Does Catholic submissive promote women to be weak and passive?

[EasterJoy]

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.

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.

It is a little rude to reduce a person to his genitalia. Your womanhood is your genitalia, and nothing more? I think most women would say that a man who would say that sort of thing has a few things to learn about women and is grossly lacking in his appreciation of women, to put it kindly. Consider that perhaps that standard goes both ways.

Our Lord told Pilate, “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” (John 19:11a) Do you think the Pope earned his place as the Vicar of Christ? Do you think a priest can* earn *the priesthood? No, there was a position of authority, and someone is chosen.

Your husband has the burden of authority in your marriage, for which he will be answerable. Unlike a parish, a wife chooses her husband, though–in the case of a Christian, with the guidance of God, one hopes! You chose your husband, you put that authority onto him. You two can make decisions in your marriage in any way you see fit. If you chose someone for that position because he will make decisions with you in complete equality, and this satisfies you both, then that is good! I would very strongly suggest that everyone who marries is on the same page about this! There is nothing wrong with that, and it is no one else’s business. Your attitude towards him as a man, though, I would venture to say that it is sorely lacking, and nothing of the sort that women would accept if it were coming from a man.

(I would also examine the prejudice that a person with authority over you must have “expertise that I don’t have” or must have “earned it” in your estimation in order for your submission to their authority to be fitting. Who are you, that you cannot accept direction from anyone unless the choice of whoever gave them that position happens to suit you?)

 

[EasterJoy]

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.”

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!

Ah, I see your prejudice. The only real authority is democratically-elected authority, is that it? That is the only way God may legitimately confer authority, is by letting the people elect those who will rule over them, yes? Only someone who thinks themselves an inferior would submit to an authority they didn’t get to choose themselves, is that it, and even in that case decision-making authority should not be given to someone else except when there is a practical necessity to have centralized decision-making?

Do I have you wrong? Am I missing something?

 

[Avocadomom]

It is a little rude to reduce a person to his genitalia. Your womanhood is your genitalia, and nothing more? I think most women would say that a man who would say that sort of thing has a few things to learn about women and is grossly lacking in his appreciation of women, to put it kindly. Consider that perhaps that standard goes both ways.

Our Lord told Pilate, “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above.” (John 19:11a) Do you think the Pope earned his place as the Vicar of Christ? Do you think a priest can* earn *the priesthood? No, there was a position of authority, and someone is chosen.

Your husband has the burden of authority in your marriage, for which he will be answerable. Unlike a parish, a wife chooses her husband, though–in the case of a Christian, with the guidance of God, one hopes! You chose your husband, you put that authority onto him. You two can make decisions in your marriage in any way you see fit. If you chose someone for that position because he will make decisions with you in complete equality, and this satisfies you both, then that is good! I would very strongly suggest that everyone who marries is on the same page about this! There is nothing wrong with that, and it is no one else’s business. Your attitude towards him as a man, though, I would venture to say that it is sorely lacking, and nothing of the sort that women would accept if it were coming from a man.

To some extent, yes, The Pope did earn his place, as did my priest. It may very well be the will of God that they have those positions, but each went to school, seminary, and performed well in previous positions in order to be selected for top roles. Francis would never have been chosen had be been a beggar on the road or a clerk at the 7-11.

I chose my husband very wisely. He is a wonderful man and father. I certainly don’t reduce him to genitalia. The idea that a “man is the leader simply because he is the man” seems more reductive to me. In our case, we are both equipped to share the role and we do. It works. I can say with confidence that we will never divorce.

I do understand your perspective. Really, I get it. I am of the opinion that men should be able to support a family financially without the wife having to work outside the home. I know that opinion is VERY controversial and upsetting to some. Many people can’t imagine asking their husband to support the family alone. I kind of just think that is the man’s role. But I also get that not everyone agrees and not everyone is capable of making that happen. We all have our “things” - that’s mine. Your thing might be wifely submission.

 

[EasterJoy]

To some extent, yes, The Pope did earn his place, as did my priest. It may very well be the will of God that they have those positions, but each went to school, seminary, and performed well in previous positions in order to be selected for top roles. Francis would never have been chosen had be been a beggar on the road or a clerk at the 7-11.

I chose my husband very wisely. He is a wonderful man and father. I certainly don’t reduce him to genitalia. The idea that a “man is the leader simply because he is the man” seems more reductive to me. In our case, we are both equipped to share the role and we do. It works. I can say with confidence that we will never divorce.

I do understand your perspective. Really, I get it. I am of the opinion that men should be able to support a family financially without the wife having to work outside the home. I know that opinion is VERY controversial and upsetting to some. Many people can’t imagine asking their husband to support the family alone. I kind of just think that is the man’s role. But I also get that not everyone agrees and not everyone is capable of making that happen. We all have our “things” - that’s mine. Your thing might be wifely submission.

Yes. I think we disagree, if we disagree at all, in semantics only.

If you and your husband read this whole thing in a way that produces a harmonious marriage, I do not foresee Heaven having any problem with that. Since I believe that to be the case, how can I have a problem with that?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

It is a little rude to reduce a person to his genitalia. Your womanhood is your genitalia, and nothing more? I think most women would say that a man who would say that sort of thing has a few things to learn about women and is grossly lacking in his appreciation of women, to put it kindly.

Irony = someone who considers women to be inferiors by virtue of their gender saying “you’re lacking in your appreciation of women.”

Your husband has the burden of authority in your marriage, for which he will be answerable. Unlike a parish, a wife chooses her husband, though–in the case of a Christian, with the guidance of God, one hopes! You chose your husband, you put that authority onto him. You two can make decisions in your marriage in any way you see fit.

Except if he changes his mind about how to make decisions within the marriage, in which case you’re out of luck.

Your attitude towards him as a man, though, I would venture to say that it is sorely lacking, and nothing of the sort that women would accept if it were coming from a man.

Her attitude towards him as a man is lacking because she dares to put herself on an equal footing in their marriage, but his attitude is not lacking if he places himself above her? Got it. Tell me more about how this isn’t oppressive towards women.

(I would also examine the prejudice that a person with authority over you must have “expertise that I don’t have” or must have “earned it” in your estimation in order for your submission to their authority to be fitting. Who are you, that you cannot accept direction from anyone unless the choice of whoever gave them that position happens to suit you?)

Yet it’s just fine if a husband thinks that way, isn’t it?

AvocadoMom:

I do understand your perspective. Really, I get it.

Really? Explain it to me, then. BTW, I happen to be a man, so if I disagree with you then we all know what that means.

 

[mommy_k]

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.

Thank you for the scripture reference!

Iam following 2 threads on this topic, so here is also something interesting:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_vows

Look under Christianity.

The word ‘obey’ is not in Catholic wedding vows.The word is in Anglican wedding vows, as king george added them for the bride to say.

Princess Kate wanted them left out.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

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.”

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!

Have you read what Dominionist leaders propose? The idea of repealing the 19th Amendment and disenfranchising women is alive and well in the US.

 

[Avocadomom]

Really? Explain it to me, then. BTW, I happen to be a man, so if I disagree with you then we all know what that means.

I get it because I have some controversial views about men and women that others might find shocking. I don’t agree that men are the “head” of a family by virtue of their being male, nor that women must be the “heart” of the family. But, I do understand the perspective. And at the end of the day, whatever makes the spouses content in their union is good. I look at that show “Sister Wives” and think - why on God’s good Earth would you EVER want to share your husband with other women?! To not have him come home to you and your babies every night? I feel like that is just the ultimate slap in the face. But you know - those women chose that life, they seem to be mostly happy and raising very decent kids. So - I get that people are looking for different dynamics than the one I enjoy. I don’t have to understand it or agree, but I do get that my marriage is not the only way to get it done.

 

[Avocadomom]

Have you read what Dominionist leaders propose? The idea of repealing the 19th Amendment and disenfranchising women is alive and well in the US.

Do I even want to know? Luckily, I doubt such things will ever come to pass.

 

[estesbob]

Anyone who was privileged to be taught by Nuns knows the answer to this question is no.

 

[EasterJoy]

Irony = someone who considers women to be inferiors by virtue of their gender saying “you’re lacking in your appreciation of women.”

Except if he changes his mind about how to make decisions within the marriage, in which case you’re out of luck.

Her attitude towards him as a man is lacking because she dares to put herself on an equal footing in their marriage, but his attitude is not lacking if he places himself above her? Got it. Tell me more about how this isn’t oppressive towards women.

Yet it’s just fine if a husband thinks that way, isn’t it?

Really? Explain it to me, then. BTW, I happen to be a man, so if I disagree with you then we all know what that means.

She is on an equal footing. He is not to place himself above her. You have given the Gospels more than a cursory reading, have you not?

They came to Capernaum and, once inside the house, he began to ask them, “What were you arguing about on the way?” But they remained silent. They had been discussing among themselves on the way who was the greatest. Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.” Taking a child he placed it in their midst, and putting his arms around it he said to them, “Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but the one who sent me.” Mark 9:33-37

You could read that for a wedding, it would work very well. If you find submission to one that you did not choose to have authority over you or that you haven’t judged to be your “better” to be inherently demeaning, or if you think that being given authority somehow makes you the “better” of those you have been given to lead, I’m not sure how well the system going on in Heaven is going to work out for you. That is the system that the Gospels are selling, and indeed it is the system Christians believe is ordained by the very nature of God.

 

[Sarcelle]

Have you read what Dominionist leaders propose? The idea of repealing the 19th Amendment and disenfranchising women is alive and well in the US.

Yes, Dominionists are also called Christian Reconstructionists. They also believe in the Old Testament type of punishment such as stoning for adulterers and homosexuals, and also for apostasy. Catholics will probably be on their list to stone.

They also believe in only giving landowners or property owners the right to vote, which also disenfranchises a lot of men.

According to them, the country’s downfall began when women got the right to vote.

 

[Sarcelle]

She is on an equal footing. He is not to place himself above her. You have given the Gospels more than a cursory reading, have you not?

They came to Capernaum and, once inside the house, he began to ask them, “What were you arguing about on the way?” But they remained silent. They had been discussing among themselves on the way who was the greatest. Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.” Taking a child he placed it in their midst, and putting his arms around it he said to them, “Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but the one who sent me.” Mark 9:33-37

You could read that for a wedding, it would work very well. If you find submission to one that you did not choose to have authority over you or that you haven’t judged to be your “better” to be inherently demeaning, or if you think that being given authority somehow makes you the “better” of those you have been given to lead, I’m not sure how well the system going on in Heaven is going to work out for you. That is the system that the Gospels are selling, and indeed it is the system Christians believe is ordained by the very nature of God.

I agree. The greater the authority, the more the need and demand for humility. This is a purely Christian concept.

 

[LongingSoul]

To some extent, yes, The Pope did earn his place, as did my priest. It may very well be the will of God that they have those positions, but each went to school, seminary, and performed well in previous positions in order to be selected for top roles. Francis would never have been chosen had be been a beggar on the road or a clerk at the 7-11.

I chose my husband very wisely. He is a wonderful man and father. I certainly don’t reduce him to genitalia. The idea that a “man is the leader simply because he is the man” seems more reductive to me. In our case, we are both equipped to share the role and we do. It works. I can say with confidence that we will never divorce.

But by other topics you’ve discussed you have to concede that your view of the Popes authority is limited to what you agree with is Gods will… not what the Pope or the Church in their holy and scholarly wisdom decree for the edification of a Catholic soul.

Authority by the nature of the word, involves submitting to the laws decreed that serve the common good of the group being served. Authority is actually a concept of service not tyrannical domination. The catechism makes a distinction between false authority and legitimate authority. Authority is such an important aspect when it comes to be responsible for the common good of a group, that across time and cultures the concept of treason has warranted a death sentence.

I do understand your perspective. Really, I get it. I am of the opinion that men should be able to support a family financially without the wife having to work outside the home. I know that opinion is VERY controversial and upsetting to some. Many people can’t imagine asking their husband to support the family alone. I kind of just think that is the man’s role. But I also get that not everyone agrees and not everyone is capable of making that happen. We all have our “things” - that’s mine. Your thing might be wifely submission.

Working women has nothing to do with it and in the examples of families that I’ve used, all the women are enjoying careers after having raised their babies into school. They are great examples of the biblical model in the 21st century world. They are even fiery women with opinions and attitudes about everything. They would not submit to male domination if their life depended on it.

When people are placed in a position of divorce or making a go… there are two types of attitude that make or break. Being open to the natural and divine forces that bind in marriage, gives people a perspective on agape love and the richness of loving another more than you love yourself, for the sake of the marriage and the family. It is utterly impossible to see this without suffering with genuine godly humility, but to witness a couple put themselves in such a place has always brought tears to my eyes.

From there and there alone is the biblical dynamic revealed as a glorious communion between a man and woman rather than a battle of a submissive wife and a dominant husband.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

Do I even want to know? Luckily, I doubt such things will ever come to pass.

It might not ever be legislated, but there are lots churches, big churches, where women are strongly encouraged to either to not register to vote or to give their ballots to their husbands so they can vote for them.

My MIL’s entire family is devoutly Pentecostal. (Although she, FIL and BIL are Atheists, I and my step-daughters are Catholic, and my husband is agnostic. We’re little more than a pack of unwashed heathens to those folks.) Over dinner one time my MIL’s sister and her daughter bragged that that neither had ever cast a ballot because Jesus.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

She is on an equal footing. He is not to place himself above her. You have given the Gospels more than a cursory reading, have you not?

They came to Capernaum and, once inside the house, he began to ask them, “What were you arguing about on the way?” But they remained silent. They had been discussing among themselves on the way who was the greatest. Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.” Taking a child he placed it in their midst, and putting his arms around it he said to them, “Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but the one who sent me.” Mark 9:33-37

The relationship you describe between a husband and a wife is akin to that of a parent and a child. Why does the parent have more authority, more freedom? Because the parent has more responsibility. Why does the husband have more authority, more freedom? Because the husband has more responsibility.

The key difference is that in the case of a male child, he can one day become an adult. But for a wife? She will never be adult. She will never be entrusted with the freedom, the authority, the responsibility. So in essence, by virtue of her birth as a female, she will always be a lesser being: incapable of wielding either the authority or the responsibility of a male. Does it matter what kind of character she has? No, not at all. She’s just a woman. Does it matter how intelligent, how capable, how effective she might become through hard work and dedication? No, she will always be a female. This is not different but equal or separate but equal, it is different and unequal.

How do you look at a backwards worldview that treats adult women as perpetual children and ignore the mounting evidence against its conclusions? How do you not cry out for the dignity of women?

You could read that for a wedding, it would work very well. If you find submission to one that you did not choose to have authority over you or that you haven’t judged to be your “better” to be inherently demeaning, or if you think that being given authority somehow makes you the “better” of those you have been given to lead, I’m not sure how well the system going on in Heaven is going to work out for you. That is the system that the Gospels are selling, and indeed it is the system Christians believe is ordained by the very nature of God.

Tell me how one comes to possess just authority over another. Note before answering that being born with the correct anatomical parts will be treated as it deserves to be treated: the same as being born with the right skin color.
Luna Lovecraft:

It might not ever be legislated, but there are lots churches, big churches, where women are strongly encouraged to either to not register to vote or to give their ballots to their husbands so they can vote for them.

Yes. Again, because the idea is that women are perpetual children. When the topic of feminism comes up, many of them say they oppose it because of abortion, contraception, etc. Yet, their ideological ancestors did nothing to further the cause of feminism when it comes to women’s suffrage, or the fight against marital rape or sexual harassment or for equal pay and so on. So what does that tell you?

 

[LongingSoul]

Yet, their ideological ancestors did nothing to further the cause of feminism when it comes to women’s suffrage, or the fight against marital rape or sexual harassment or for equal pay and so on. So what does that tell you?

I’m sorry. You are a typical insular American who thinks what you know is the whole of the history of the world. That might be the American experience but definitely not the Australian experience of the womens movement. You should check out our leading light ladies for womens rights here. Caroline Chism (who is actually listed on the calendar of saints) and Mary McKillop who is our first saint.

When you discuss on an international board with such doggy doo of an assertion, be prepared for a major broadside buddy. :nunchuk:

 

[EasterJoy]

The relationship you describe between a husband and a wife is akin to that of a parent and a child. Why does the parent have more authority, more freedom? Because the parent has more responsibility. Why does the husband have more authority, more freedom? Because the husband has more responsibility.

The key difference is that in the case of a male child, he can one day become an adult. But for a wife? She will never be adult. She will never be entrusted with the freedom, the authority, the responsibility. So in essence, by virtue of her birth as a female, she will always be a lesser being: incapable of wielding either the authority or the responsibility of a male. Does it matter what kind of character she has? No, not at all. She’s just a woman. Does it matter how intelligent, how capable, how effective she might become through hard work and dedication? No, she will always be a female. This is not different but equal or separate but equal, it is different and unequal.

How do you look at a backwards worldview that treats adult women as perpetual children and ignore the mounting evidence against its conclusions? How do you not cry out for the dignity of women?

Tell me how one comes to possess just authority over another. Note before answering that being born with the correct anatomical parts will be treated as it deserves to be treated: the same as being born with the right skin color.

Yes. Again, because the idea is that women are perpetual children. When the topic of feminism comes up, many of them say they oppose it because of abortion, contraception, etc. Yet, their ideological ancestors did nothing to further the cause of feminism when it comes to women’s suffrage, or the fight against marital rape or sexual harassment or for equal pay and so on. So what does that tell you?

Do you think that the person who is “last of all and servant of all” has the most freedom? I think the problem here is that you cannot make yourself let go of a secular view of authority.

Again, give the Gospels more than a cursory reading. The Twelve were not “qualified” to be Apostles. The scribes and the teachers of the law were passed over, and the Twelve were chosen. Did Our Lord praise Peter for recognizing him as the Messiah? No. He said, “Blessed are you, because God has revealed this to you.” Peter did not earn his position. It was *given *to him.

The Scriptures are full of this! Moses was chosen, even though he objected: “If you please, LORD, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past, nor recently, nor now that you have spoken to your servant; but I am slow of speech and tongue.” (Ex. 3:10) What did God do? God gave him his brother, Aaron, to speak for him. Aaron was not co-leader with Moses. Moses had the authority. Should Aaron have been insulted, that his brother, the inferior speaker, was chosen and Aaron was not? Do you not yet see?

If you don’t, oh well. I’ve done my best. Either you will need someone else’s explanation, or you’ll have to learn it on some other day.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m sorry. You are a typical insular American who thinks what you know is the whole of the history of the world. That might be the American experience but definitely not the Australian experience of the womens movement. You should check out our leading light ladies for womens rights here. Caroline Chism (who is actually listed on the calendar of saints) and Mary McKillop who is our first saint.

When you discuss on an international board with such doggy doo of an assertion, be prepared for a major broadside buddy. :nunchuk:

Patience, patience!

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’m sorry. You are a typical insular American who thinks what you know is the whole of the history of the world. That might be the American experience but definitely not the Australian experience of the womens movement. You should check out our leading light ladies for womens rights here. Caroline Chism (who is actually listed on the calendar of saints) and Mary McKillop who is our first saint.

When you discuss on an international board with such doggy doo of an assertion, be prepared for a major broadside buddy. :nunchuk:

And what exactly does a “typical American” look like? Do tell.

This has to be one of the most bigoted posts I’ve ever seen, and it’s over a very innocent mistake that is made by lots of people on these forums all the time. A simple, “Actually, I’m from Australia and here…” would have been more than sufficient.

And more to the point, VLM was responding to Luna’s post about American churches that encourage women not to vote. Their ideological ancestors didn’t contribute to women’s rights. American Protestantism is really a culture all it’s own, and it has been since American colonialism.