M
Miss_Felicity
Guest
Since CAF ate my very long, very involved response. I’m going to take that as a sign to step back for a bit.
- Status
J
JamesBond007
Guest
That is a rather sexist statement. I’ve known several guys that were in horrible marriages to the point of depression and praying for death to liberate them from their wives. No one gave a hoot about them and there were no organizations for them to find cover under. I would be more concerned about a controlling abusive wife because unlike a woman, a man has no place to go unless he can stomach having his kids torn away from him. You know what that feels like? Having to choose to between your kids and your sanity?
L
Lokadottir
Guest
unless they’re kinky
M
Miss_Felicity
Guest
I was going to say that but thought better of it LOLunless they’re kinky
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Gabriel7Kane,
Cordial greetings and a very warm welcome to the world of CAF. It is essential that the Catholic faithful have the correct support and knowledge to sustain their faith and this applies to family life and the proper role of men and women.
The Catholic Church, dear friend, has always consistently taught that the wife is subject to her husband and must obey him even as the Church obeys Christ, with the caveat that the husbands demands are just and moral. Moreover, it is imperative that we recognize that this continues to be standing Church teaching, notwithstanding what some vociferous feminists and modernists within the Church may assert to the contrary. Thus having the woman as head of the household would be at variance with Church teaching and not in accordance with the divine model for family life. A so called ‘househusband’ is a modern anomaly engendered by misguided feminist ideology and is based upon a spurious egalitarianism that seeks to blur the God-given distinction between the sexes.
In his Encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae,1880, on Christian marriage, Pope Leo XIII forcefully and clearly restated the traditional (and biblical) teaching:
"The husband is the chief of the family and head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honour or dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be,* both in him who commands and her who obeys,* a heaven born love guiding both in their respective duties. For, “the husband is head of the wife; as Christ is head of the Church…Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their own husbands in all things” (added emphasis mine).
Needless to say, dear friend, many today intensely dislike this Church teaching and engage in all manner sophistry to circumvent it or render it compatible with modern notions of family life. However, as the nature of man is immutable, so also is the natural law and thus the divine order of the husband as head of the wife is not subject to change with allegedly more enlightened or ‘maturer’ thinking. If they are to steadfastly resist the corruption of nature and God’s supernatural gifts, then husbands and wives must needs remember that they do not belong to the godless world, otherwise godless feminism and progressive ideology will utterly succeed in destroying the family. Pious Catholic husbands will, therefore, take responsibility and leadership, even when they feel inadequate, and pious Catholic wives will take delight, denying their own subversive will, in rendering joyful obedience to their husbands and submitting to them as “unto the Lord” (Eph. 5: 22). " ‘As to the Lord’ provides the key to the thoughts here expressed. Baptism confers equality on all individuals from the point of view of religion, but in society (of which the family is at once the smallest and most important unit) there is a natural hierarchy. The husband is the head; the wife is subject to him. By Baptism this order is not broken; it is ennobled. St. Paul compares it with the love of the Church for Christ, the head. There should, then, be no room for either despotism or craven fear. Pius XI (('Casti connubii, 31st December 1930): “If the husband is the head, the wife is the heart” " (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953, Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, p. 1124, added emphasis mine). Thus it is a grave error to speak of a one-sided submission being the result of some sinful spirit of pride or domination. On the contrary, a one-sided submission results from adhering to the Church and biblical model of family life, which surely ought not to be an issue for any pious Catholic who has not embraced a false egalitarianism. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII expressly spoke of “him who commands and her who obeys”, which, if words mean anything, plainly suggests a one-sided set up within marriage.
No amount of reasoning with clever but fallacious argumentation can evade the clear and unambiguous Church teaching upon the God-given order for marriage. Unfortunately, dear friend, this divine and blessed order is disturbed in two directions today; wives are arrogantly seeking to rule their husbands and are refusing loving self-subjection; husbands all too often tyrannize their wives, often treating them abominably. Endless woe results and the hostility between the sexes increases. Our most holy religion restores the divine order with all its true happiness and harmony - if only our present age realized this.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In Christos
S
severus68
Guest
Bolding - mine.
Just a couple of the points I would like to make.
Wives/women are not children, wilful or otherwise.
It was Blessed JPII who said the dominance of men over women was the result of the Fall and sin. I would accept what he said.
L
Lokadottir
Guest
YES MEN CAN BE FEMINIST! Feminism is merely the radical idea that women are equal!
L
Lokadottir
Guest
So you don’t think women deserve equal opportunities?I have to agree with Hoosier Daddy…(surely the end times are upon us)
I’d rather be associated with the other “f” word than with feminism
The only ism I subscribe to is Catholicism.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
You didn’t say HoH, you said boss. And throughout your posts you’ve been using the word ‘boss’. If you believe that the HoH is the equivalent of a ‘boss’, then you have some frightening ideas about marriage.
But in terms of one person being designated ‘the boss’, I look at it this way. If my son told me that he and his wife had an arrangement.where she was in charge, I would be concerned for his happiness, self-esteem, and mental health. If my daughter came to me and said that her husband insisted on being the boss, I would worry for all of the above reasons, but also for her physical safety, the safety of my grandkids, I would fear that he would control her, isolate her from her friends and family, etc.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear severus68,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well with you.
By way of response I would, dear sister, draw your attention to Casti Connubii 1930 which quite clearly states that the wife is never to be placed on the same footing as a child or treated as if she was deficient in understanding and insight on account of immaturity. Moreover, a husband cannot be obeyed if what he asks is “not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to the wife”(27), which is really a matter of plain common sense with which no pious Catholic would disagree. However, a godly Catholic woman will obey her husband in everything that pertains to his legitimate authority and in everything that is not at variance with faith and morals. No decent Catholic chap has ever maintained that his wife cannot have her own thoughts and interests or that there can be no reasonable give and take within marriage. Nevertheless, the headship of the husband and the godly submission of the wife is the right "structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact" (emphasis mine) (28). It is imperative that we distinguish between the false and exaggerated propaganda of modern feminism and authentic standing Church teaching, otherwise we will surely err. In any event, without the rightful submission of the wife to her husband there would be anarchy within the home, which would set a jolly bad example to any impressionable children. After all, if their mother disobeys and challenges her husband, undermining his authority as leader of the family, then why should not the children feel at liberty to do the same as regards their parents? This is precisely what is occurring in modern families, which is one of the reasons why we have unprecedented youth rebellion against parental authority. Of course issues of minor importance within the family can be resolved by spouses talking things through, but it is a spurious egalitarianism that insists that families are little democracies. This is just arrant nonsense which should be given no credence whatsoever by those profess the holy religion of Christ.
Indeed, dear sister, God, on account of the Fall, has given the man the pre-eminence and a right to direct and govern - “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee”. Both St. Paul’s teaching and the Church’s teaching reflect and acknowledge this fact. There is an “order of love”, as St. Augustine terms it. "This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is head of the wife and Christ is head of the Church” (*Casti Connubii *1930, 26). This remains standing Church teaching and has not gone mouldy with the passage of time, however some may like it to be so.
Quite frankly, dear sister, I fail to see how any authority could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were only ‘mutual subjection’ and no ruler-subject relationship between the spouses. Look here this mutual subjection notion, so much spoken of in contemporary Catholicism, is surely a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject, and neither the Church nor the family can have two heads.
God bless and thankyou for your response.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In christos.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear BlueEyedLady,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
Authentic Catholic teaching, dear friend, has never taught or encouraged tyranny within marriage. Spousal abuse is always unacceptable and wrong and a wife should never feel that she is cut off from her family and friends by a despotic husband.
Pious Catholic husbands have always strived, dear friend, to show love, gentleness, patience, and fairness towards their beloved wives. Moreover, even when disagreements arise, as they do in an imperfect world, husbands will endeavour to be reasonable and to yield to their wives wishes if they possibly can.
It is imperative that at the courtship stage a couple try to ascertain if they are truly well-suited and that there is general consensus on divers matters. This will surely help to establish if there is likely to be potential discord that could result in an unhappy marriage with much unpleasant bickering. If there is good agreement, especially as regards faith and morals, then marital disputes should be minimal and the husband will not be continually having to assert his authority as head of the family.
It is most unfortunate, dear friend, that courtships nowadays do not tend to be as long as they were in previous ages and couples cohabit outside of holy wedlock. This and a false egalitarianism has rendered obsolete the traditional family model and the security that it afforded. It is hardly any wonder that in such sinful relationships the women defiantly refuse submission to their so called ‘partner’, for they consider themselves equals and therefore the headship of the man is rejected. This is a recipe for unstable family life and, indeed, for the erosion of the family itself. Moreover, if there are any children (not always the case these days) the headship of the father is no longer accepted as a fact anymore. Thus children loose the sense of a firm locus of authority within the home and soon become unruly and defiant. Very sad but men have come to accept it as a feature of the modern age.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
In Christos
W
Walking_Home
Guest
This is the Catholic Church teaching – to be subject to one another (mutual submission) out of reverence for Christ. The is only one head in a marriage – God.
L
Luvz2travel
Guest
I’m very independent but if I ever married I wouldn’t want to be head of the household all the time. I look at marriage as a partnership with the husband as the president or CEO. Decisions made together but the husband has the final word in cases of disagreement. The husband should always be open to the wifes opinion and respectful of it.
C
chevalier
Guest
Let’s sort it out. The institution we’re talking about in general is the head of household. However, the terms that fly, including in the opening post, merit the classification of ‘boss’.
That’s because of the difference in physical strength and some other physical parameters, e.g. even a technically stronger or fitter woman’t isn’t gauranteed to defeat more of a log of a man due the physical differences; basically, women don’t have the best setup to take on men. But what we’re talking about here is basically physical danger, it doesn’t make the situation more insane per se.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
A marriage in the Lord – is not like a secular institution with a “president”/“CEO”. With the coming of Christ – marriage is raised to what God intended marriage to be from the beginning – before the fall. The “one sided submission” of the wife to husband perpetuates a fallen relationship – with sin as its core.
S
severus68
Guest
Bolding - mine.
JPII spoke of dominance as wrong. Nothing good came out of the Fall. Men were not given any right to govern and dominate women. That is sinful.
I have heard it here (not saying from you) that men were made for the glory of God and women were made for the glory of men. That is so wrong. Men and women were made for the glory of God. We all glorify God, no others.
There are so many Catholic families where there is no ruler, no dominance. That is incompatible with a marriage created of and built on love.
S
severus68
Guest
Yes.
S
severus68
Guest
So women and men are not equals? Please see the part I bolded.
Saying women are under the authority of men, is not going to bring any right thinking person into the Church and it is not what the Church teaches.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dearly beloved friends,
Cordial greetings.
Having been involved in numerous threads that treat of this subject it is not now my intention to become involved in a lengthy discussion. The errors and unbalanced arguments of modernism and feminism have been repeatedly refuted on these boards by myself and others. Therefore this will be my final contribution to the discussion.
We must, dear friends, be careful that we do not for, polemical purposes, fall into the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” with the past, so deplored by our former Pope, which is indicative of a failure to think with an authentic Catholic mind. The Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI (Casti Connubii and Arcanum) continue to be standing Church teaching which require religious submission of the mind and the will of pious Catholics throughout the world. So called dissent from papal teaching in Encyclicals is modernism and not a part of the creed of a Catholic. Moreover, the holy teaching of these Pope’s is based upon St. Paul’s timeless and authoritative teaching (otherwise they were mistaken in making their appeal to it) and thus such teaching cannot go bad and cease to be Church doctrine.
Unfortunately, dear friends, it is a common error among the contemporary Catholic faithful to contend that all standing Church teaching is to be found within the* Catechism of the Catholic Church.* This is a jolly narrow and novel opinion and is usually employed for polemical purposes to uphold particular modern viewpoints which do not square with the older teaching. The topic currently under review is a case in point. To hold that the entire deposit of faith is only to be found in the contents of the Catechism cannot be sustained. Not only is such an erroneous position the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” with the past, but it effectively cuts one adrift from the whole sweep of Catholic teaching and Tradition throughout the ages. It is actually to adopt a sort of ‘sola Catechism’, which is as grave an error as its Protestant counterpart, sola scriptura. Indeed, I would say that it betrays a very Protestant mindset, which probably explains why it is often embraced by ‘Tiber crossers’ to Catholicism who tend to be reactionary towards any old and rigorous teaching. It likes to believe that Catholicism is less strict and more ‘relaxed’, having less arduous demands to live up to. This is not the case, in point of fact the Catholic faith is much more demanding than anything to be found in the Protestant sects.
Therefore, dear friends, we must needs listen to ALL of the Popes throughout the ages, since the unbroken succession from St. Peter to Pope Francis is one of the central components of the apostolic nature of Holy Mother Church. The Church does not contradict herself; truth cannot contradict truth and truth does not cease to be truth with the passage of time. Certainly it develops but immutable truth itself does not and cannot change. This is the case with regards to the headship of man and the submission of the woman within holy wedlock.
Our current Catechism, dear friends, may well be “a sure norm for teaching the faith”, but that does not mean or imply that it is the only valid source of teaching for the faithful. Our Church nowhere teaches this. Thus the novel view that the teaching of *Casti Connubii *or Arcanum has been officially set aside and is no longer binding upon modern Catholics, needs to be proved. In any event the view is untentable, for what are we to make of the papal encyclicals that have been published subsequent to the current Catechism? Are they also irrelevant until and unless they have been integrated into some revised revision of the Catechism?
Therefore, dear friends, I conclude with standing Catholic Church teaching that must be received by all the Catholic faithful today in 2014. This teaching may not chime with contemporary views respecting men and women and it may be intensely disliked by modernists and feminists alike, but it remains valid and authoritative Church teaching notwithstanding:
**"The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honour or dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and her who obeys, a heaven borne love guiding both in their respective duties. For, “the husband is head of the wife; as Christ is head of the Church…Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in all things” (Pope Leo XIII, *Arcanum *1880). This teaching was repeated again in Casti Connubii 1930, section 29).
God bless and goodbye.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
In Christos
Cordial greetings.
Having been involved in numerous threads that treat of this subject it is not now my intention to become involved in a lengthy discussion. The errors and unbalanced arguments of modernism and feminism have been repeatedly refuted on these boards by myself and others. Therefore this will be my final contribution to the discussion.
We must, dear friends, be careful that we do not for, polemical purposes, fall into the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” with the past, so deplored by our former Pope, which is indicative of a failure to think with an authentic Catholic mind. The Encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI (Casti Connubii and Arcanum) continue to be standing Church teaching which require religious submission of the mind and the will of pious Catholics throughout the world. So called dissent from papal teaching in Encyclicals is modernism and not a part of the creed of a Catholic. Moreover, the holy teaching of these Pope’s is based upon St. Paul’s timeless and authoritative teaching (otherwise they were mistaken in making their appeal to it) and thus such teaching cannot go bad and cease to be Church doctrine.
Unfortunately, dear friends, it is a common error among the contemporary Catholic faithful to contend that all standing Church teaching is to be found within the* Catechism of the Catholic Church.* This is a jolly narrow and novel opinion and is usually employed for polemical purposes to uphold particular modern viewpoints which do not square with the older teaching. The topic currently under review is a case in point. To hold that the entire deposit of faith is only to be found in the contents of the Catechism cannot be sustained. Not only is such an erroneous position the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” with the past, but it effectively cuts one adrift from the whole sweep of Catholic teaching and Tradition throughout the ages. It is actually to adopt a sort of ‘sola Catechism’, which is as grave an error as its Protestant counterpart, sola scriptura. Indeed, I would say that it betrays a very Protestant mindset, which probably explains why it is often embraced by ‘Tiber crossers’ to Catholicism who tend to be reactionary towards any old and rigorous teaching. It likes to believe that Catholicism is less strict and more ‘relaxed’, having less arduous demands to live up to. This is not the case, in point of fact the Catholic faith is much more demanding than anything to be found in the Protestant sects.
Therefore, dear friends, we must needs listen to ALL of the Popes throughout the ages, since the unbroken succession from St. Peter to Pope Francis is one of the central components of the apostolic nature of Holy Mother Church. The Church does not contradict herself; truth cannot contradict truth and truth does not cease to be truth with the passage of time. Certainly it develops but immutable truth itself does not and cannot change. This is the case with regards to the headship of man and the submission of the woman within holy wedlock.
Our current Catechism, dear friends, may well be “a sure norm for teaching the faith”, but that does not mean or imply that it is the only valid source of teaching for the faithful. Our Church nowhere teaches this. Thus the novel view that the teaching of *Casti Connubii *or Arcanum has been officially set aside and is no longer binding upon modern Catholics, needs to be proved. In any event the view is untentable, for what are we to make of the papal encyclicals that have been published subsequent to the current Catechism? Are they also irrelevant until and unless they have been integrated into some revised revision of the Catechism?
Therefore, dear friends, I conclude with standing Catholic Church teaching that must be received by all the Catholic faithful today in 2014. This teaching may not chime with contemporary views respecting men and women and it may be intensely disliked by modernists and feminists alike, but it remains valid and authoritative Church teaching notwithstanding:
**"The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honour or dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and her who obeys, a heaven borne love guiding both in their respective duties. For, “the husband is head of the wife; as Christ is head of the Church…Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives be to their own husbands in all things” (Pope Leo XIII, *Arcanum *1880). This teaching was repeated again in Casti Connubii 1930, section 29).
God bless and goodbye.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
In Christos
- Status