I was also taken aback by the suggestion that the Church somehow “grew in her understanding” to the point of reversing what she has taught for 2000 years, starting with St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians, and continuing with other documents such as the Trent Catechism and more recent Papal Encyclicals posted in this thread.
Well said.Frankly, I’m baffled by some of what I’ve read on this thread. No Catholic husband in my experience has lead his family through pronouncements, and Catholic wives - myself included - take many more factors into consideration besides sin when we face major decisions affecting our families.
Lots of wishes in a marriage aren’t sinful, but they’re also not very good ideas, either. For example, two years ago my husband and his parents wanted to rent an RV and visit the Grand Canyon. There’s no sin in that, but my mind automatically went to two factors he hadn’t thought of: 1. living out of an RV is my idea of hell on earth; and 2. for the sake of my relationship with my mother-in-law, we should not spend 10 days cooped up together in a small space.
If I’m understanding some posters on this thread, I should have acquiesced to my husband because there was nothing sinful about what he wanted. If I’d done that my resentment at being cooped up in a sardine can on wheels would have manifested in counterproductive ways in our marriage and my my relationship with my in-laws, and I probably would not be on speaking terms with my mother-in-law. And I know I would have needed a confessional by the time we got back from that trip. Instead putting ourselves through all of that, my husband and I did what lots of people in real life marriages do: we talked and we compromised. He went to the Grand Canyon with the kids and his parents, and I enjoyed 10 days of blissful solitude.
I’ve been around a lot of Catholic marriages in my lifetime, and the ones that aren’t broken are incredibly pragmatic. There’s lots of give and take, hacking through problems together, teamwork, “Hey, what do you think about ___?” and “You know, we really can’t do ___ until ___.” on both sides. When it comes to the kids and to money, this is especially true. I’m hard pressed to think of a faster way to engender a lot of anger and resentment in a marriage than to start making unilateral decisions/decrees on how to parent children or spend money.
Our pre-cana couple said something to my husband and I that has stayed with us. The husband told us, “If you don’t know how to negotiate, if you don’t know how to listen, don’t get married until you learn how.” If my husband and I had been instructed in pre-cana that if he wanted X, my role was to snap to so long as it wasn’t sinful, and my husband had veto power over my wishes simply because he’s the husband, I would have had a lot of reservations about our instruction because it just doesn’t fit into what I know and what I’ve seen of Catholic marriages. And my husband would have thought the whole thing was out of some bad Promise Keepers/Domestic Discipline rally, and he would have simply refused to get married in the Church.
Luna
Repeating a wrong over many years does not make it right. Some can refer to a sixteenth century Catechism etc. II refer to our current Catechism and to the beloved John Paul II.
Frankly, I’m baffled by some of what I’ve read on this thread. No Catholic husband in my experience has lead his family through pronouncements, and Catholic wives - myself included - take many more factors into consideration besides sin when we face major decisions affecting our families.
Lots of wishes in a marriage aren’t sinful, but they’re also not very good ideas, either. For example, two years ago my husband and his parents wanted to rent an RV and visit the Grand Canyon. There’s no sin in that, but my mind automatically went to two factors he hadn’t thought of: 1. living out of an RV is my idea of hell on earth; and 2. for the sake of my relationship with my mother-in-law, we should not spend 10 days cooped up together in a small space.
If I’m understanding some posters on this thread, I should have acquiesced to my husband because there was nothing sinful about what he wanted. If I’d done that my resentment at being cooped up in a sardine can on wheels would have manifested in counterproductive ways in our marriage and my my relationship with my in-laws, and I probably would not be on speaking terms with my mother-in-law. And I know I would have needed a confessional by the time we got back from that trip. Instead putting ourselves through all of that, my husband and I did what lots of people in real life marriages do: we talked and we compromised. He went to the Grand Canyon with the kids and his parents, and I enjoyed 10 days of blissful solitude.
I’ve been around a lot of Catholic marriages in my lifetime, and the ones that aren’t broken are incredibly pragmatic. There’s lots of give and take, hacking through problems together, teamwork, “Hey, what do you think about ___?” and “You know, we really can’t do ___ until ___.” on both sides. When it comes to the kids and to money, this is especially true. I’m hard pressed to think of a faster way to engender a lot of anger and resentment in a marriage than to start making unilateral decisions/decrees on how to parent children or spend money.
Our pre-cana couple said something to my husband and I that has stayed with us. The husband told us, “If you don’t know how to negotiate, if you don’t know how to listen, don’t get married until you learn how.” If my husband and I had been instructed in pre-cana that if he wanted X, my role was to snap to so long as it wasn’t sinful, and my husband had veto power over my wishes simply because he’s the husband, I would have had a lot of reservations about our instruction because it just doesn’t fit into what I know and what I’ve seen of Catholic marriages. And my husband would have thought the whole thing was out of some bad Promise Keepers/Domestic Discipline rally, and he would have simply refused to get married in the Church.
Luna
quote the person who has advocated a slave/master relationship. If you can’t find the quote, you’re making it up, and you should stop making such obtuse and exaggerated insinuations on this forum for effect
Oh that naughty wife! Where’s a rolled-up newspaper?What does it sound like to you? Give me your own words, then. You’re talking about a situation in which one party is always wrong, the other always right (except in regards to sin.) You’re talking about a situation in which one party must “submit” to the decisions of another, whether they make sense or not.
While I do not think Paul was not trying to tell us to treat wives as slaves, it is a fact that he was a Jew of that times and hence JPII’s reference to culture and traditions contributing to the treatment of women as less. As a side note, Peter himself was reluctant to mix with gentiles and it took a vision from God to push him to do so.
You are arguing against a position that I haven’t advanced. Nor has anyone else in the thread.Frankly, I’m baffled by some of what I’ve read on this thread. No Catholic husband in my experience has lead his family through pronouncements, and Catholic wives - myself included - take many more factors into consideration besides sin when we face major decisions affecting our families.
Lots of wishes in a marriage aren’t sinful, but they’re also not very good ideas, either. For example, two years ago my husband and his parents wanted to rent an RV and visit the Grand Canyon. There’s no sin in that, but my mind automatically went to two factors he hadn’t thought of: 1. living out of an RV is my idea of hell on earth; and 2. for the sake of my relationship with my mother-in-law, we should not spend 10 days cooped up together in a small space.
If I’m understanding some posters on this thread, I should have acquiesced to my husband because there was nothing sinful about what he wanted. If I’d done that my resentment at being cooped up in a sardine can on wheels would have manifested in counterproductive ways in our marriage and my my relationship with my in-laws, and I probably would not be on speaking terms with my mother-in-law. And I know I would have needed a confessional by the time we got back from that trip. Instead putting ourselves through all of that, my husband and I did what lots of people in real life marriages do: we talked and we compromised. He went to the Grand Canyon with the kids and his parents, and I enjoyed 10 days of blissful solitude.
I’ve been around a lot of Catholic marriages in my lifetime, and the ones that aren’t broken are incredibly pragmatic. There’s lots of give and take, hacking through problems together, teamwork, “Hey, what do you think about ___?” and “You know, we really can’t do ___ until ___.” on both sides. When it comes to the kids and to money, this is especially true. I’m hard pressed to think of a faster way to engender a lot of anger and resentment in a marriage than to start making unilateral decisions/decrees on how to parent children or spend money.
Our pre-cana couple said something to my husband and I that has stayed with us. The husband told us, “If you don’t know how to negotiate, if you don’t know how to listen, don’t get married until you learn how.” If my husband and I had been instructed in pre-cana that if he wanted X, my role was to snap to so long as it wasn’t sinful, and my husband had veto power over my wishes simply because he’s the husband, I would have had a lot of reservations about our instruction because it just doesn’t fit into what I know and what I’ve seen of Catholic marriages. And my husband would have thought the whole thing was out of some bad Promise Keepers/Domestic Discipline rally, and he would have simply refused to get married in the Church.
Luna
It sounds to me that you are having trouble reconciling what the Church teaches to today’s feminist garbage. Is it okay for a woman to have an education? Absolutly…You never know what vocation God may choose for you. You may be celibat and need a way to support yourself. As for women being able to drive, let’s not get ridiculous… stick to the important issues. And just because it’s the 21st century doesn’t mean that every social norm is correct or best. In matters of marriage, you have to choose between 2 paths.The one the Church has laid out or the one that society deems “normal” “acceptable” “proper.” It’s just as simple as that!
Here is the difficulty: It does not match anyone’s experience, especially any Catholic family experience.
And this is where I get stuck. Please show me where it explicitly says in the current Catechism that it’s a husband’s right/duty to make unilateral decisions in a marriage, or veto his wife’s decisions, and that a wife must acquiesce except when the alternative is sinful.
It seems to me you have problems being courteous and dealing with those who disagree with you. What you think and say about this issue is not what the Church says or what Christ taught.
It doesn’t say that…anywhere. YOU are all making this our to be some big power struggle between husband and wife. It is, in fact quite the opposite. If you read carefully, you’ll see that no one has stated that it’t the wife’s duty to follow her husband blindly, especially into dangerous or unhealthy situations. For some reason, you’re all stuck on this perceived power that you imagine man lords over women. You’re all wrong!!! I’ve already mentioned one of the best analogies I’ve heard for a christian marriage… Husband is the head of the home but the head is useless without the SUPPORT of a good backbone (read wife). Man being the head of the home is hardly a new idea! Take a moment to reflect on the past 100 years. How did life look until feminism entered the scene?
