My wife will never submit to me...should that matter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter buzzoff1031
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thewanderer said:
Let me bring up another quote from Casti Connubii which has led me to believe the above is acceptable.

From this passage it is clear that CC is laying down two principles.
  1. A wife has no obligation to follow her husband in anything contrary to right reason
  2. If your understanding or view of a wifes submission is based on the idea that she is less capable of understanding, reasoning, or judging correctly than her husband based solely on the fact that she is a woman your understanding of submission is incorrect.
Now, given these two principles which Casti Connubii makes clear let us think about the idea that a woman is required to do follow everything her husband decides (unless it is sinful/will ruin the family). And, to make it even more concrete, lets think of a particular situation within this scenario, so, for instance, the husband wants to move out of state but the wife does not. The husband believes moving out of state for a new job will be in the best interests of the family. The wife believes he is wrong and staying where they are will be best. Now, given your interpretation of submission, there isn’t even a question here, they move. However, given the two above principles of Casti Connubii that is not an appropriate response.

Since she does not have an obligation to follow her husbands decisions if they are not in accord with right reason (ie, if he is wrong and it is better to stay) you cannot automatically assume she has an obligation to give in and move. If her husband is wrong and she is right then she has no obligation to move. (given principle #1). And, since, according to principle #2 we cannot dismiss this problem by assuming the man will reason correctly more often and so should be given the edge, we are left with the conclusion that the wife, according to Casti Connubii itself, does not have an obligation to follow her husband when he is wrong. There are exceptions to this, which is brought up in a later part of CC but this makes it clear that the idea that the submission must be understood as the man always having the last say is actually contrary to the Church’s idea of submission as explained in Casti Connubii
Click to expand...
So you are saying whenever a wife 'thinks she is right" she is rightful to reject her husband’s authority?

Casti Connubii mentions “right reason,” if your husband was clearly operating completely unreasonably or immorally then the wife should challenge him, but as i just mentioned it would have to be reasonably serious, not just when you think you are right about something.
 
holy_face said:
Degree and manner could be different but at the end of the day the husband still has the authority. Some cultures are ultra macho and the man dictates everything and in other cultures the man and wife discuss things more openly and only when there needs to be a final decision the man should gently lead the way.

If you and you husband decide to things differently then that is your choice but it is in conflict with what is taught for a Christian marriage if the wife has the authority in the household.
Click to expand...
Dominance should not be a part of marriage, whether it is dominance by the husband or the wife. So, a husband who does not want a submissive wife and a wife who is not submissive, are sinning?
 
Portrait said:
Dear holy face,

Hello again.

Unfortunately, it is a common fallacy for some contemporary Catholics to forcefully assert that *all *standing Church teaching is to be found only within the pages of the current Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is a narrow and novel opinion and is usually employed for polemical purposes, such as upholding particular modern viewpoints that cannot be reasonably squared with older Church teaching. The topic currently under review is a case in point. To contend that the entire deposit of faith is only to be found in the contents of the Catechism simply cannot be sustained. This not only falls into the “hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture” with the past error, so deplored by our former Pope, but also cuts one adrift from the whole sweep of Catholic teaching and Tradition throughout the ages. Moreover, it is to actually adopt a sort of ‘sola catechism’, which is as grave an error as its Protestant counterpart, sola scriptura. It tends to be embraced by ‘Tiber crossers’ to Catholicism, who, owing to their rigorous Protestant backgrounds, are often reactionary with respect to any old and unpopular teaching. It likes to think that Catholicism is more progressive in its thinking and has given its approval, for example, to radical and un-Catholic views respecting the equality of men and women.

We must, dear friend, listen attentively to ALL the teaching 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. So called dissent from papal Encyclicals is modernism and no part of the credo of a Catholic. Our current Catechism may well be a “sure norm for teaching the faith”, but it is plainly wrong to say that it is the only valid source of teaching.

This, dear friend, is why I think so many contemporary Catholics err on a whole range of topics today - they limit themselves exclusively to the current Church Catechism as regards standing teaching.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

In Christos
Click to expand...
Oh yea “modernism” – a favorite go to “charge” of the “rad Trads” against Vat II and the the Church since the Council.
 
severus68 said:
Dominance should not be a part of marriage, whether it is dominance by the husband or the wife. So, a husband who does not want a submissive wife and a wife who is not submissive, are sinning?
Click to expand...
It would be unhealthy and opposite of the type of marriage outlined by Church teaching, but
I don’t think it is necessarily sinning, I never said that. The church alone can determine what the severity is of not following particular doctrine.
 
holy_face said:
What is the point of his authority if he actually does not have it in practice? I already said if he was making a grave immoral mistake then the wife obviously is not obliged to follow.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, all I’m doing is pointing out immutable Church teaching in Casti Connubii. Casti Connubii makes it clear that the Church’s understanding of submission is not, and never has been that the wife always has to do what her husband says unless he is making a gravely immoral mistake. This is coming directly from the official teaching of the Church on the topic of submission. Its not the only thing CC has to say about submission, like I said, CC seems to point towards exceptions even to this, but whatever the Church’s idea of submission actually is, it is very clearly not that the wife must obey her husband unless he’s making a very grave immoral error.
 
holy_face said:
No the Church makes it doctrine
Click to expand...
The Church makes it clear that there is some sort of order and headship/submission in marriage, yes, however the Church also makes it very clear that this order is not one wherein the wife must follow the husband in everything he says except for a few rare extreme cases. If you wish to talk about Church teaching on the matter you must accept all of Church teaching, not just the parts that fit your opinion.
 
thewanderer said:
I don’t know, all I’m doing is pointing out immutable Church teaching in Casti Connubii. Casti Connubii makes it clear that the Church’s understanding of submission is not, and never has been that the wife always has to do what her husband says unless he is making a gravely immoral mistake. This is coming directly from the official teaching of the Church on the topic of submission. Its not the only thing CC has to say about submission, like I said, CC seems to point towards exceptions even to this, but whatever the Church’s idea of submission actually is, it is very clearly not that the wife must obey her husband unless he’s making a very grave immoral error.
Click to expand...
Then authority is just an illusion if it is not actual authority. Why would St. Paul and Church establish the authority of the husband just to take it away in actual practice?
 
thewanderer said:
The Church makes it clear that there is some sort of order and headship/submission in marriage, yes, however the Church also makes it very clear that this order is not one wherein the wife must follow the husband in everything he says except for a few rare extreme cases. If you wish to talk about Church teaching on the matter you must accept all of Church teaching, not just the parts that fit your opinion.
Click to expand...
What part of church teaching conflicts with what I am saying? Truly the husband can only have headship if he actually has the headship in practice, if it is an illusion then it is not a headship.
 
holy_face said:
It would be unhealthy and opposite of the type of marriage outlined by Church teaching, but
I don’t think it is necessarily sinning, I never said that. The church alone can determine what the severity is of not following particular doctrine./QUOTE

So, its all about your personal views of marriage with women being lesser. Why would no dominance mean it is the opposite and unhealthy?
Click to expand...
 
holy_face said:
What part of church teaching conflicts with what I am saying? Truly the husband can only have headship if he actually has the headship in practice, if it is an illusion then it is not a headship.
Click to expand...
According to your opinion of headship, but apparantly not according to the Church’s.
As for what teaching? Casti Connubii. I explained this all in my earlier post which you just dismissed. But its right there in Casti Connubii. Wives do not have an obligation to follow their husbands if their husbands decisions are incorrect. That is a very clear statement made by the Church in Casti Connubii about the Church’s view of submission in marriage. It cannot be either ignored or dismissed. Rejecting this statement means rejecting what the Church teaches, and has always taught, on submission in marriage. In other words, you cannot reject this fact and still claim to be promoting the Church’s view of marriage.
 
severus68 said:
So, its all about your personal views of marriage with women being lesser. Why would no dominance mean it is the opposite and unhealthy?
Click to expand...
I never said women were lesser, just that husbands have the headship of the family.
 
To repeat, from Casti Connubii, the official Church teaching on submission in marriage
nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs.
Click to expand...
Source: vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html

Its in paragraph 27 in case you have difficulty finding it.
 
thewanderer said:
According to your opinion of headship, but apparantly not according to the Church’s.
As for what teaching? Casti Connubii. I explained this all in my earlier post which you just dismissed. But its right there in Casti Connubii. Wives do not have an obligation to follow their husbands if their husbands decisions are incorrect.

That is a very clear statement made by the Church in Casti Connubii about the Church’s view of submission in marriage. It cannot be either ignored or dismissed. Rejecting this statement means rejecting what the Church teaches, and has always taught, on submission in marriage. In other words, you cannot reject this fact and still claim to be promoting the Church’s view of marriage
Click to expand...
No it does not say that, it says if it is not in “right reason” which suggests acting in an universally unreasonable manner, not just what you personally think is incorrect or disagree with.

If you can simply say “I disagree with you” and shut down his authority then he really had no authority.
 
holy_face said:
No it does not say that, it says if it is not in “right reason” which suggests acting in an universally unreasonable manner, not just what you personally think is incorrect or disagree with.

If you can simply say “I disagree with you” and shut down his authority then he really had no authority.
Click to expand...
Right reason means correct reason, means being correct. I’m sorry, but I don’t see how you can interpret that to mean anything else. Right reason does not mean being usually reasonable, thats just not what those words mean. 🤷
 
holy_face said:
Yep the key is acting contrary to “right reason,” not simply a personal disagreement you may have.

A wife simply thinking she is right, is not “right reason.”
Click to expand...
And neither does a husband thinking he is right make for “right reason” Right reason means actually, in fact, being correct.
 
thewanderer said:
Right reason means correct reason, means being correct. I’m sorry, but I don’t see how you can interpret that to mean anything else. Right reason does not mean being usually reasonable, thats just not what those words mean. 🤷
Click to expand...
Right Reason is something based on rational thought on an established principle of what is considered right. Not a personal opinion that you may feel you are “right” or “correct” about.

Sticking your hand in an oven would be contrary to right reason

Gambling all of your families savings in a poker game would be contrary to right reason

Drinking a bottle of jack daniels and then driving somewhere would be contrary to right reason
 
thewanderer said:
And neither does a husband thinking he is right make for “right reason” Right reason means actually, in fact, being correct.
Click to expand...
well, I guess thats not strictly the best way to put it. Being “in harmony with right reason” means corresponding with correct reasoning, which, lets face it, is the same thing as being correct, but written in an older style of English phrasing.
 
thewanderer said:
And neither does a husband thinking he is right make for “right reason” Right reason means actually, in fact, being correct.
Click to expand...
If what he is asking is contrary to reason then yes his authority is to be questioned, but right reason suggests something that would be more universally societally established as unreasonable rather than a person’s simple opinion that they are “correct”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top