Need ladies' input

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPolo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
severus68 said:
“The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a “mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ” (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the “head” of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give “himself up for her” (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the “subjection” is not one-sided but mutual.”

It is interesting how he went back to Genesis.
Click to expand...
This quote is great, and it illustrates the point that husbands are heads of the wife and family, at the same time as showing that both husband and wife are to give themselves for the other. John Paul says in the very beginning of this quote that St. Paul saw no contradiction between calling the husband the head of the wife, and telling couples to mutually subject to each other out of reference to Christ. That must mean that there is nothing wrong with calling a man the head of his wife! What IS wrong, and what John Paul AND St. Paul are stressing would be wrong, is for the man to dominate his wife, without true love for her. His being the head of his wife must be so in the way Christ is head of His Church, by laying down his life in service for his wife. A husband, then, “subjects” himself to his wife by putting her before himself, just as a wife is called to do for her husband. This in no way negates the fact that the husband is the head. If it did negate it, why would St. Paul have said both things? Would he contradict himself within a few sentences?
 
kristleful said:
This quote is great, and it illustrates the point that husbands are heads of the wife and family, at the same time as showing that both husband and wife are to give themselves for the other. John Paul says in the very beginning of this quote that St. Paul saw no contradiction between calling the husband the head of the wife, and telling couples to mutually subject to each other out of reference to Christ. That must mean that there is nothing wrong with calling a man the head of his wife! What IS wrong, and what John Paul AND St. Paul are stressing would be wrong, is for the man to dominate his wife, without true love for her. His being the head of his wife must be so in the way Christ is head of His Church, by laying down his life in service for his wife. A husband, then, “subjects” himself to his wife by putting her before himself, just as a wife is called to do for her husband. This in no way negates the fact that the husband is the head. If it did negate it, why would St. Paul have said both things? Would he contradict himself within a few sentences?
Click to expand...
With respct, I do not think he meant that. Perhaps if you read the whole Apostolic Letter?

Anyway, the whole Letter to Women is beautifully written.
 
severus68 said:
With respct, I do not think he meant that. Perhaps if you read the whole Apostolic Letter?

Anyway, the whole Letter to Women is beautifully written.
Click to expand...
I agree, his Letter to Women is beautiful! I read it a couple years ago, and I have studied his other writings about women and men and works that form the basis for his Theology of the Body. His work is brilliant, and did so much to confirm the beauty and dignity of women.

Perhaps the difference between you and I is that I do not believe my husband being my head lowers my dignity at all. I would argue that St. Paul and John Paul II never said that either. The man’s duty is to preserve and uplift his wife’s dignity. He is to provide an environment in which she can flourish and use all of her God-given gifts. For instance, women were specially created by God to be able to bear and nurture children. Men cannot do this! Does this make them not our equal? Not at all. Women and men have different roles, because they were designed differently by God. Most men are physically stronger, making them more suited toward protecting. They have many qualities that serve them well in leadership. Women are typically more gifted with the ability to see “the whole person” when they view another, making them able to love and accept fully another human being more easily than men. We are gifted with empathy and comforting… I could go on. These are all things I have read in various writings from Pope Paul II and Theology of the Body.

Remember, our greatest leader and teacher, Christ, is the “servant of all.” Do not be afraid to let your man serve you in the way he is called by Christ to do.
 
kristleful said:
I agree, his Letter to Women is beautiful! I read it a couple years ago, and I have studied his other writings about women and men and works that form the basis for his Theology of the Body. His work is brilliant, and did so much to confirm the beauty and dignity of women.

Perhaps the difference between you and I is that I do not believe my husband being my head lowers my dignity at all. I would argue that St. Paul and John Paul II never said that either. The man’s duty is to preserve and uplift his wife’s dignity. He is to provide an environment in which she can flourish and use all of her God-given gifts. For instance, women were specially created by God to be able to bear and nurture children. Men cannot do this! Does this make them not our equal? Not at all. Women and men have different roles, because they were designed differently by God. Most men are physically stronger, making them more suited toward protecting. They have many qualities that serve them well in leadership. Women are typically more gifted with the ability to see “the whole person” when they view another, making them able to love and accept fully another human being more easily than men. We are gifted with empathy and comforting… I could go on. These are all things I have read in various writings from Pope Paul II and Theology of the Body.

Remember, our greatest leader and teacher, Christ, is the “servant of all.” Do not be afraid to let your man serve you in the way he is called by Christ to do.
Click to expand...
No, that is not where we do not agree. I do not agree that a wife is subject to her husband. Yes, with men and women are different but how and why does that difference mean one is the head of the other. Other than physical qualities, I do not see the difference. Women can and do and have lead. We do not live in caves in a survival mode where the physically stronger lead. Empathy is not the domain of women.

I still do not see your logic for the requirement for a man to lead. It is a contradiction in terms to sayhusbands and wives are equal in a marriage but the husband is the leader/head.

Christ may have served others on earth but He is God. Again, please do not make assumptions about me, thank you… BTW, I do not need a man or woman to serve me.
 
severus68 said:
No, that is not where we do not agree. I do not agree that a wife is subject to her husband. Yes, with men and women are different but how and why does that difference mean one is the head of the other. Other than physical qualities, I do not see the difference. Women can and do and have lead. We do not live in caves in a survival mode where the physically stronger lead. Empathy is not the domain of women.

I still do not see your logic for the requirement for a man to lead. It is a contradiction in terms to sayhusbands and wives are equal in a marriage but the husband is the leader/head.

Christ may have served others on earth but He is God. Again, please do not make assumptions about me, thank you… BTW, I do not need a man or woman to serve me.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you are offended by what I said. I didn’t make any assumptions about you. Note that I began my sentence with “Perhaps…”

As far as it being a contradiction in terms to say husbands and wives are equal but the husband is the head… Please refer back to what St. Paul said in Ephesians and what John Paul II said in your quote.

To re-quote:
"The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: “Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife” (5:22-23).
Click to expand...
 
It’s not my intention to stir the hornet’s nest…but I’m just curious why we can view some of St Paul’s writings as “it was the culture of the time” (like verses that have to do with slaves/masters but are not relevant to our current times), yet when someone points out the “wives submit…” and “husband is the head of the wife” verses also fit the culture of the time when it was written( based on that society in the 1st Century), people start coming out in droves to tell us that it is “timeless wisdom from the Bible and shouldn’t be questioned”. Just wondering why there’s a double standard? Anyone?
 
kristleful said:
I’m sorry you are offended by what I said. I didn’t make any assumptions about you. Note that I began my sentence with “Perhaps…”

As far as it being a contradiction in terms to say husbands and wives are equal but the husband is the head… Please refer back to what St. Paul said in Ephesians and what John Paul II said in your quote.

To re-quote:
Click to expand...
It was not that. I was not offended but somewhat exasperated by your presuming you know about my personal life and me.

I think we should just agree to disagree.
 
severus68 said:
It was not that. I was not offended but somewhat exasperated by your presuming you know about my personal life and me.

I think we should just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry I came across that way, and I agree. 🙂
 
Severus, earlier you said that the Church today refers you to the CCC and not the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

The CCC does refer you to the Catechism of the Council of Trent (aka Roman Catechism)- 27 times. It also has this to say:
9 "The ministry of catechesis draws ever fresh energy from the councils. the Council of Trent is a noteworthy example of this. It gave catechesis priority in its constitutions and decrees. It lies at the origin of the Roman Catechism, which is also known by the name of that council and which is a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching."The Council of Trent initiated a remarkable organization of the Church’s catechesis. Thanks to the work of holy bishops and theologians such as St. Peter Canisius, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Turibius of Mongrovejo or St. Robert Bellarmine, it occasioned the publication of numerous catechisms.
Click to expand...
So the CCC, which you say you are told by the Church to follow calls the CCT a “work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching”, nothing about it being too old, outdate, confusing to read, oppressive to women or anyone else. So to trust the CCC is to trust the CCT.

On the topic of submission, the CCC says:
2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one’s country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.
Click to expand...
This particular passage is referring to submission to civil authority. You, I, and everyone else are instructed by the Church to submit to civil authority. That submission does not give the mayor, senator, president or anyone else in civil authority license to abuse us. Nor does it compel us to obey them if their orders are sinful. But we are called to submit. So submission is not a dirty word that the Church left behind in the 1600s. It doesn’t mean one person is better than an other, it simply means that one person has a responsibility of authority and the other a responsibility of obedience in a relationship.

Back to children leaving the home, yes I plan on keeping daughters home until they are either married or called to be a religious. Obviously, I can not foresee the future. Perhaps I will die or become ill at a young age. No one knows what future holds but God. But if I am able to care for my family, I will care for my family as God has commanded me to do. A single woman living on her own present an enormous occasion of sin for herself and for others. If her parents are ready and willing to care for her, that occasion of sin is an unnecessary one. And what if my daughter doesn’t want to stay home until she is married or religions and tells me to go jump in a lake?? Well, that would be her choice. As a parent it’s my job to care for my children in the manner I think is best- not in the manner that they would like. My ultimate goal for my children is that they go to Heaven. Not that they are “successful” in worldly terms, not even that they are happy. Can success and happiness be good goals, yes they can, but only to the point that they are in alignment with holiness.

When a man and woman are married, the father of the bride “gives away” his daughter. Why? Because his daughter is moving from being under his authority and protection to being under the authority and protection of her husband. At least that is the basis for the act- for most in our society is has been reduced to a simply custom detached from it’s original meaning.

I will also say this, the cultural change that comes closest to causing the damage to family life that so many woman working outside the home unnecessarily is…so many men working outside the home unnecessarily. Before the industrial revolution and the factory age, men lived and worked with their families. St. Joseph didn’t commute to his carpentry shop, work all day, and then commute home. He worked at home. His Son saw what his father did and did it with him as able. The family unit was a unit.

In our society it’s more difficult for both parents to stay at home, but it is a very worthy goal. If one parent must go out of the home to earn a living, it should be the father. But if able, the ideal situation is a stay-at-home mom AND a stay-at-home dad.

Pax and God Bless.
 
Really, where in the Gospels do you find any narration of the married life of Mary and Joseph.They always pertain to Jesus. When Mary and Joseph had to travel for the census, Joseph would have had to make all the arrangements etc as his heavily pregnant wife would not have been able to do much especially with the lack of facilities of that time. We are told clearly that Mary submitted to and obeyed God. Anyway, we are not talking of Jewish culture of that time.
Click to expand...
St. Joseph woke the Blessed Mother in the middle of the night and told her that they were immediately leaving for Egypt. In other words, he told her to get out of bed in the middle of the night, pack her stuff, ready the child, make a long and dangerous journey along bandit filled roads, leave behind her family, friends, and everything she knew, and live in the greatest den of pagan evil on earth for an undetermined length of time.

And what did Our Lady do? She didn’t question. She didn’t discuss. She listened and she obeyed.

Pax and God Bless
 
Dan_Daly said:
St. Joseph woke the Blessed Mother in the middle of the night and told her that they were immediately leaving for Egypt. In other words, he told her to get out of bed in the middle of the night, pack her stuff, ready the child, make a long and dangerous journey along bandit filled roads, leave behind her family, friends, and everything she knew, and live in the greatest den of pagan evil on earth for an undetermined length of time.

And what did Our Lady do? She didn’t question. She didn’t discuss. She listened and she obeyed.

Pax and God Bless
Click to expand...
Mary has always struck me as very obedient…but not not always silent.

She didn’t question…or she didn’t argue?

Because would I find it perfectly understandable if at some point during Joseph getting his family ready she asked a very innocent and non-argumentative “Why? What’s happened?” Even when she was told that she would bear the Son of God she innocently and non-argumentatively asked “How can this be?” and she was given an answer.

But we’re not provided with a transcript of whatever conversation might have happened. To say there was no discussion is a pretty big assumption. I always pictured Joseph filling her in on the details as they were packing, and since they were so on the same page and there would be no question on her part as to what had to be done.
 
Dan_Daly said:
Severus, earlier you said that the Church today refers you to the CCC and not the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

The CCC does refer you to the Catechism of the Council of Trent (aka Roman Catechism)- 27 times. It also has this to say:

So the CCC, which you say you are told by the Church to follow calls the CCT a “work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching”, nothing about it being too old, outdate, confusing to read, oppressive to women or anyone else. So to trust the CCC is to trust the CCT.

On the topic of submission, the CCC says:

This particular passage is referring to submission to civil authority. You, I, and everyone else are instructed by the Church to submit to civil authority. That submission does not give the mayor, senator, president or anyone else in civil authority license to abuse us. Nor does it compel us to obey them if their orders are sinful. But we are called to submit. So submission is not a dirty word that the Church left behind in the 1600s. It doesn’t mean one person is better than an other, it simply means that one person has a responsibility of authority and the other a responsibility of obedience in a relationship.

Back to children leaving the home, yes I plan on keeping daughters home until they are either married or called to be a religious. Obviously, I can not foresee the future. Perhaps I will die or become ill at a young age. No one knows what future holds but God. But if I am able to care for my family, I will care for my family as God has commanded me to do. A single woman living on her own present an enormous occasion of sin for herself and for others. If her parents are ready and willing to care for her, that occasion of sin is an unnecessary one. And what if my daughter doesn’t want to stay home until she is married or religions and tells me to go jump in a lake?? Well, that would be her choice. As a parent it’s my job to care for my children in the manner I think is best- not in the manner that they would like. My ultimate goal for my children is that they go to Heaven. Not that they are “successful” in worldly terms, not even that they are happy. Can success and happiness be good goals, yes they can, but only to the point that they are in alignment with holiness.

When a man and woman are married, the father of the bride “gives away” his daughter. Why? Because his daughter is moving from being under his authority and protection to being under the authority and protection of her husband. At least that is the basis for the act- for most in our society is has been reduced to a simply custom detached from it’s original meaning.

I will also say this, the cultural change that comes closest to causing the damage to family life that so many woman working outside the home unnecessarily is…so many men working outside the home unnecessarily. Before the industrial revolution and the factory age, men lived and worked with their families. St. Joseph didn’t commute to his carpentry shop, work all day, and then commute home. He worked at home. His Son saw what his father did and did it with him as able. The family unit was a unit.

In our society it’s more difficult for both parents to stay at home, but it is a very worthy goal. If one parent must go out of the home to earn a living, it should be the father. But if able, the ideal situation is a stay-at-home mom AND a stay-at-home dad.

Pax and God Bless.
Click to expand...
Growing up, my family dynamic was very different from yours… My mother was bipolar and abusive in many ways, and she wanted me out when I was 18. My dad didn’t stand up to her in many things, but the one thing he always told me was that he would never allow me to be kicked out. My parents divorced when I was 20, and I lived with my dad and siblings until I got married at 25. I am so grateful to my father for wanting to provide for me even though I wasn’t a kid anymore… I mean, I had a job since I was 16, and I went to college, so it’s not like I was being a bum, but I didn’t want to be living out on my own. American society tells me that I am a wimp or a moocher, or severely lacking in independence, to want to live with my family until I’m 25… But in most of the world, that is actually the norm. Sometimes independence is really overrated, in my opinion. I want to be as close as I can be to my family.

Anyway, I just want to thank you for being the kind of father that you are… We need more men like you.
 
severus68 said:
Good post. I believe it should be mutual submission to God and to each other.
Click to expand...
I have read in several places that the way to consider the relationship between husbands, wives and God is an image of a triangle, with God at the top and the man and woman at the two bottom points. The only way they can draw closer together is to draw closer to God. That, I believe, is the way God desires us to act.

And, each spouse should be endeavoring to help the other get to Heaven.

And, the man is the head of the household, no questions.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
I have read in several places that the way to consider the relationship between husbands, wives and God is an image of a triangle, with God at the top and the man and woman at the two bottom points. The only way they can draw closer together is to draw closer to God. That, I believe, is the way God desires us to act.

And, each spouse should be endeavoring to help the other get to Heaven.

And, the man is the head of the household, no questions.
Click to expand...
Agreed on your first 2 paras. On your 3rd, we have been given minds to question etc. I do not question this as this is not about Catholicism. I question those who would like to impose this on everyone. At least, I do not presume to tell you how to live your marriage even if I disagree.
 
Kit15 said:
Mary has always struck me as very obedient…but not not always silent.

She didn’t question…or she didn’t argue?

Because would I find it perfectly understandable if at some point during Joseph getting his family ready she asked a very innocent and non-argumentative “Why? What’s happened?” Even when she was told that she would bear the Son of God she innocently and non-argumentatively asked “How can this be?” and she was given an answer.

But we’re not provided with a transcript of whatever conversation might have happened. To say there was no discussion is a pretty big assumption. I always pictured Joseph filling her in on the details as they were packing, and since they were so on the same page and there would be no question on her part as to what had to be done.
Click to expand...
Exactly- we are not provided a transcript so personally I dont see how anyone can presume to know how the Holy Family organised their marriage. I also see no evidence that Mary listened to Joseph because he was man and she woman -maybe because she was younger than him (I think?)
 
JaneGrey said:
Exactly- we are not provided a transcript so personally I dont see how anyone can presume to know how the Holy Family organised their marriage. I also see no evidence that Mary listened to Joseph because he was man and she woman -maybe because she was younger than him (I think?)
Click to expand...
Very young from what I have read.
 
kristleful said:
Growing up, my family dynamic was very different from yours… My mother was bipolar and abusive in many ways, and she wanted me out when I was 18. My dad didn’t stand up to her in many things, but the one thing he always told me was that he would never allow me to be kicked out. My parents divorced when I was 20, and I lived with my dad and siblings until I got married at 25. I am so grateful to my father for wanting to provide for me even though I wasn’t a kid anymore… I mean, I had a job since I was 16, and I went to college, so it’s not like I was being a bum, but I didn’t want to be living out on my own. American society tells me that I am a wimp or a moocher, or severely lacking in independence, to want to live with my family until I’m 25… But in most of the world, that is actually the norm. Sometimes independence is really overrated, in my opinion. I want to be as close as I can be to my family.

Anyway, I just want to thank you for being the kind of father that you are… We need more men like you.
Click to expand...
I am sorry about your experiences with your mother wanting you out - especially since your father did not want you out - no one should be kicked out of their home. That is one extreme.

However the other extreme is forcing or intimidating an adult to live somewhere they do not want to. I have no problems with adult children living at home with their parents - however this should be with the consent of both parties.

I have lived in countries where it was the norm for adult children to live at home till 30 or they got married. However no distinction was made between male and female children, and no one was actually forced to do anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top