How Practical is it for Women to be Submissive to Their Husbands in Modern Society

  • Thread starter Thread starter MargaretofCortona
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Edmundus1581 said:
40.png
Walking_Home:
40.png
Edmundus1581:
The only “authority” a husband can exercise is that which his wife consciously gives him. Society’s depiction of the man ruling over the home with a fist is an utter fiction (and a vile lie, from the feminists).
Click to expand...
These quotes are all from various “traditionalist” sites. So you were saying that "ruling with a fist’ is fiction and a vile lie from feminists.
…
Click to expand...
Good information! I take your point that at different times and places physical coercion by the husband has been accepted, under a guise of traditional Christianity.

However, I’m referring to normal families (Christians and otherwise) in the west, in the current and recent past.
Click to expand...
If you note – the quote by Ladislaus. He iswell acquainted with the type of men – and knows many personally. Men who treat their wives like complete garbage under pretext of wives-- having to obey their husbands. What he has witnessed is an ongoing state of abuse. Not something from the distant past.

Now as to the other quotes – Yes – they apply to our current time frame too.

Oh and those men that abuse/mistreat their wives (and their supporters)-- yea – they would consider themselves “pious/devout” Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
When it is a major issue we disagree on, I’m the head. I make the call, her objection duly noted.

Now, this is a rather rare thing. It might only happen a few times a year (if at all) and the older we get, the fewer of these situations we encounter. And thank God. I don’t like the cool marriage bed we share in the immediate aftermath of such decisions
Click to expand...
That sounds a bit like you’re a military unit commander, rather than a family man. I don’t see why discussing the issue and coming to a compromise is such a problem.
 
You didn’t link the site you quoted, so I couldn’t check it out.

However, if it is radical traditionalists then it is a fringe.

As I said, my “vile lie” from the feminists is the lie that many, if not most, husbands rule the home with a fist, and that “domestic violence” by men against women and children is a first-order issue, rather than a fringe issue. This is not to belittle the victims where it does happen, but they are not the vast majority of western homes.
 
Last edited:
And your point is?

I’ll try to guess, but may be wrong.

I said that the picture of the man ruling the home with a fist is a feminist lie. You have provided some examples from radical traditionalist sites where some form of physical discipline is accepted.

Firstly, the physical discipline (eg. “spanking”) being accepted by some is not the same as the media picture we get here, in Australia at least, of the brutal, domineering husband.

Secondly, these are radical traditionalist sites (fisheaters is rad trad, cathinfo.com is SSPX), or, at least, radical traditionalist posting as individuals.

For the third time, the feminist “lie” I was referring to is the picture of the ordinary man ruling the home with a fist. The liars are going after the middle class, not the radical Catholic traditionalists, or even the places where dv actually occurs most often. I don’t see how these quotes refute that.
 
Last edited:
The point – mistreatment of women exists. It exists within those who call themselves Catholic. What is at the core of the “authority” that they base themselves on – the husbands “headship” over the wife. Her submission/obedience.
 
Walking_Home said:
The point – mistreatment of women exists. It exists within those who call themselves Catholic. What is at the core of the “authority” that they base themselves on – the husbands “headship” over the wife. Her submission/obedience.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

That does explain it.

BTW, are you Australian? 😀 I ask, because our public broadcaster (The ABC) has actually taken on this cause (domestic violence within religion), with a series of highly funded, highly publicised reports. So, the topic is very much up-to-date.

The ABC has also very much emphasised your point, that within Christianity abuse of women is often justified by traditional “headship” theology. That, however, doesn’t disprove the theology.

However, the ABC got caught out big-time when they went from individual stories to statistics. They misread the statistics, and said that dv is more prevalent within Christianity than elsewhere. In fact, the statistics showed exactly the opposite.

Yes, abuse of women exists within Catholicism. Sin exists. People misapply scriptures for their own purposes. Wives abuse husbands. Mothers neglect children. Priests don’t do their job. People undermine their priests, … That’s life.
 
Last edited:
The “theology” is the source of the abuse.
Religion can be either a resource or a roadblock for battered women. As a resource, it encourages women to resist mistreatment. As a roadblock, its misinterpretation can contribute to the victim’s self-blame and suffering and to the abuser’s rationalizations.

Abused women often say, “I can’t leave this relationship. The Bible says it would be wrong.” Abusive men often say, “The Bible says my wife should be submissive to me.” They take the biblical text and distort it to support their right to batter.

As bishops, we condemn the use of the Bible to support abusive behavior in any form. A correct reading of Scripture leads people to an understanding of the equal dignity of men and women and to relationships based on mutuality and love. Beginning with Genesis, Scripture teaches that women and men are created in God’s image. Jesus himself always respected the human dignity of women. Pope John Paul II reminds us that "Christ’s way of acting, the Gospel of his words and deeds, is a consistent protest against whatever offends the dignity of women."11

Men who abuse often use Ephesians 5:22, taken out of context, to justify their behavior, but the passage (v. 21-33) refers to the mutual submission of husband and wife out of love for Christ. Husbands should love their wives as they love their own body, as Christ loves the Church.

Men who batter also cite Scripture to insist that their victims forgive them (see, for example, Mt 6:9-15). A victim then feels guilty if she cannot do so. Forgiveness, however, does not mean forgetting the abuse or pretending that it did not happen. Neither is possible. Forgiveness is not permission to repeat the abuse. Rather, forgiveness means that the victim decides to let go of the experience and move on with greater insight and conviction not to tolerate abuse of any kind again.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...ge/domestic-violence/when-i-call-for-help.cfm
Click to expand...
 
That’s a good citation from the USCCB.

I’ll let you have the last word with that.
 
ChunkMonk said:
Some men want a traditional relationship but this is apparently not okay, they need to change.
Click to expand...
I’d have thought it’s perfectly ok so long as the woman concurs. If the woman does not concur, they should not marry. If they have already married, they are going to have to find an accommodation.
 
ChunkMonk said:
Some women want an equality relationship and this is okay, do things the way it works for them.

Some men want a traditional relationship but this is apparently not okay, they need to change.
Click to expand...
The two are not mutually exclusive. I have a traditional relationship with my wife. But I also have an equal one. I don’t consider myself to have the final say on all important matters. The phrase “two heads are better than one” comes to mind. What’s the point of having another person who may sometimes have better ideas or wisdom than you, if you aren’t prepared to use that.

My role as head of the family is fulfilled in the manner that Jesus outlined:
‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’
Click to expand...
I mean, if the man truly is the head of the family then this is what it means. You are the slave of the family. If you’re going to talk about submission then I think you need to take into context the specific things that Jesus said about marriage and leadership.

About marriage he says that the wife and the husband are to be one in mind and body. That doesn’t sound like “wife…do what man says”.

Also when interpreting scripture, the historical context need to be considered. St Paul also talked about slaves obeying masters. Are we to take it that this is an endorsement of slavery from St. Paul?
 
Last edited:
Those who insist that Catholic wedding vows do not contain a promise of obedience/submission on the wife’s part, and never have, display a short view of history and a narrow view of the Church.

Wedding vows have no theological place in the Byzantine Catholic Crowning, yet they were added to the ceremony as a Latinization, at the insistence of the Polish government more than a century ago. These vows were taken directly from the vows used in the Latin Church in Poland.
Groom: I, N., take you, N., to be my wife, and I promise to love you, to respect you, to be always faithful to you, and never to forsake you until death do us part. So help me God, one in the Holy Trinity, and all the Saints.

Bride: I, N., take you, N., to be my husband, and I promise to love you, to respect you, to give you matrimonial obedience, to be always faithful to you, and never to forsake you until death do us part. So help me God, one in the Holy Trinity, and all the Saints.
Click to expand...

The Polish Church no longer uses these vows, but the practice has persisted in the Byzantine Church. These days, they are usually omitted, in favor of our genuine tradition, in which the wedding ceremony itself does not contain vows, but I have seen them used as recently as 5 years ago.
 
Last edited:
babochka said:
at the insistence of the Polish government more than a century ago
Click to expand...
The Government has no business dictating which vows should be used by the Church.

These vows, as far as I know would be invalid for the purposes of a Roman Catholic marriage. Unless there is some special dispensation in place in Poland.

This still doesn’t disprove that for the majority of Church History, the Church didn’t enforce “wifely obedience”. Just because one country did 100 years ago doesn’t prove anything.
 
AdamPeter said:
40.png
babochka:
at the insistence of the Polish government more than a century ago
Click to expand...
The Government has no business dictating which vows should be used by the Church.

These vows, as far as I know would be invalid for the purposes of a Roman Catholic marriage. Unless there is some special dispensation in place in Poland.

This still doesn’t disprove that for the majority of Church History, the Church didn’t enforce “wifely obedience”. Just because one country did 100 years ago doesn’t prove anything.
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to prove that the Church “enforced wifely obedience” (Franlky, I’m not sure how the Church could begin to enforce such a thing within a marriage, any more than it can “enforce chastity” or “enforce mutual self-giving”.) I’m simply pointing out that there have been times and places in the Church where the wedding vows included the wife vowing obedience, contrary to what some have said. I also didn’t say that the Polish government insisted upon these particular vows, The (very Catholic) Polish government would not accept the validity of weddings performed in the Greek-Catholic Churches because they did not contain vows. The Church inserted vows into the ceremony, simply using the vows that were already in use in the Latin Church in Poland at the time. Presumably, the government did not write those vows.

I think it is pretty presumptuous to assume that the vows used 100 years ago would be invalid, simply because they do not conform to the vows used today. There was much less uniformity and centralized control in the Church at one point and assuming the invalidity of a sacrament is a pretty big deal.

Someone made the statement a while back in this thread that the Catholic Church has never used submission/obedience in wedding vows. The whole point of my post was to show that this is not true. I provided evidence that such vows are currently in use. I think maybe you didn’t read the whole post.
 
Last edited:
Xantippe said:
An interesting problem of current American life is that non-college women now have a hard time getting married. Married women tend to be educated people, whereas non-educated mothers tend to be not married (if you follow me).
Click to expand...
Most of the non-college people these days are at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. People in that position tend to not have very good skills at life planning or commitment and are just sort of bumbling along day to day. Since marriage requires commitment and usually some planning as well, and there is now no social stigma for living together or having children out of wedlock, it doesn’t surprise me that they’re not bothering with marriage.
 
Rau said:
I’d have thought it’s perfectly ok so long as the woman concurs. If the woman does not concur, they should not marry. If they have already married, they are going to have to find an accommodation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, most of us figure these things out before we get engaged. It’s not like somebody is married for 5 or 10 years and the wife all of a sudden wants to change everything, unless perhaps she came over to USA as a mail order bride.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top