The word “power” does not belong in a discussion of Catholic marriage.I understand that the man has to be the head of the family, but how much power does the wife have over marital affairs and her children?
Does the wife have only enough power that the husband gives her?
What does the Church say about this?
I’m not married or anything. I’m just wondering.
You are welcome. Happy reading.Hehe sorry for misusing the word “power”
Thank you for the information!
Marriage is a partnership…The two become one flesh…I understand that the man has to be the head of the family, but how much power does the wife have over marital affairs and her children?
Does the wife have only enough power that the husband gives her?
What does the Church say about this?
I’m not married or anything. I’m just wondering.
Hi,
I heard that the husband is the head, and the wife is the neck.
You speak as though the ideal for a Catholic marriage is for the wife to remain silent and never question her husband and always do what he says no matter what, and that this ideal must remain in place in all times and cultures. Since you refer to past Church documents I assume you would include Casti Conubii in this selection. In which case I suggest you re-read this encyclical, this time with a little more care. Casti Connubi not only does not condone a marriage where the wife has no (name removed by moderator)ut or say, it also explicitly says that both the manner and degree of submission of the wife to the husband will vary based on the people, place, and time in which they live. In other words, the manner and degree of submission of wife to husband in a Catholic marriage will vary not only because of defects in the husbands ability to perform his duties, but also according to the place and time (ie the culture) in which the married couple lives. It is simply not true that the Church calls for complete and one sided submission in marriage as you suggest.
The idea of a head-heart relationship as merely something mentioned in the epistles that can be explained away as a product of the culture or some such thing is actually false. It has since then been upheld as an official part of Church teaching that it is always and everywhere to be understood as being true. Read Casti Conubii and you will see what I mean. The thing is, though, that because of the language used in casti connubii (used because of the culture of the time it was written in) people often read more into what it actually says than is within the encyclical itself, sometimes even to the point of coming away from the encylical with ideas that are contradictory to the very words of the encyclical itself. Another problem is that since the encycilcal focuses so much on the idea of wifely submission people lose track of the fact that the way this is to be understood necessarily entails the complimentary submission of husband to wife as well. People read this encyclical and think it is about the husband having the power to have the last say, or to have the only say in a marriage, but that is not it at all. The encyclical makes it very clear that the point of the wifely submission is for the sake of upholding the unity of the household, that the wifes submission is limited, that the wife is not to be treated as a minor or a child, nor is she to be thought of as having a lesser reasoning power as though that were the reason for her submission. It also makes it very clear, as I mentioned in my previous post, that both the manner and degree of a wifes submission are dependant on the paritcular people involved, the place where they live and the time in which they live. The idea of a head/heart relationship is not the horrible woman-demeaning thing so many people believe it to be. As understood by the Catholic Church it is, in fact, perfectly compatible with JPII’s teachings of the mutual submission demanded within marriage, and speaking about the head/heart relationship (or the submission of the wife within the relationship) without also speaking about the importance of mutual submission within the relationship makes it all too easy to misinterpret it to mean something which is degrading to women, which is why the works of JPII are so important. But please understand that the idea of a wife submitting to her husband in marriage, as understood and promoted by the Catholic Church, is not in any way demeaning to women and, when understood correctly, is in fact, another way of speaking about the mutual submission demanded of husband and wife together in marriage.
Your suggestion is nonsense.
I heard that the husband is the head, and the wife is the neck.
Just a part of Casti, but a good summation just the same;
When I saw the thread title, even before I opened it, this was going to be my answer!
