Does Catholic submissive promote women to be weak and passive?

[LongingSoul]

Patience, patience!

ha ha. Takes a deep breath. You can take a girl out of Aus but you can’t take the Aussie out of the girl.

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

I’m sorry. It was over the top and impulsive. It is a bigger problem than you might realise though.

 

[sallybutler]

A woman is still responsible for her behavior. If her husband instructs her to do something that is illegal, immoral, or fattening , she is required to not do it.

 

[Xantippe]

Avocadomom said:

“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.”

I think there are ways of doing this that aren’t necessarily problematic.

For instance, a constitutional monarchy, as exemplified by Elizabeth II is a rather different thing than the sort of monarchy exemplified by Henry VIII or Ivan the Terrible. Elizabeth II is a monarch and is treated with loving respect by her subjects, but she’s not going around saying, “Off with their heads!” like the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland.

I think it’s possible to have the sort of family that respectfully treats the husband and father as head, but at the same time recognizes that (just as with constitutional monarchs), his power is not unlimited. Just as with any legitimate authority, his power has limits–there are things he cannot legitimately ask for.

This may sound like a technicality, but I certainly find that it’s helpful to have a polite fiction at home of dad as constitutional monarch and court of last appeal. (I think my mom did this when I was a kid, and it worked pretty well.) I’m not totally consistent with this, but it’s helpful (when beset by children) to be able to say, “I guess we’ll have to talk to your father about this when he comes home.” By shoring up dad’s authority with the children, I may be reinforcing the kids’ idea of their parents as being united in ruling over our little kingdom. By not fighting with their dad (not totally perfect at this!) and being respectful, I am reinforcing our mutual parental authority. (This applies to his attitude to me as well, naturally.) I’m not going to get more respect from my mouthy tween then she hears me giving her father.

So to a certain extent, this is a matter of self-preservation when one is outnumbered by children.

A few more things:

1. As I mentioned earlier, special knowledge should give extra votes. If mom is a tax lawyer, she should get a little more say in the family’s tax arrangements (but not complete say). If the couple is buying a car that mainly mom will be driving, mom should get more votes on the type of vehicle, but not carte blanche with regard to amount of money spent. If mom is the one reading child development books and talking to other parents and teachers and observing a child at school, she should get extra votes. If dad is the one in charge of electronics, he should have extra votes with regard to which to buy (but not an unlimited budget). If dad is making dinner, he should get a free hand in deciding what dinner should be. And so forth. I think this sort of division happens fairly naturally in busy families. (In one of my less virtuous moments, I’ve thought that one of the ways to cure a controlling spouse would be to painstakingly involve them in every decision of the day until they crack under the pressure and just tell you to follow your own judgment.)
2. This is somewhat related–I think that authority comes with responsibility. To the extent that we are responsible for something, we acquire authority over it. Even just with our children, I have a tween who is getting to be rather handy around the kitchen. As long as she cleans up after herself, I’m feeling more and more comfortable about letting her do cooking projects with a high degree of autonomy, as she is showing more and more responsibility. The same principle applies to adult spouses even more. I would not question my husband if he said, “We need a blah blah blah to fix the whatchamacallit,” because he is responsible for fixing whatchamacallits, and I’m sure he knows what he’s doing. I enjoy a similar level of autonomy in disposing of the family clothing budget.
3. I believe in doing a monthly budget meeting as a binding contract for family expenditures and for planning long-term expenses and doing so on a fairly egalitarian basis, but with the exceptions in #1 and #2.
4. Lastly, I think that every workable family system depends on the spouses involved being reasonably virtuous. An egalitarian family (and mine is day to day, pretty egalitarian) can work if the spouses are virtuous and reasonable. And a more traditional family can work if the spouses are virtuous and reasonable. As long as both are virtuous and reasonable, you can make almost anything work. But if neither is virtuous or reasonable, no system is going to work.

 

[Sarcelle]

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?

Your argument has merit when it comes to Dominionists. However the Catholic Church has not taught that women should be regarded as perpetual minors. Nor has the Church taught that women should be abused.

 

[EasterJoy]

…This has to be one of the most bigoted posts I’ve ever seen…

Is that really true?

 

[Sereta]

No-we are all called to be peacemakers in marriage.

A strong, confident woman can be gentle, tender, and display feminine traits. This is a strength too. One is not exclusive of the other. It is a more controlled strength, as a matter of fact, for some.

Sometimes the need to prove confidence through domination, for both women and men, is a sign of weakness, insecurity, pride and so on.

We are l called to use our innate gifts God gave us to have peace and a balanced marriage.

I agree that any sex acting domineering is a sign of those negative things.
It appears to me though,that the Bible,including Pauls letters the Church directly say that God made a hierarchy and that men are higher then women.
That’s quite unsettling because countries that believe in inequality have higher rates of violence towards women.

 

[severus68]

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:

It is the Catholic univeral Church. Most of the Catholics in the world are not from the US and certainly not from Australia. I have family in Australia and certainly have nothing against it but
you are bordering on rudeness and being personal.

 

[Sereta]

Women are not weak. Nor should they ever be expected to portray weakness for the benefit of their marriage and their husband. A women is different from a man but she is every bit as strong and capable as any man and I don’t recall any Catholic teaching that suggest women are the weaker sex.

Maybe it’s because I’m in the military myself but I can’t stand this comparison because of what it means. My husband has made this comparison and I’ve shot it down quickly based on what it implies.
Sure, the second in command is powerful and capable. He/she wouldn’t be the second in command if they weren’t.

However, the second in command is still under the complete and total authority of the commander. That is how the chain of command works in the military. If the commander makes a decision, even if it’s a horrible decision that negatively impacts the welfare, morale and general well-being of his troops, the second in command has no choice but to follow it. He/she can try to persuade the commander in his/her opinion but if the commander’s mind has been made up…that is it, there is no room for change.

I just cannot accept this concept within a marriage. A commander’s opinion or decision is never questioned by his subordinates, regardless of how bad or detrimental it is. One can only hope that the commander is removed from his position and replaced and that isn’t up to the second in command to make that decision if he/she finds the commander inept or inadequate at his job. As skilled, capable, smart and talented as the second-in-command is he is still under the total authority of the commander.

Another thing to consider is that the chain of command is set up in such a way that all officers are higher up then anyone who is enlisted. That means, technically, a second LT (the lowest on the chain-of-command of the officers) is still higher up then the E-9 (the highest of the enlisted). Someone who is a second LT is typically fresh out of college, totally new to the military and under the age of 24. An E-9 is always 20 plus years in with multiple deployments, is twice the age of that second LT and has clearly paid his dues and then some.
A smart LT would never tell any E-9 what to do. Unless he/she wants to be totally chewed out by the commander, who was probably having lunch with the E-9 and it came up in conversation.

Thankyou.
You explained it much better than I would have and your explanation regarding military rankings was enlightening.
To me, Commander and second in command military positions seem to parallel what the Bible says about husband/wife and it appears to me that is how many Catholics model their relationships.
But to me this is unsettling because it means second in command (wife) must be compliant and passive to whatever commander (husband) says.
Unless it is sinful of course.
But I still can’t see a weak,passive mindset as being healthy in life.

 

[TK421]

If being submissive entails weakness and passivity, then Jesus Christ was weak and passive.

Outside of the marriage issue, I’m sure we’ve all known people who were never submissive in situations. Odds are, we didn’t like them very well.

An obsession with doing everything your way is a sign of moral weakness, not strength, because you simply follow all of your preferences like a mindless nerve twitching whenever it is touched. What’s so hard about doing everything your way? Absolutely nothing. It is always through submission, which involves self-control and compromise, that we show strength. This is something that everybody needs to learn if they wish to be a good spouse. It is not exclusive to the female sex.

 

[severus68]

I agree that any sex acting domineering is a sign of those negative things.
It appears to me though,that the Bible,including Pauls letters the Church directly say that God made a hierarchy and that men are higher then women.
That’s quite unsettling because countries that believe in inequality have higher rates of violence towards women.

I quoted St JP II in another thread. It is not the Church, it is some Catholics, sadly even some women.

JPII in his MULIERIS DIGNITATEM:

"The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.

In relation to the “old” this is evidently something “new”: it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is “old”: what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.49

The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The “innovation” of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: “In Christ Jesus… there is no more man or woman”, but also wrote: “There is no more slave or freeman”. Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?"

 

[Sereta]

So, you just don’t want to be told what to do, especially by your husband, and are looking for loopholes to justify how wrong it is for a woman to be subjected to the authority of her husband? You should have thought about that prior to marriage.

You seem unaware of how the chain of command really works. For instance, if discipline breaks down within the unit in some way, who is held responsible for that, the second in command or the Commanding Officer? The senior officer in charge and sometimes that’s a person who has absolutely no immediate oversight on the incident. That is why generals are relieved when some E-4 commits a heinous incident. In the same way, who is responsible in the family for that family? The husband, so don’t you think if the responsibility is his he should probably have some measure of control over the family? It only makes logical sense; however, that control is directly supported or hindered by the wife. That is her choice to make.

BTW - I have seen many junior officers give orders to senior enlisted personnel. It’s their job. The enlisted personnel can and should provide guidance and a good officer listens, but it’s ultimately the officers decision. And if you had even been involved in a staff meeting, you would realize how wrong you are about questioning seniors decisions. It can sometimes get downright nasty, but once the door opens, whatever order was given gets followed.

I understand this wasnt addressed to me and I’m not trying to be contentious,but personally I don’t believe anyone should have control over anyone else in life even including parents as parents,mum or dad,who attempt to have control over their child,often it backfires andends up a recipe for disaster.
However,I think “control issues” is a different topic then marriage roles and gender
inequalities.
I hear your concerns about the commander(father) being held responsible but isn’t it more the case,that in America at least,by law,either parent/sex can be held responsible.
Eg:if a mother knowingly supplied drugs for her underage child she would be the one prosecuted,not the father.

 

[severus68]

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?)

As Catholics, the Pope, our bishop and parish priests have authority over us because we have chosen to submit.
While priests act in the place of Christ at certain times, not all other men act in the place of Christ. How do you then say a husband has authority over his wife.

 

[Xantippe]

On reflection, I think it’s worth thinking about, “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord” and what sort of things Jesus asked of people. We see him asking the Samaritan woman at the well for water and we see him instructing his disciples to procure a donkey for his entry into Jerusalem and we see him asking people to follow him, but we do not see him making self-serving or self-indulgent requests.

 

[Xantippe]

Sereta said:

“…but personally I don’t believe anyone should have control over anyone else in life even including parents as parents,mum or dad,who attempt to have control over their child,often it backfires andends up a recipe for disaster.”

So, when a two-year-old reaches for a knife or fire or poison, we should just let natural consequences educate them?

 

[EasterJoy]

As Catholics, the Pope, our bishop and parish priests have authority over us because we have chosen to submit.
While priests act in the place of Christ at certain times, not all other men act in the place of Christ. How do you then say a husband has authority over his wife.

The pastor is the head of his parish generally, not just when he says Mass. It is hardly guaranteed that he will always do so without sullying his witness out of human frailty, although that is the ideal. The bishop, likewise, is the shepherd of his diocese. He does not function as a ceremonial figurehead, but truly has authority over the life of the Church in his diocese.

The Church’s concept of marriage includes the concept that Christ intended for the husband to be the head of the family, a living image of Christ and His Body, the Church. If the sacrament of baptism constitutes consent to the authority of all the bishops that the Pope will appoint over you for your lifetime, how is it that the sacrament of marriage does not constitute consent to the Church’s concept of authority in marriage? After all, you were free to choose to neither marry nor become a member of a religious congregation, and totally free to choose your husband for yourself, without any coercion whatsoever! And has anybody asked how it is the husband got stuck being the last of all and the servant of all, and not the wife?

Otherwise, you must mean by the faithful freely choosing to submit to their bishop nothing other than the adult freedom in which a wife freely chooses to submit to the husband in the position of leadership in their home.

 

[severus68]

Sereta said:

“…but personally I don’t believe anyone should have control over anyone else in life even including parents as parents,mum or dad,who attempt to have control over their child,often it backfires andends up a recipe for disaster.”

So, when a two-year-old reaches for a knife or fire or poison, we should just let natural consequences educate them?

The poster was referring to adult children as the thread is about wives.

 

[Sereta]

I presume you are referencing the passage from Ephesians 5 where it says “Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord” (v. 22). What seems to be almost universally overlooked by those who are uncomfortable with the passage is the verse that immediately precedes that one: “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ” (v. 21).

That is the interpretive key to the whole passage. I would disagree that neither husband nor wife should be submissive. The truth is, both husband and wife should be submissive to each other. That’s what Ephesians 5 is all about.

One could say many things about my wife, but “passive” and “weak” are not two words anyone who has ever met her would use to describe her.

Yes,but it clearly says "for the husband is the head of the wife (as Christ is the head of the Church) and also (as the Church is subject to Christ) so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands.

If the husband is the head,that inadvertently puts women is a weak and passive position and means there’s no marriage equality and that husband is “higher” than wife because the wife should be subject to husband in everything.
In addition,this breeds a general mindset that men are greater on the hierarchy then women.
My parents come from an overseas Catholic country where this mindset is prevalent in culture and theres alot of domestic violence.
It’s not always violence,but generally if the husband is in an enraged temper it’s not acceptable for the woman to speak back.

In a

 

[severus68]

The pastor is the head of his parish generally, not just when he says Mass. It is hardly guaranteed that he will always do so without sullying his witness out of human frailty, although that is the ideal. The bishop, likewise, is the shepherd of his diocese. He does not function as a ceremonial figurehead, but truly has authority over the life of the Church in his diocese.

The Church’s concept of marriage includes the concept that Christ intended for the husband to be the head of the family, a living image of Christ and His Body, the Church. If the sacrament of baptism constitutes consent to the authority of all the bishops that the Pope will appoint over you for your lifetime, how is it that the sacrament of marriage does not constitute consent to the Church’s concept of authority in marriage? After all, you were free to choose to neither marry nor become a member of a religious congregation, and totally free to choose your husband for yourself, without any coercion whatsoever! And has anybody asked how it is the husband got stuck being the last of all and the servant of all, and not the wife?

Otherwise, you must mean by the faithful freely choosing to submit to their bishop nothing other than the adult freedom in which a wife freely chooses to submit to the husband in the position of leadership in their home.

I assume by “you”, you are not referring to me personally.

I have quoted JPII in both threads wherein he said it is not a one sided subjection but a mutual one. He went on at length about how Christ came to change this subordination of women which was the result of the Fall.

So are you saying a woman either has to give over authority to her husband or become a nun, or remain single? So a woman not called to be a nun but called to marriage must be penalised for not being willing to submit to her husband and remain single the rest of her life? What a terrible view of Catholicism. Thankfully, not true.

Your whole arguement is on the basis that a husband (or do you mean all men?) is like Christ.

Quoting Paul on a husband to be willing to die for his wife, to justify subjection is ridiculous. The women I know will die for their families to save them. So will the men I know.

 

[Sereta]

Sereta said:

“…but personally I don’t believe anyone should have control over anyone else in life even including parents as parents,mum or dad,who attempt to have control over their child,often it backfires andends up a recipe for disaster.”

So, when a two-year-old reaches for a knife or fire or poison, we should just let natural consequences educate them?

No,of course you prevent a child
getting hurt.
That’s not being controlling,that’s just good parenting.
I was only specifically referring to the notion of being controlling or having “control issues”.
Eg:some parents attempt to still control their adult childrens decisions regarding life.
Or sometimes if a dad tries to control a teenage daughter and forbid her from dating a certain boy instead of guiding her,communicating with her,telling her the reasons why he’s not happy with her dating him etc…
if he just “controls her” and says “I forbid it” sometimes the teen rebels and it drives her more to the boyfriend.
These sort of situations etc…
A good parent will guide,discipline,teach etc but that’s different from being “controlling”.