B
bmullins
Guest
I think it varies from relationship to relationship. In all of those areas that you mention only one person making the decisions, are all areas that my wife and I would likely discuss with each other first.
- Status
T
tafan
Guest
8 kids, work, etc; I can’t imagine finding time talking about those decisions all of the time
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I think that rather than base decision-making on genitalia a better way to do it is through compromise, evaluating who has more to lose if the decision turns out wrong, and deferring to the person with the most knowledge in the area.
Example: My fiance gets to do the budget. I agree to live by it, and if there is an issue I’ll bring it up and he’ll rework it. This is not me submitting to him because he’s a man, this is me acknowledging that I am marrying a very educated and skilled accountant. Budgets are what he does, and he’s good at them.
When it comes to where to live, if course he gets (name removed by moderator)ut, but I have veto power, and he agrees to live with it. Why? Because I’ve worked in housing for years. I know what to look for in a house or apartment. I understand financing, mortgages, leasing, and what to physically look for in a home far better than he does. There’s no way I’m deferring to him if we disagree.
I also know far more about cars than he does, so naturally I take the lead on buying and repairing cars. Its not emasculating, it’s just me using my talents and knowledge to our benefit.
When it comes to computers and technology I tell him what I want in a product and then let him take over. He knows far more about it than I do, and it will turn out better if I let him take over.
Lets say that neither of us are experts. Compromise compromise compromise! In the case of moving to a new city, who has the most to lose? Who will have a harder time finding a new job? Is one spouse going to have an especially hard time leaving their elderly parents behind? Will a country boy be able to adjust to LA?
If it gets to the point where one person is claiming to have the final say then the couple has failed at communication, compromise, and selflessness.
Example: My fiance gets to do the budget. I agree to live by it, and if there is an issue I’ll bring it up and he’ll rework it. This is not me submitting to him because he’s a man, this is me acknowledging that I am marrying a very educated and skilled accountant. Budgets are what he does, and he’s good at them.
When it comes to where to live, if course he gets (name removed by moderator)ut, but I have veto power, and he agrees to live with it. Why? Because I’ve worked in housing for years. I know what to look for in a house or apartment. I understand financing, mortgages, leasing, and what to physically look for in a home far better than he does. There’s no way I’m deferring to him if we disagree.
I also know far more about cars than he does, so naturally I take the lead on buying and repairing cars. Its not emasculating, it’s just me using my talents and knowledge to our benefit.
When it comes to computers and technology I tell him what I want in a product and then let him take over. He knows far more about it than I do, and it will turn out better if I let him take over.
Lets say that neither of us are experts. Compromise compromise compromise! In the case of moving to a new city, who has the most to lose? Who will have a harder time finding a new job? Is one spouse going to have an especially hard time leaving their elderly parents behind? Will a country boy be able to adjust to LA?
If it gets to the point where one person is claiming to have the final say then the couple has failed at communication, compromise, and selflessness.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
As Dan pointed out, let’s keep this about Church teaching, not Biblical passages. Unless you’re willing to entertain the nearby passages in Col that speak of more ahem “traditional” forms of slavery which the Church condemns! I don’t think we should get into a discussion like this, because I can easily find Biblical statements that you ignore or violate in daily life. We are concerned with Church teaching.
Dan Daly:
That passage is obviously talking about traditional forms of slavery, perhaps not chattel slavery as we knew in the U.S. thousands of years later, but something similar in terms of the relationship between master/slave. I’m going to be charitable and continue to assume that you do not believe that human beings should be bought or sold and treated as property. (Perhaps you feel that daughters are “property” of their fathers, but I’m sure you reject the idea of buying and selling a person, right?)
C
Catholic90
Guest
All this me glad I am no longer married!
C
ChiRho
Guest
yes, overwhelming charity!
L
Luna_Lovecraft
Guest
Well put, BlueEyedLady. All the best for a long, healthy, thriving marriage.
Luna
K
Kelfa28
Guest
Both my Fiance and I are in the military.
He makes this comparison about marriage.
On paper, a 24 year old Second Lieutenant, who has been in the military for 2 years, has more rank then a 45 year old Sergeant First Class, who has been in the military for 27 years.
The SFC will take order from an LT but any good LT will know to respect and ask for advice from the SFC whenever he/she can. If the LT can’t he/she will be regarded as a poor LT.
He makes this comparison about marriage.
On paper, a 24 year old Second Lieutenant, who has been in the military for 2 years, has more rank then a 45 year old Sergeant First Class, who has been in the military for 27 years.
The SFC will take order from an LT but any good LT will know to respect and ask for advice from the SFC whenever he/she can. If the LT can’t he/she will be regarded as a poor LT.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
It is a good analogy (although imperfect like all analogies) and I have been in those relationships. I fully agree. A good Lt knows that his Staff NCOs know a lot more than he does. However, a good Lt also knows that he is ultimately responsible, and that if he fails “well my staff nco told me to do that” is not a valid excuse (Just as “my wife told me to do that” didn’t work out well for Adam). Furthermore, if the staff NCO gets an order from the Lt that he thinks is unwise, but legal. The Staff NCO will try subtlely or nonsubtely to persuade the Lt to change his mind. If he is unsuccesful in this, and the Lt insists, a good Staff NCO will execute the order, even if the thinks it is a dumb one. Additionally, a very good Staff NCO will keep his opinion that the order is dumb purely between himself and the Lt and not allow a rift to develop or any conflict to become public…which can only undermine them both.
Again, a marriage is not a military relationship (although we are both in the Church Militant), it’s not a perfect analogy, but there is a lot to learn about each type of relationship from the other.
Pax Christi
Again, a marriage is not a military relationship (although we are both in the Church Militant), it’s not a perfect analogy, but there is a lot to learn about each type of relationship from the other.
Pax Christi
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
Church teaching and Scripture are not exclusive of one another. While we are not the authoritative interpreters of Scripture, growing in our knowledge of it can help us understand Tradition just as knowing Tradition helps understand Scripture.
I hope Father of Twelve does post more Scripture passages.
Pax Christi
A
Art321
Guest
There really seems to much confusion when it comes to this topic. I would encourage the series known as The Domestic Church, which gives the Church’s teaching very clearly so once you see it there will be no more confusion. It is on the ewtn religious catalogue and here is the link:
ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/THE+DOMESTIC+CHURCH±DVD/shop.axd/ProductDetails?keywords=marriage&page_no=2&edp_no=16420
ewtnreligiouscatalogue.com/THE+DOMESTIC+CHURCH±DVD/shop.axd/ProductDetails?keywords=marriage&page_no=2&edp_no=16420
T
tafan
Guest
Would you mind posting a brief synopsis? I would be interested.
I will say again, if one is to love their wife as Christ Loved the Church; one must allow her authority in certain matters and be willing to abide by that authority. That in no ways contradicts the idea of the husband being the head of the family or the wife being submissive to the husband.
I do not accept the idea that the husband must be the final decision maker on matters which the two cannot come to an mutual agreement. Neither do I accept that the husband even needs that much of a say on all matters. The inverse is true also.
S
severus68
Guest
I agree. Of course , since hers is a non Christian marriage, it will not be of any importance to some here and her views will be considered just a secular view of marriage. However, her view of marriage is what a good Christian marriage as between the relationship between husband and wife is about.Well put, BlueEyedLady. All the best for a long, healthy, thriving marriage.
Luna
JPII said it so clearly. The domination of women is about sin, the result of the Fall. That passage in Genesis is not God giving a direction to men to have dominion over women but a statement of a consequence of the Fall. With Christ and our redemtion by His sacrifice, God’s plan has been made clear.
For a long time, not that distant a time ago, there were human beings who thought slavery was fine, that black men were lesser beings. Some of the things thought were that they were child like needing a firm hand, that they needed looking after - this from the kinder slave masters.
While I am not saying that those who say the submission of women/wives while biblically ordained is about treating your wives like slaves, the point is that it is still about considering women as a little less, loved, fed well, not beaten, but needing men to lead them.
M
mini_me640
Guest
It isn’t possible for Truth to contradict Truth, so somehow the New Testament, 1900+ years of Church teaching and the writings of JPII have to fit together. The Church could not have gone from teaching the husband is the head of a marriage to teaching there is no head. It just can’t be. It is entirely possible for a husband to be the head without “dominating” his wife. If a husband loves God and his wife the way he is supposed to, he can lead his family unselfishly. Loving someone does not always mean doing exactly what they want all the time. I agree with some prior comments that if a husband has to pull the “submit to me” card in decision making there has been a failure in communication and compromise by the couple. However, sometimes the compromise may need to be the wife willingly choosing to submit even if she does not totally agree. Obviously not to do anything immoral or detrimental to the family, but in other matters where the two cant see eye to eye.
I believe JPIIs writings on the dignity of women are more about condemning abuse of God given authority by men over the years than about eradicating the idea of male authority in marriage. Just because an authority is abused at times does not mean that authority is not legitimate. Also I think in the past many times people carried over the idea of male headship in marriage into other areas. Just because a husband has been given authority over his wife does not mean that men have authority over women outside of marriage.
I also want to comment on one post that suggested that the idea of male authority in marriage indicated that women are weaker and need to be cared for. I disagree with this. I think God’s design for marriage helps men and women overcome some of their natural weaknesses. Giving a man a strong responsibility caters to his need to be useful and forces him to mature and settle down to protect and care for his family. Asking a woman to submit helps her set aside much of her pride and desire to manage everything. It is all designed to help us grow in holiness. And if God asks us to do it, He will surely give us the grace we need. As the saying goes, God doesn’t call the equipped, he equips the called.
I believe JPIIs writings on the dignity of women are more about condemning abuse of God given authority by men over the years than about eradicating the idea of male authority in marriage. Just because an authority is abused at times does not mean that authority is not legitimate. Also I think in the past many times people carried over the idea of male headship in marriage into other areas. Just because a husband has been given authority over his wife does not mean that men have authority over women outside of marriage.
I also want to comment on one post that suggested that the idea of male authority in marriage indicated that women are weaker and need to be cared for. I disagree with this. I think God’s design for marriage helps men and women overcome some of their natural weaknesses. Giving a man a strong responsibility caters to his need to be useful and forces him to mature and settle down to protect and care for his family. Asking a woman to submit helps her set aside much of her pride and desire to manage everything. It is all designed to help us grow in holiness. And if God asks us to do it, He will surely give us the grace we need. As the saying goes, God doesn’t call the equipped, he equips the called.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
S
severus68
Guest
Look at the history of the world. It took until the 20th century for women to have basic rights. Men have dominated the world, they still do for the most. The attitude, the ‘culture’ needs to change as JPII said writing in the 20th century. Repeating a wrong over and over does not make it right. The current Catechism does not say that women or wives should submit so those for this proposition have to refer to the Catechism of the Council of Trent produced in the 16th century and to no infallible saying, of much earlier popes.
BTW, I do think your description of the nature of men and women as your explaining why the submission of women is God’s design., sounds somewhat insulting to both men and women, to me. On that sentence of yours that I bolded, some here do believe that too.
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
As I have pointed out before Severus, if you reject the Catechism of Trent as outmoded, outdated, and teaching errors in faith and morals, then you reject the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well. The CCC not only quotes the Catechism of Trent (cited as the Roman Catechism) 20 times, it explicitly endorses it as a most sure guide to the Christian faith. Furthermore, the Catechism of Trent is actually a more authoritative Catechism than the CCC because it was the product of a full council of the Church.
The idea that the Church has been absolutely wrong in a teaching of faith and morals for almost 2000 years and has just recently come to its senses is totally unCatholic. It is in fact Modernism, a condemned heresy.
Your arguments are rife with contradictions. You claim to revere the authority of Pope John Paul II, but seem to deny the authority of every Pope between Peter and JPII.
On one hand you say that male headship of the family is oppressive and equivalent to slavery. On the other hand you say that those women in this thread, who believe their husbands are the head of the family can do that and be happy if they want, but it’s not for you. Well which is it? Is submitting to your husband a viable option based upon personal opinion or is it oppressive slavery?
This website is called Catholic Answers. We should strive to give answers that are CATHOLIC. You have been shown Scripture, Catechisms, and Papal Encyclicals all of which clearly state that the husband is the head of the family and a wife is to submit to his authority. You have produced exactly…nothing…that says “a husband is not the head of the family”. No, not even Blessed John Paul II. As many have pointed out to you there is no contradiction between his teachings and earlier ones, unless the reader inserts one.
The problem goes well beyond rejecting the authority of husband. You are rejecting the authority of the Church. As the source of both authorities, as with all, is God, you are rejecting God’s authority.
I do not claim you do so willfully or with malice. Your mistake may very well be purely through ignorance and made with the best of intentions. That does not make it any less dangerous or misleading to those who come here seeking to learn the faith and reading heresy going under the disguise of Church teaching.
If you want to persist in arguing your position, please produce some evidence of Church teaching supporting the ideas that the husband is not the head of the family and that the Church is capable of teaching errors in faith and morals. You will have a very hard time finding any.
Pax Christi
The idea that the Church has been absolutely wrong in a teaching of faith and morals for almost 2000 years and has just recently come to its senses is totally unCatholic. It is in fact Modernism, a condemned heresy.
Your arguments are rife with contradictions. You claim to revere the authority of Pope John Paul II, but seem to deny the authority of every Pope between Peter and JPII.
On one hand you say that male headship of the family is oppressive and equivalent to slavery. On the other hand you say that those women in this thread, who believe their husbands are the head of the family can do that and be happy if they want, but it’s not for you. Well which is it? Is submitting to your husband a viable option based upon personal opinion or is it oppressive slavery?
This website is called Catholic Answers. We should strive to give answers that are CATHOLIC. You have been shown Scripture, Catechisms, and Papal Encyclicals all of which clearly state that the husband is the head of the family and a wife is to submit to his authority. You have produced exactly…nothing…that says “a husband is not the head of the family”. No, not even Blessed John Paul II. As many have pointed out to you there is no contradiction between his teachings and earlier ones, unless the reader inserts one.
The problem goes well beyond rejecting the authority of husband. You are rejecting the authority of the Church. As the source of both authorities, as with all, is God, you are rejecting God’s authority.
I do not claim you do so willfully or with malice. Your mistake may very well be purely through ignorance and made with the best of intentions. That does not make it any less dangerous or misleading to those who come here seeking to learn the faith and reading heresy going under the disguise of Church teaching.
If you want to persist in arguing your position, please produce some evidence of Church teaching supporting the ideas that the husband is not the head of the family and that the Church is capable of teaching errors in faith and morals. You will have a very hard time finding any.
Pax Christi
D
Dan_Daly
Guest
I will also dispute the notion that the 20th century was a long awaited era of unprecedented feminine freedom.
Actually, nothing has been more damaging to the rights of women in the western world than feminism, whose fruits include:
-Widespread divorce. When a man can leave his wife whenever he wants, the position of all women suffers, as do their children.
-Widespread contraception which enables pornography, prostitution, adultery, fornication, and abortion, all of which do great harm to women.
-Widespread immodesty which along with contraception promotes the viewing of women as sexual objects rather than divinely created persons.
Pax Christi
Actually, nothing has been more damaging to the rights of women in the western world than feminism, whose fruits include:
-Widespread divorce. When a man can leave his wife whenever he wants, the position of all women suffers, as do their children.
-Widespread contraception which enables pornography, prostitution, adultery, fornication, and abortion, all of which do great harm to women.
-Widespread immodesty which along with contraception promotes the viewing of women as sexual objects rather than divinely created persons.
Pax Christi
M
mini_me640
Guest
I don’t think what I said is insulting to men or women. In one of the sociology classes I took in college, I read a book about the stabilizing effect of marriage on men and on society and the negative impacts of the breakdown of marriage and lessening responsibilities for men. It’s roots are simple biology really. Biologically, males of most any species instinctively want to breed as much as possible; to sow their seed. Females can’t breed as often and want to choose the best genes, and the mate that will be able to protect her and her offspring. Giving men the responsibility of taking care and protecting their family allows them to overcome many of their biological impulses and settle down which is good for human society. Statistically, married men perform better at work than single men, largely due to their need to provide for their family. When responsibilities are taken away from men, they behave less responsibly. Women tend to have an emotional desire to manage their situations. Learning to let go and trust their husband helps women to grow toward holiness and focus on living more than planning. Again, if a husband loves God and his wife, this should result in nothing but good for his wife and their family. Sacrificial leadership seeks the good of others, not of self.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Same old – same old trick---- “mudding” the discussion by bringing in "contraception – “porn” --etc. etc.
- Status