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

[Walking_Home]

The CCC is not the entire authoritative teaching of the Catholic Catholic Church, it is a summary with many different sources which in combination represent the docrine of the Church.

I won’t address this anymore with you. Please seek out the guidance of someone with authority in the Church to guide you.

---

I have – the authority of the Catholic Church to interpret scripture and Tradition-- which would include the everything past. As has been clearly stated by the Church – those in not conformity with the CCC – need to bring themselves into conformity with the CCC.

 

[thewanderer]

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

You are correct.

However, when two reasonable people both disagree about which course of action is best, only one of them can be in accord with right reason. The wife has no obligation to give in to her husband if he is not the one in accord with right reason. That is just a fact. The tricky part is figuring out how to determine who is actually right. So how does a particular couple deal with this in the dynamics of their relationship? That depends on the couple, as well as the place and time in which they live. What we do know is that we cannot just assume the husband is always, or even more often right, as such an assumption would contradict the other part of that passage from Casti Connubii.

 

[holy_face]

You are correct.

However, when two reasonable people both disagree about which course of action is best, only one of them can be in accord with right reason. The wife has no obligation to give in to her husband if he is not the one in accord with right reason. That is just a fact. The tricky part is figuring out how to determine who is actually right. So how does a particular couple deal with this in the dynamics of their relationship? That depends on the couple, as well as the place and time in which they live. What we do know is that we cannot just assume the husband is always, or even more often right, as such an assumption would contradict the other part of that passage from Casti Connubii.

I agree, you can’t just always assume the husband is right. He may very well be wrong. But if it is not a matter with grave consequences then someone has to have the authority to make a decision. The husband is given that authority even if he makes the wrong decision. You can point it out to him when the consequences of that wrong decision manifest and suggest he make a better one next time

I think part of being the good wife is to keep him from doing too great harm but otherwise lovingly allowing him to make his mistakes, you can then lovingly point out a better alternative choice.

 

[thewanderer]

I just reread what you said and I’m getting a sneaking suspicion you want to limit right reason to those things established and accepted by multiple people rather than just that which is actually correct. Right reason is what it is whether or not it is recognized publicly by many people, and, similarly, something that contradicts right reason or is in disharmony with right reason is so whether or not it is recognized to be so publicly.

 

[thewanderer]

I agree, you can’t just always assume the husband is right. He may very well be wrong. But if it is not a matter with grave consequences then someone has to have the authority to make a decision. The husband is given that authority even if he makes the wrong decision. You can point it out to him when the consequences of that wrong decision manifest and suggest he make a better one next time

I think part of being the good wife is to keep him from doing too great harm but otherwise lovingly allowing him to make his mistakes, you can then lovingly point out a better alternative choice.

You can do so, but Catholicism does not require you to take that course of action. That is the point I am making here. You claim that the wife must go along even if her husband is wrong, but Casti Connubii explicitly rejects that. That just is not what the Church teaches.

 

[holy_face]

I just reread what you said and I’m getting a sneaking suspicion you want to limit right reason to those things established and accepted by multiple people rather than just that which is actually correct. Right reason is what it is whether or not it is recognized publicly by many people, and, similarly, something that contradicts right reason or is in disharmony with right reason is so whether or not it is recognized to be so publicly.

Yes I am limiting to that because that is what the terminology suggests. Something that is “right” and “reasonable” would be something that is correct to society as a whole not your own personal opinion of what is “right” or not.

 

[thewanderer]

You can do so, but Catholicism does not require you to take that course of action. That is the point I am making here. You claim that the wife must go along even if her husband is wrong, but Casti Connubii explicitly rejects that. That just is not what the Church teaches.

Which doesn’t make that kind of relationship dynamic necessarily wrong, honestly, I think its a beautiful dynamic when it works, but it is not the only acceptable dynamic and does not work for everyone and so should not be spoken of as the only acceptable dynamic for Catholics.

 

[holy_face]

You can do so, but Catholicism does not require you to take that course of action. That is the point I am making here. You claim that the wife must go along even if her husband is wrong, but Casti Connubii explicitly rejects that. That just is not what the Church teaches.

No Casti Connubii says the wife must be submissive to her husband and only when he is acting contrary to “right reason” may she object. Right Reason is something other than your personal opinion of what is "right, " it is something that would be considered reasonable in a general sense, not a personal feeling or preference about something.

 

[holy_face]

Which doesn’t make that kind of relationship dynamic necessarily wrong, honestly, I think its a beautiful dynamic when it works, but it is not the only acceptable dynamic and does not work for everyone and so should not be spoken of as the only acceptable dynamic for Catholics.

Right, there is no marriage enforcer that is going to come to your door and tell you that you are not being submissive enough to your husband, it is something you will have to figure out in your own marriage through prayer and contemplation on the Church’s teachings.

 

[without]

marriedmansexlife.com/

You should read this book and also participate in the forums, it is all about regaining the proper leadership role in the relationship, Christian headship. It is not all from a Christian perspective but most fits in quite well. Many men are realizing that surrendering this leadership creates a very unhappy relationship for both men and women. The women can actually become unattracted over time to husbands that display weakness and submissive behavior, it is often the cause of many affairs or lack of sex as the female will biologically be attracted to more dominant males.

I have used this to better my marriage and it worked almost immediately. I didn’t have major crisis but just some boundary issues, too much nagging, dominance from wife and such. I have regained the headship without too much bloodshed

Strongly recommend the above site and books.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes I am limiting to that because that is what the terminology suggests. Something that is “right” and “reasonable” would be something that is correct to society as a whole not your own personal opinion of what is “right” or not.

Right and reasonable are two different things. In Catholic, and in especially in Thomistic thought, reason and truth are not seen in any way as being dependent on whether or not society recognizes them. There is truth which is objective and stands on its own whether or not anybody recognizes it as true. This comes to such a point that God himself is able to be named “Truth” (via a slight changing of what is meant by truth, referring to the thing that exists as being true rather than statements being true). So when an official Church document speaks about right reason (ie, that which is correct) they are talking about objective truth as a whole rather than the part of objective truth that a particular society happened to recognize correctly. Now, if the document had some modifier in there, such as “right reason as generally accepted by society” I would agree with you. However, without any such modifier it seems pretty clear that it is talking about that which is true and right regardless of whether or not anybody else recognizes it as such.

 

[holy_face]

I knew this was going to be a hot topic probably one of the most controversial teachings of the Church in modern times. I love to watch pastors squirm around on this when it is the reading of the day, and the looks on parishioners faces are priceless.

 

[holy_face]

Right and reasonable are two different things. In Catholic, and in especially in Thomistic thought, reason and truth are not seen in any way as being dependent on whether or not society recognizes them. There is truth which is objective and stands on its own whether or not anybody recognizes it as true. This comes to such a point that God himself is able to be named “Truth” (via a slight changing of what is meant by truth, referring to the thing that exists as being true rather than statements being true). So when an official Church document speaks about right reason (ie, that which is correct) they are talking about objective truth as a whole rather than the part of objective truth that a particular society happened to recognize correctly. Now, if the document had some modifier in there, such as “right reason as generally accepted by society” I would agree with you. However, without any such modifier it seems pretty clear that it is talking about that which is true and right regardless of whether or not anybody else recognizes it as such.

Yes, it must be some sort of objective truth that goes well beyond your personal opinion about something, so you are defining it in an even stricter manner than I am.

 

[thewanderer]

I knew this was going to be a hot topic probably one of the most controversial teachings of the Church in modern times. I love to watch pastors squirm around on this when it is the reading of the day, and the looks on parishioners faces are priceless.

Well you won’t find me squirming about it. And I have been more than willing to defend the fact that must necessarily exist on other threads in the past, but I also think it is important to defend Church teaching against the false idea that all women have to always do what their husbands say unless he is gravely wrong or asking them to sin. I don’t have anything against the Church’s teaching on headship, despite how controversal it is, I just don’t like to see Church teaching twisted and misrepresented.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, it must be some sort of objective truth that goes well beyond your personal opinion about something, so you are defining it in an even stricter manner than I am.

not really, but feel free to explain why you think this is so

 

[holy_face]

not really, but feel free to explain why you think this is so

Right Reason would be something that is is objectively correct, you just stated that above. Objectively correct would be something that is true outside of one’s personal feelings or opinions.

You do not have the right to rjeect your your husband’s leadership because you think he is wrong and disagree, but must be something objectively unreasonable, such as him suggesting you both drive over a cliff together or maybe something less drastic; take all of your money out of the bank and burn it in a campfire.

Unless something is objectively unreasonable (contrary to right reason) the wife is supposed to follow her husband’s headship.

 

[Xantippe]

thewanderer said:

“However, when two reasonable people both disagree about which course of action is best, only one of them can be in accord with right reason.”

Actually, no. It may be that neither of them has the right course of action figured out. Here’s a summary of a major disagreement my husband and I had a week or two ago.

1. I want to renovate the house we just bought, which is super pink with purple here and there. Some of the carpets are 20+ years old and the interior badly needs painting. It will probably cost $40k to do the whole renovation. I had agreed to the purchase on the understanding that we would renovate as soon as we had the money.
2. My husband wants us to first save for college. We have three kids and we are unlikely to get any need-based aid. At $100k apiece, that’s $300k. We don’t have a dime saved for college yet. “Do you really want to have a nice kitchen and the kids not be able to go to college?” he asks. Good point.
3. I told my husband that I am not willing to live in a pink house for the next 20 years. If we need to save for college first, I want us to sell the current house and buy a smaller one that’s not pink all over.
4. My husband doesn’t want a smaller house or to move. He is happy with our house as it is.
5. We finally sit down and do some math (which we should have done earlier). We discover that there are great disparities in the expenses incurred from year to year as the kids move through private school and then college. During the worst year, the one year when we have two kids in college and one in private school, we will need to spend $4.5k a month just on school expenses, which is horrifying and probably impossible to cash flow. In other years, our total education expenses will range between $2k and $3k. There’s also a good chance that the mortgage will be paid off by the time the youngest starts college, which would be a very good thing.
6. Decided–We need to have college savings in order to smooth out our school expenses and manage the two-kids-in-college year.
7. More math happens
8. My husband suggests that if we need to save $10k a year for college starting this summer, and any savings in excess of that can be used for house renovations.
9. We have a deal!!! Everybody is happy!!!

Notice what doesn’t happen here. Neither of us knuckles under. My husband sticks to his guns–he wants a large college savings, and he sticks to that. I meanwhile, also want college savings, but just as much, I don’t want to live in a glowing pink house, and I stick to that. We gather more information, explore alternate possibilities, and are eventually able to arrive at a reasonable, workable compromise. If my husband had given in to me, we could have wound up with a nice house and kids who couldn’t go to college without debt. If I had given in to my husband, I might wind up seething about horrible old carpet for the next 10-20 years.

 

[thewanderer]

No Casti Connubii says the wife must be submissive to her husband and only when he is acting contrary to “right reason” may she object. Right Reason is something other than your personal opinion of what is "right, " it is something that would be considered reasonable in a general sense, not a personal feeling or preference about something.

Right reason is what is actually right, regardless of who recognizes it as right. So if the husband and everybody he knows is wrong except for his wife who is right that doesn’t change the fact that, in that case, she is right. He can try and pass her off as just having a personal feeling, or preference or opinion, but it won’t change the fact that in that particular instance she is correct and he is wrong, and so, in this instance she has no obligation to allow her husband to decide and follow his decision.

 

[thewanderer]

thewanderer said:

“However, when two reasonable people both disagree about which course of action is best, only one of them can be in accord with right reason.”

Actually, no. It may be that neither of them has the right course of action figured out. Here’s a summary of a major disagreement my husband and I had a week or two ago.

1. I want to renovate the house we just bought, which is super pink with purple here and there. Some of the carpets are 20+ years old and the interior badly needs painting. It will probably cost $40k to do the whole renovation. I had agreed to the purchase on the understanding that we would renovate as soon as we had the money.
2. My husband wants us to first save for college. We have three kids and we are unlikely to get any need-based aid. At $100k apiece, that’s $300k. We don’t have a dime saved for college yet. “Do you really want to have a nice kitchen and the kids not be able to go to college?” he asks. Good point.
3. I told my husband that I am not willing to live in a pink house for the next 20 years. If we need to save for college first, I want us to sell the current house and buy a smaller one that’s not pink all over.
4. My husband doesn’t want a smaller house or to move. He is happy with our house as it is.
5. We finally sit down and do some math (which we should have done earlier). We discover that there are great disparities in the expenses incurred from year to year as the kids move through private school and then college. During the worst year, the one year when we have two kids in college and one in private school, we will need to spend $4.5k a month just on school expenses, which is horrifying and probably impossible to cash flow. In other years, our total education expenses will range between $2k and $3k. There’s also a good chance that the mortgage will be paid off by the time the youngest starts college, which would be a very good thing.
6. Decided–We need to have college savings in order to smooth out our school expenses and manage the two-kids-in-college year.
7. More math happens
8. My husband suggests that if we need to save $10k a year for college starting this summer, and any savings in excess of that can be used for house renovations.
9. We have a deal!!! Everybody is happy!!!

Notice what doesn’t happen here. Neither of us knuckles under. My husband sticks to his guns–he wants a large college savings, and he sticks to that. I meanwhile, also want college savings, but just as much, I don’t want to live in a glowing pink house, and I stick to that. We gather more information, explore alternate possibilities, and are eventually able to arrive at a reasonable, workable compromise. If my husband had given in to me, we could have wound up with a nice house and kids who couldn’t go to college without debt. If I had given in to my husband, I might wind up seething about horrible old carpet for the next 10-20 years.

I didn’t say either of them was necessarily in accord with right reason, just that its impossible for both of them to be. Its only possible for one of them to be correct.

 

[holy_face]

thewanderer said:

“However, when two reasonable people both disagree about which course of action is best, only one of them can be in accord with right reason.”

Actually, no. It may be that neither of them has the right course of action figured out. Here’s a summary of a major disagreement my husband and I had a week or two ago.

1. I want to renovate the house we just bought, which is super pink with purple here and there. Some of the carpets are 20+ years old and the interior badly needs painting. It will probably cost $40k to do the whole renovation. I had agreed to the purchase on the understanding that we would renovate as soon as we had the money.
2. My husband wants us to first save for college. We have three kids and we are unlikely to get any need-based aid. At $100k apiece, that’s $300k. We don’t have a dime saved for college yet. “Do you really want to have a nice kitchen and the kids not be able to go to college?” he asks. Good point.
3. I told my husband that I am not willing to live in a pink house for the next 20 years. If we need to save for college first, I want us to sell the current house and buy a smaller one that’s not pink all over.
4. My husband doesn’t want a smaller house or to move. He is happy with our house as it is.
5. We finally sit down and do some math (which we should have done earlier). We discover that there are great disparities in the expenses incurred from year to year as the kids move through private school and then college. During the worst year, the one year when we have two kids in college and one in private school, we will need to spend $4.5k a month just on school expenses, which is horrifying and probably impossible to cash flow. In other years, our total education expenses will range between $2k and $3k. There’s also a good chance that the mortgage will be paid off by the time the youngest starts college, which would be a very good thing.
6. Decided–We need to have college savings in order to smooth out our school expenses and manage the two-kids-in-college year.
7. More math happens
8. My husband suggests that if we need to save $10k a year for college starting this summer, and any savings in excess of that can be used for house renovations.
9. We have a deal!!! Everybody is happy!!!

Notice what doesn’t happen here. Neither of us knuckles under. My husband sticks to his guns–he wants a large college savings, and he sticks to that. I meanwhile, also want college savings, but just as much, I don’t want to live in a glowing pink house, and I stick to that. We gather more information, explore alternate possibilities, and are eventually able to arrive at a reasonable, workable compromise. If my husband had given in to me, we could have wound up with a nice house and kids who couldn’t go to college without debt. If I had given in to my husband, I might wind up seething about horrible old carpet for the next 10-20 years.

Yet objectively your husband was right, your kids not going to college would be a greater evil than you living with old carpet