Must wives love their husbands?

  • Thread starter Thread starter D.Erasmus.R
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course. What else would be the basis of submission other than a reciprocity of the love a husband shows to his wife out of a motivation of both of their relationships to Christ?

JP II wrote " The husband and the wife are in fact “subject to one another,” and are mutually subordinated to one another. The source of this mutual subjection is to be found in Christian pietas , and its expression is love."

"Love excludes every kind of subjection whereby the wife might become a servant or a slave of the husband, an object of unilateral domination. Love makes the husband simultaneously subject to the wife, and thereby subject to the Lord himself, just as the wife to the husband. "

“It is certain that when the husband and wife are subject to one another “out of reverence for Christ,” a just balance will be established, such as to correspond to their Christian vocation in the mystery of Christ.”

“Nowadays our contemporary sensitivity is certainly different. Our mentality and customs are quite different, too, as is the social position of women in regard to men. Nevertheless, the fundamental moral principle which we find in the Letter to the Ephesians remains the same and produces the same results. The mutual subjection “out of reverence for Christ”—a subjection arising from the basis of Christian pietas—always produces that profound and solid structure of the community of the spouses in which there is constituted the true “communion” of the person.”
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
The role as head of household does not solely apply to earnings. Even when the wife has more earning potential than her husband, he is still the head of household. It’s about divine order not just human preferences.
Click to expand...
Then how does that work out in your mind?
 
PJH_74 said:
40.png
mrsdizzyd:
The role as head of household does not solely apply to earnings. Even when the wife has more earning potential than her husband, he is still the head of household. It’s about divine order not just human preferences.
Click to expand...
Then how does that work out in your mind?
Click to expand...
Out of love and service the husband leads.

A good article: Wives Be Subject to Your Husbands | Catholic Answers
 
LumineDiei said:
No affront to you, but I just get the giggles every time you, as a high school boy, jump right into the wifely submission threads. I just wonder what practical expectations you’ve set up for a future spouse.
Click to expand...
I wish I could upvote this more than once
 
Let’s not pile on. He is young and full of zeal for the faith. He will learn.
 
The electric question is “If the wife thinks her husband doesn’t fulfill the duties described by Paul, is she then allowed to defy his rule as head of house?”

Watch the sparks fly, right?
 
Vonsalza said:
The electric question is “If the wife thinks her husband doesn’t fulfill the duties described by Paul, is she then allowed to defy his rule as head of house?”

Watch the sparks fly, right?
Click to expand...
It is a bit like asking what options the laity have when their bishop is viewed as being guilty of a major dereliction of duty.

I think in these cases the one in a position of obedience still has the position of prophet, as Nathan had with King David. Nathan didn’t propose to make himself king, but prompted by the Lord he did venture to confront the king on his failures in no uncertain terms.
 
Last edited:
You realize that the concept of marrying for romantic love pretty much only dates to Victorian times, right?

For most of history, and in most cultures, it was a happy accident if it happened— but marrying for love and living happily ever after wasn’t a luxury most people had.

In a lot of cultures, the man was much older than his wife. So you have someone who’s 20 or 30 (or older) who can finally afford to marry and support a family— and his wife might be 15. How much does a 30yo man have in common with a 15yo girl? If a first wife died, a second wife was married, not necessarily out of love, but because someone had to raise the first wife’s kids… 😉 Other times, concubinage was the norm.

Marriage was for the benefit of society. It created alliances between people of different families, and tied a community together. It cultivated children, and gave the next generation a stable place to be raised. The family, not the individual, was the basic building block of society.

That’s not to say virtue has no place in a family. A family is a very poor family in the absence of virtue! And, with virtue, comes things like fidelity, respect, consideration, and charity-- which are all components of love. But you’d have to define what love is— because love is the deliberate act of putting someone else’s wellbeing ahead of your own, rather than the fluttery emotions you find in pink paperbacks.

So, yes. Wives need to love their husbands-- in the way of putting their husband’s wellbeing ahead of their own wellbeing. And at the same time, husbands need to love their wives-- in the way of putting their wife’s wellbeing ahead of their own. If you’ve got a pair of people who are each striving to put the other one first— you’re on a good path.

But if someone thinks about love as merely being a certain feeling or emotion, and completely ignores the deliberate action involved in choosing to love and express love— they’re going to be very disappointed in life.
 
Nonsense. My wife still wakes up in the morning, looks over at me, and them comments to herself what a supremely lucky woman she is to have ended up with me.

Of course you’re right. One of the reasons arranged marriages had a better success rate than pick-your-own for years and years. Probably still does.
 
Vonsalza said:
Of course you’re right. One of the reasons arranged marriages had a better success rate than pick-your-own for years and years. Probably still does.
Click to expand...
It could also have to do with the fact that, for women at least, there were very few options and divorce would have been more taboo.
 
Last edited:
I don’t subscribe to the whole submission thing. However, you should love your spouse. There will be days when you just aren’t feeling it. On those days, fake it. Not romantic love. Don’t force that. But loving from the heart, fake it if you aren’t feeling it. Barring a situation of abuse, if you fake it from the heart it will usually come back to you genuinely and you won’t have to continue faking.

Of course, if you are being emotionally or physically abused you need to remove yourself from the environment.
 
Sure.

But in most cases, I think most of the improved longevity comes from the lack of lovey dovey notions of romance.

It’s more understood as a functional partnership.

If it makes anyone feel better, every arranged couple I’ve known agree that they come to love each other. Ymmv
 
Last edited:
Meh. Its the same thing. It is one thing to say, “Honey, you decide this one because I don’t really care one way or the other”, or “Honey, you decide this one because I can see it is really important to you.”

But if a couple is in the habit of the wife submitting with a blanket permission for the husband to decide whatever they can’t agree on, then that is pretty much the same as having him decide the small things. Big things often encompass small things.

My husband and I don’t believe in the whole submission thing. When we can’t agree on something we either come back to it later or, if it is something that needs a decision, one of us will decide to give in to the other. Usually it is done out of love, and oftentimes with the understanding that “next time it is my turn.” Works for us, but we are agnostic. If you don’t learn to compromise in a marriage, you are going to have a hard row to hoe.
 
Last edited:
midori said:
You realize that the concept of marrying for romantic love pretty much only dates to Victorian times, right?

For most of history, and in most cultures, it was a happy accident if it happened— but marrying for love and living happily ever after wasn’t a luxury most people had.
Click to expand...
Midori’s quotes are quite germane to the conversation. It must be remembered that Paul wrote in a time when women had NO rights before the law. In conservative Jewish society, women could not divorce their husbands; husbands had complete and utter control over a wife. Also, many marriages were arranged without any (name removed by moderator)ut on the part of the woman or man. One could be married to someone they would have never picked on their own (and not in a romantic sense). Paul’s exhortation was for men to invest themselves in their marriage, and for the woman to “lovingly” understand her position. To act more in unison, as partners, and not simply antagonists created by a situation over which thay had little or no control.

Christ elevated marriage to a sacred union, a sacrament in our modern understanding, and Paul was writing to a Jewish society for whom this was foreign, at least in the practical sense. As to the understanding of Paul’s exhortation in today’s society, it makes sense to us more in light of how marriage has evolved over the years. Things were much different back in Paul’s day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top