C
CRUSADER_KING
Guest
That’s Sharia Law for you.
- Status
X
Xantippe
Guest
techgirl97,
Here are some thoughts:
Here are some thoughts:
- Let us assume that you are supposed to obey your husband. If you marry a man who has egalitarian beliefs, then obviously, that means that you ought to obey him and have an egalitarian marriage.
- You’ll notice that in Catholic life, a wife isn’t owned by her husband. The way you can tell is that he can’t get rid of her.
- You’ll also notice that historically, it has not been a requirement for Catholic women to marry and have a family.
- Regarding Ephesians 5, there are many old discussions on CAF on that, so I won’t rehash previous discussions.
- Here’s another translation of 1 Peter 3:7: “Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.”
- Bear in mind that historically, both the bride’s family AND the groom’s family had a say in the marriage. And the reason for that was that the groom was often not financially independent–men often had to get approval from their families for their marriages or face financial ruin. This is a plot point in Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility, Northanger Abbey and Emma. The reason for the relative freedom of choice that modern couples enjoy is that we are usually financially independent from our families of origin by the time we marry.
X
Xantippe
Guest
That would make it virtually impossible to be an effective SAHM or for tradesmen to make a respectable living.That’s Sharia Law for you.
What a silly, silly idea!
O
on_the_hill
Guest
And that can probably be extrapolated to explain why certain parts of the world are perpetually “developing.”
X
Xantippe
Guest
Now that you mention it, that does explain a lot.
W
Wesrock
Guest
The Church believes in the equal dignity of men and women. I think it’s important to not only read what Paul says to women in Ephesians, but to read what Paul calls on the men to do.
21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; 33 however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Paul is calling for a total devotion of the husband to his wife, even if it means giving up his life for her. His wife must be treated as his own flesh, and with all the respect that entails. Christ didn’t just lord over his church, he served her. In fact, he was the ultimate servant. That is what it meant to be the head of the family. I think you also do need to take the context of the times into account, too, as what Paul called for was a radical redefinition of the way of marriage seen in the Roman world, where women were often little more than property. It is true that there are differences in the way Paul called husbands and wives to submit to each other, but it’s also true also that Paul was concerned with the equal dignity of both.
The Church does not believe a wife is to submit to her husband as a child does to a parent, or as a servant does to a master, or anything along those lines. She certainly is not called to follow him into apostasy or anything that violates her conscience. And if the husband does not treat her as his own flesh and becomes a dictator or is abusive, she is not called to endure simply out of submission. Such interpretations are a distortion of what Paul is saying. Christian marriage is mutual submission to each other in a covenant relationship. The man is called to be the head of the family, but I would not frame this as him being the unquestioned dictator of the family, and if a husband acted unilaterally in any matter I’d hardly consider that respectful of his wife or as treating her as his own flesh.
The Church does NOT extend the relationship that Paul describes in Ephesians beyond the family. Women should not be considered inferior or secondary to men in the workplace or government. Women can be supervisors, bosses, CEOs, entrepreneurs, senators, presidents, etc… It is NOT wrong or against the natural order for them to assume these positions or have authority over men in these capacities (and if a woman was president she is certainly not called to “submit” to him in matters of governing the nation or business).
Regarding Paul’s prohibition on women speaking, the Church understands this to be in reference to the Church, and in particular in regards to giving a homily/sermon on the readings, and also in regards to being part of the ministerial priesthood. But certainly recent evidence quite clearly demonstrates that women are not excluded from Church life or function. They are cantors, they may do the readings, they may be EMHCs, they may be on Church finance councils and speak to the parish about those issues and don’t need men to speak for them. Please also look to the number of women found among the saints, and the many vocations that women do have in the Church (which is not necessarily true in other Christian denominations).
I’m not sure if the response above will be heartening or not. I certainly hope it is.
21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church; 33 however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.
Paul is calling for a total devotion of the husband to his wife, even if it means giving up his life for her. His wife must be treated as his own flesh, and with all the respect that entails. Christ didn’t just lord over his church, he served her. In fact, he was the ultimate servant. That is what it meant to be the head of the family. I think you also do need to take the context of the times into account, too, as what Paul called for was a radical redefinition of the way of marriage seen in the Roman world, where women were often little more than property. It is true that there are differences in the way Paul called husbands and wives to submit to each other, but it’s also true also that Paul was concerned with the equal dignity of both.
The Church does not believe a wife is to submit to her husband as a child does to a parent, or as a servant does to a master, or anything along those lines. She certainly is not called to follow him into apostasy or anything that violates her conscience. And if the husband does not treat her as his own flesh and becomes a dictator or is abusive, she is not called to endure simply out of submission. Such interpretations are a distortion of what Paul is saying. Christian marriage is mutual submission to each other in a covenant relationship. The man is called to be the head of the family, but I would not frame this as him being the unquestioned dictator of the family, and if a husband acted unilaterally in any matter I’d hardly consider that respectful of his wife or as treating her as his own flesh.
The Church does NOT extend the relationship that Paul describes in Ephesians beyond the family. Women should not be considered inferior or secondary to men in the workplace or government. Women can be supervisors, bosses, CEOs, entrepreneurs, senators, presidents, etc… It is NOT wrong or against the natural order for them to assume these positions or have authority over men in these capacities (and if a woman was president she is certainly not called to “submit” to him in matters of governing the nation or business).
Regarding Paul’s prohibition on women speaking, the Church understands this to be in reference to the Church, and in particular in regards to giving a homily/sermon on the readings, and also in regards to being part of the ministerial priesthood. But certainly recent evidence quite clearly demonstrates that women are not excluded from Church life or function. They are cantors, they may do the readings, they may be EMHCs, they may be on Church finance councils and speak to the parish about those issues and don’t need men to speak for them. Please also look to the number of women found among the saints, and the many vocations that women do have in the Church (which is not necessarily true in other Christian denominations).
I’m not sure if the response above will be heartening or not. I certainly hope it is.
S
SWolf
Guest
If a wife refuses to submit to her husband’s legitimate leadership, is he still required to love her as Christ loved the Church?
W
Wesrock
Guest
Christians are called to act out of love regardless, especially if we can convert the other to Christian living. But the Church does not believe a spouse, husband or wife, has a moral obligation to suffer physical or emotional abuse at the hands of their spouse. Both the husband and wife are to submit to each other. That is proper. But Paul does not elaborate on every specific situation where one spouse does not fulfill their obligation, he instructs here on the ideal relationship we should strive for, which is mutual submission to each other. The church certainly believes there are appropriate circumstances for spouses to separate. The Church has been clear that neither spouse is called to violate their conscience.
Marriage is a covenant. It’s not one taking ownership of the other, it’s a sharing of what the two have.
Perhaps you could also clarify what you mean by submit, too? As stated, submit doesn’t mean total domination, or a master and servant or parent and child relationship, or even a relationship where one spouse makes all the decisions.
S
SWolf
Guest
That’s what St. Peter said too, he also gave the same reasoning for wifely submission.
No, but it requires having an understanding of the weaknesses of one’s spouse. If the wife is sometimes rude, disrespectful, and contentious, the husband must still love her like Christ loves the Church.
If the husband sometimes makes weak decisions, or can be somewhat overbearing, she still is obligated to submit. No one is required to act unethically for their spouse. The issue is that the exhortation is not a tit-for-tat, and not dependent on the other fulfilling their obligations equally.
Agreed, but the WAY is different. Wives are to show their love of Christ by submitting to their husband’s authority. Husbands are to show the love of Christ by loving their wives as He loved his Church.
Agreed
Agreed.
In prudential decisions when there is strong disagreement on both sides, the wife yields to the husband’s judgment. The husband, in turn, takes his wife’s concerns into consideration, and takes full responsibility of the consequences of his judgement, good or ill.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
And what if a husband leads (or attempts to lead) his wife away from the Church? At what point should she refuse to follow?
Case in point: I know a married couple where the husband is Protestant and the wife Catholic. When they were first married, he attended Mass with her. Then he started attending a Presbyterian church, and required that she and their kids go to the Presbyterian service. They could still go to Sunday Mass provided that they also went to the Sunday services.
That’s a really long time in church for young children, and quite a burden on the wife/mother. So over time…she stopped going to the Catholic church because she simply couldn’t keep up with it all.
And he, himself, reminded me about St. Paul and the Ephesians, when the situation came up in conversation. He is the spiritual leader of the family and in his judgement his family should be at the Presbyterian church.
S
SWolf
Guest
Hence why I put LEGITIMATE authority. Forcing a wife to become protestant is not legitimate for clear reasons.And what if a husband leads (or attempts to lead) his wife away from the Church? At what point should she refuse to follow?
Case in point: I know a married couple where the husband is Protestant and the wife Catholic. When they were first married, he attended Mass with her. Then he started attending a Presbyterian church, and required that she and their kids go to the Presbyterian service. They could still go to Sunday Mass provided that they also went to the Sunday services.
That’s a really long time in church for young children, and quite a burden on the wife/mother. So over time…she stopped going to the Catholic church because she simply couldn’t keep up with it all.
And he, himself, reminded me about St. Paul and the Ephesians, when the situation came up in conversation. He is the spiritual leader of the family and in his judgement his family should be at the Presbyterian church.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Right, I’m not disputing that–but at which point does the wife take some action?..frankly, I guess that doesn’t have an answer (I’m answering my own question). At what point does a spouse decide to take action on any serious marital dispute…?
BUT it could get boggled down in what is legitimate authority. According to us, he loses legitimate authority when she is influenced to leave the Church. According to him, his authority is legitimate because it fits his beliefs. And then it just keeps spinning around and around. :hypno:
8
808Catholic
Guest
Firstly, my friend is not an atheist. She’s a Muslim. The topic came up because in history there was a discussion on the maltreatment of women in the Middle East and the topic pondered if it were due to the Qu’ran’s teachings. I said to her in question that does the Qu’uran say these things against women, and she was quick to bounce back with Bible verses she gathered online that showed that the Bible was equally as misogynistic in her defense of her own religion.
Question: did your friend ever respond to your original question whether the Koran and Haddith teaches that Islamic women must be subservient to all Muslim males. (By that way, my understanding is ALL Muslim males and not just their husbands. In my opinion, this is worse than her claim against Christianity.
In my Catholic house growing up, my parents always made decisions together. … I didn’t know this was in contradiction with Catholic doctrine, but the implication by many of you,…
I do not believe Catholic doctrine speaks against equal leadership of the family. Have you seen this in person or has a Catholic priest stated this to you?
I was taught that marriage was mutual submission and self-sacrifice through Christ in my Catholic grade school, but these texts and many of you seem to agree that it is a woman’s role to submit and obey her husband as the church does to Christ and in turn the man simply loves the woman. I don’t understand what would be wrong with both parties loving as Christ, and both parties submitting to one another.
I think you confuse the western definition of “love” with the “agape/love” meant in the Bible. Agape is a total love that was exhibited by Christ; we give ourselves totally to whom we love. Mind, body, and spirit. This is not the same as the western definition. Also, the reason we submit to each other (and this is Church teaching) is because Christ is within us. If we are to love/agape God, then we must love/agape each other.
1 Peter 3:7 “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner…”
…To me this is ridiculous to imply women are weaker than men… The only way women are weaker is physically… I’ve met many, many women tough as nails. And, again with the babymaking machine…
Remember the time that St. Peter is writing his letter; women were treated as property. Many believed, Jews, Romans, and pagans, a wife could be thrown out of the house by her husband for a variety of reasons. Once cast out, without protection by a male, she had very little options in order to support herself. This would make women “weaker” by the standards of St. Peter’s day. Even today, there are many parts of the world where women are abused because they have no male protectors. This is why Jesus gave His mother Mary to the care of the “Apostle He loved”. Mary would have the male protector she needed until her dying days. Interesting how some people denigrate the gift of child bearing by using the term “babymaking machine”. Without the ability to give life, we have no future. It was Mary’s honor to bear the Son of God. Do you think she felt taken for granted by being a "baby making machine?"
I do believe feminism is a bit radical these days as well… It disappoints me that this apparently goes against my religion’s doctrine as I was not aware of this until today.I always thought the Catholic Church was on board…
You should discuss this confusion with a priest. There shouldn’t be any confusion: the Catholic church supports women and their God-given role. What the Church does NOT support is when men and women begin to define their own roles in defiance of God.
…An adult is capable of deciphering who is right for her and who is not. That’s part of history treating girls as property rather than people. Isn’t that even so in the church, that a marriage isn’t even valid in Catholocism without both parties consenting?..
I can’t think of one instance of a forced or arranged marriage in the Catholic Church in recent times. Unlike Islam. Ask your friend about that. I believe you are being influenced by radical feminist myths.
I’m just surprised and disappointed that egalitarian marriage where both spouses have equal “power” and women as leaders like Christian, Carly Fiorina, and with talents that they implement other than just having babies and caring for them are seemingly condemned by these passages and in teaching with my faith.
These passages do not condemn in any way or form the talents of women or the importance of their roles. I suggest you study more on this topic with someone from the Church so you can understand your faith before you feel let down by your misunderstandings.
I took great pride in both my ambition to succeed in my own aspirations and career, my hopes to live as a Catholic with a Catholic marriage, which was also eglitarian where we both loved, respected, lead, parented, made decisions equally… and it’s been shaken.
The Bible is NOT a secular law book. Unlike Judaism, we don’t take the words one by one and insist that each one be followed. We take the Word of God, the entire Bible, which represents part of God’s revelation and exhibited by Christ Jesus. By taking the Bible apart and using the individual verses as “proof text”, humans attempt to separate Christ himself! The Bible is a complete canon and Catholics shouldn’t be lured into defending each and every verse. Can you imagine what would happen if you and your friend were having a friendly discussion and she only remembered 1/100 of what you said? Would be a very confusing conversation!
N
NovusFidem
Guest
Can we suggest youtube videos here?
youtube.com/watch?v=rHkF9CZ2zf4
This is a Catholic woman answering to the same accusations by an atheist. From what I remember, she studied theology. Her answers were enough for me to understand what those passages truly mean, and I wholly agree with the idea of submitting to my husband (if I had one!
).
youtube.com/watch?v=rHkF9CZ2zf4
This is a Catholic woman answering to the same accusations by an atheist. From what I remember, she studied theology. Her answers were enough for me to understand what those passages truly mean, and I wholly agree with the idea of submitting to my husband (if I had one!
).
K
kozlosap
Guest
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
Yeah, and that’s why this talk of “my parents made all their decisions together” can be misleading. Certainly they both had (name removed by moderator)ut, or should have. But in the end, someone has to make the decision. If agreement cannot be reached, or even compromise, a decision must be made, and my mother taught me long ago that she (married to a non-Catholic, non-religious man) would have her say, but in the end (short of something she simply could not abide like when dad wanted to pull my sisters out of Catholic school and she said she’d take a second job before they did that…), she always told me it was her job to yield to his final decision, support him in that, and not hold the failure of it over him (short of the lesson that THAT particular idea was a bad one for the future).
It all sounds great until you get to a point where a decision has to be made, and each spouse has a different resolution in mind. That is where I believe it is the husband’s job to make the decision (we are talking serious issues, not “what’s for dinner?”), taking into consideration his wife’s (name removed by moderator)uts, feelings,and desires. Trust me - as a husband, that weight is soooooooooo heavy. It is a taxing responsibility, one which we will be held accountable for, and one NOT to be taken lightly. I suspect many wives do not realize the burden and stress it puts on a loving husband who wants the best for his family. But that is what we are called to do and be, just as are wives have their calling, which is not easy to live out either.
W
Wesrock
Guest
This is a great video. I have learned a lot.Can we suggest youtube videos here?
youtube.com/watch?v=rHkF9CZ2zf4
This is a Catholic woman answering to the same accusations by an atheist. From what I remember, she studied theology. Her answers were enough for me to understand what those passages truly mean, and I wholly agree with the idea of submitting to my husband (if I had one!
X
Xantippe
Guest
I haven’t reached the end of the discussion, but that isn’t satisfactory. It doesn’t matter if the husband “takes full responsibility” if the decisions he is making cause extreme harm to the family–if the decisions leave the family without adequate grocery money, if the decisions put their home in jeopardy, if he insists on inappropriate schooling (for instance insisting that the wife homeschool when she believes that it is hurting the children), if he insists on a course of medical or psychological neglect for the children, won’t allow his wife to seek treatment for postpartum depression, etc.
I have in the past in these discussions asked something like, what about the husband that is under the influence of mind-altering substances, mentally ill, has a brain tumor, is suffering from dementia, etc.? Is the wife required to hand over car keys to her husband with advanced Alzheimer’s or open a line of credit for a bipolar husband on a spree? I’ve never gotten a satisfactory answer to that question. And bear in mind that a lot of times, it’s not immediately clear that a person has mental illness or dementia. There may be a LOT of erratic and destructive behavior before there’s finally a diagnosis.
I think that at some point, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” kicks in and trumps the submission verses.
Also, Sheila Wray Gregoire has a very good piece here:
tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2015/05/on-submission-wedding-showers-and-choosing-a-mate/
She says (and I think this is very wise):
“I think the problem is that we define submission wrong. We define submission as in going along with someone’s WILL. Letting him make the decisions, and following him in that. But that makes no sense as the definition of submission because of the verse immediately before, in Ephesians 5:21: Submit to one another. How can we all be letting someone else make the decisions? Then no one would make decisions!”
“Maybe submission is about something else. Maybe submission means that we consider other’s welfare before our own. If that’s the case, then we DO always submit–even in cases of alcoholism or adultery or abuse.”
I think that is a very helpful way to look at it, because it provides an answer for the “hard” cases, without (on the one hand) carving out huge exceptions or (on the other hand) being inhumanly and inhumanely legalistic.
X
Xantippe
Guest
So, if you wanted to heavily mortgage your house to start a new business and your wife was opposed to the idea, she should sign the papers anyway, even though she believed that you were leading your family to financial ruin?
My husband would never ask me to do that (in his right mind), but I would never sign those papers.
“I was just following orders” wasn’t a good enough defense for German soldiers, and it’s not good enough for wives.
T
TxGodfollower
Guest
Techgirl,A lot of you are contorting things I have said… also, I should mention many of you are helpful, as well. Firstly, my friend is not an atheist. She’s a Muslim. The topic came up because in history there was a discussion on the maltreatment of women in the Middle East and the topic pondered if it were due to the Qu’ran’s teachings. I said to her in question that does the Qu’uran say these things against women, and she was quick to bounce back with Bible verses she gathered online that showed that the Bible was equally as misogynistic in her defense of her own religion.
I believe that modern day talks of empowerment for women stem from the fact they were abused for centuries. I don’t think it’s all a thing of trying to have control OVER men, rather control over themselves. I don’t think in a relationship anyone should have control over anyone else. I feel as though in marriage the husband and wife should lead together. In my Catholic house growing up, my parents always made decisions together. They had equal say and equal influence on my Catholic faith. I didn’t know this was in contradiction with Catholic doctrine, but the implication by many of you, who I assume know what you are talking about, is that it does. This saddens me, but I came here for the truth, not to hear what I want to hear.
I was taught that marriage was mutual submission and self-sacrifice through Christ in my Catholic grade school, but these texts and many of you seem to agree that it is a woman’s role to submit and obey her husband as the church does to Christ and in turn the man simply loves the woman. I don’t understand what would be wrong with both parties loving as Christ, and both parties submitting to one another.
1 Peter 3:7 “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.”
Weaker? This just makes another thing for me to have to explain to my friend. Or rather, I’ll have to come to terms with. To me this is ridiculous to imply women are weaker than men. I’ve met many strong women and men in my life. The only way women are weaker is physically, that’s a biological fact. I’ve met many, many women tough as nails. And, again with the babymaking machine…
I do believe feminism is a bit radical these days as well, but I also do firmly believe that women are just as capable leaders as men, and should be co-leaders in a marriage. It disappoints me that this apparently goes against my religion’s doctrine as I was not aware of this until today.
Also, I find it appalling that anyone else had a say in who a woman would/could marry other than the woman and the man getting married. No one else should be able to make that decision. That’s terrible. An adult is capable of deciphering who is right for her and who is not. That’s part of history treating girls as property rather than people. Isn’t that even so in the church, that a marriage isn’t even valid in Catholocism without both parties consenting? That’s absurd that a father used to have say in his daughter’s marriage. It’s she and her fiancé’s marriage and theirs alone! No one else should have any say in the matter…
I’m just surprised and disappointed that egalitarian marriage where both spouses have equal “power” and women as leaders like Christian, Carly Fiorina, and with talents that they implement other than just having babies and caring for them are seemingly condemned by these passages and in teaching with my faith. I took great pride in both my ambition to succeed in my own aspirations and career, my hopes to live as a Catholic with a Catholic marriage, which was also eglitarian where we both loved, respected, lead, parented, made decisions equally… and it’s been shaken.
Anyone can take snippets out of any book and use it to say whatever they want. You can take verses out of the Bible and, without any context, have it say whatever you want is OK.
The two passages you brought up (1 Peter and about men loving/women submitting) are interesting ones. I’m afraid I can’t give you the Catholic answer, but here’s my thoughts on them:
1 Peter. Next time your at your parents house, take a Tupperware plate and a fine china plate. Drop the Tupperware plate. It should be completely fine. Now, if you were to drop the fine china plate… your mom may be a little upset and there will be some cleaning to do. Tupperware is obviously then stronger than fine china, but fine china is much more expensive, valuable, and treasured. Peter is reminding guys to treasure and honor women.
Men loving/women submitting. Think of what comes naturally. Guys are used to someone being in charge and giving orders, and other people following. Loving, that’s a bit harder for us to do. Girls love easily, but have a harder time following orders (please don’t hit me girls). There wouldn’t be a point for Paul to tell men to submit (as he might as well remind them to breathe), but rather he tells us what doesn’t come naturally.
- Status