depend on someone to act responsibly on the behalf of some unified effort we are a part of or some human organism that we are in. All of us in authority are bound to listen to those that we lead and ultimately to serve those we lead ahead of ourselves, to fully respect the wisdom they have to offer us in the burden of decision-making. Any of us who are in a submissive position to someone in authority but who is abusing his or her position have the standing to speak up about it, too. Abusers of authority may rightfully be made to account for themselves–that is no disloyalty, but a loyalty to the body they are supposed to be leading! This is just as true in marriage as with any other position of authority that God may give to someone, and probably more so, because there is no one in authority who is more under a burden to honor the trust put into him without fail than is a husband and a father.
Honestly, if submission cannot be reconciled with full and equal dignity, then the Trinity is an impossibility. It just cannot be, Jesus had to have been feeding us a line about what existed between Himself and the Father and the Holy Spirit, and that is all there is to it.
Essentially, you keep saying “But the husband/leaders are NICE to their wives! They listen to their (name removed by moderator)ut! They consider their thoughts and feelings!” as though this were some sort of consolation. I hear you that good leaders are not tyrants and do seek outside opinions as needed. I get it. I just don’t want that in my home. I do not agree that the wife HAS to be subject to the husband in order for the household to be godly or healthy. I do not agree that God made my husband the ultimate authority in my home. Luckily, we are very happy to share the job as complete equals in authority.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
This is where they tell you something or other about the husband being accountable to God. I’ll touch on the chattel slavery based on race aspect later, but you see a hint at it here: the slaves kept working with hope for a reward in Heaven. This was an easy way to cop out on actually achieving justice in this life.Principals report to someone, whether that’s a superintendent, the school board, or the board of regents. Teachers can and do have somewhere to go if they’re dissatisfied with their working conditions. If the situation at a school site is truly intolerable, they will teach elsewhere.
I don’t think they would disagree that you are an adult. They would simply say that you are less of an adult than your husband, based on your gender. They would then go on to explain how this is not sexist at all. Because God made it that way.On the other hand, I am an adult and very much deserve to be treated like one.
Now, of course, similar arguments were made to justify chattel slavery based on race. Some races are more adult than others. That would not be racist because, as their predecessors would note, God made it that way. If you peruse the race-related threads on this forum, you can see little hints of the past, of their American predecessors. Not allowing racist remarks to go unchecked is considered fascistic, anti-Catholic.
It is indeed a hard thing to come to grips with. When you consider the evidence, a female can be just as competent as a male.
Just a lesser kind of adult. Casti Connubii suggests that females are not to be treated like children in a marriage, but a step above that. Because females have dignity. Again, just not quite as much or perhaps “a different kind of dignity” which essentially translates into not quite as much, anyway.My husband isn’t my bishop or pastor. He’s not my principal or president of my school board. He’s not my parent. He’s my husband, and he needs to treat me like the adult woman and life partner that I am.
A
Avocadomom
Guest
They are supposed to be happy to be “the heart!” You know - an important organ, but it just kind of beats under the direction of the brain. Women should feel fortunate to be the heart and not HAVE to carry the heavy load of being “the head.”This is where they tell you something or other about the husband being accountable to God. I’ll touch on the chattel slavery based on race aspect later, but you see a hint at it here: the slaves kept working with hope for a reward in Heaven. This was an easy way to cop out on actually achieving justice in this life.
I don’t think they would disagree that you are an adult. They would simply say that you are less of an adult than your husband, based on your gender. They would then go on to explain how this is not sexist at all. Because God made it that way.
Now, of course, similar arguments were made to justify chattel slavery based on race. Some races are more adult than others. That would not be racist because, as their predecessors would note, God made it that way.
It is indeed a hard thing to come to grips with. When you consider the evidence, a female can be just as competent as a male.
Just a lesser kind of adult. Casti Connubii suggests that females are not to be treated like children in a marriage, but a step above that. Because females have dignity. Again, just not quite as much or perhaps “a different kind of dignity” which essentially translates into not quite as much, anyway.
Kind of like how women were once told, often by their own kind, that they shouldn’t want the burden of having to vote. Oh, those poor poor men having to make such big decisions! Let’s leave them to it and get on with our needlework!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.