The Church is not “pro-woman” IMO. Quite the contrary.I feel like there is a way to express our gifts such that this young lady will understand that the Church is more pro-woman than any institution.
I stopped reading here.Well, so here am I. A thirtyish single man, on the one hand very conservative in some matters, on the other hand without trying to turn the course of time backwards, and with short patience for obstructive societal conventions with poor rationale.
So firstly, yeah, the man’s the head of the family. This is responsibility and not an entitlement. In fact, if you are the leader, you have a conflict of interest when you need to choose between what you want and what a person in your charge wants. And you will often end up not getting what you want simply because you’re the leader, not despite it. A woman can throw all her charms and tantrums and play unfair all she wants to sway the decision her way, .
Christ and Christ’s Church is pro woman. Some who form part of the Church are not, do not give women equal respect. Unfortunately, there are some women who themselves would rather women be regarded as not so equal persons.The Church is not “pro-woman” IMO. Quite the contrary.
Jesus was, however.
As for marriage: people in marriage need to love one another. Love is not a feeling, it is putting the other first. People in marriage need to* respect *one another. Which means understanding and acceptance, not trying to change each other.
Also, unless she is under the age of 18, she is a woman, not a “young lady.”
I’m sorry to hear that whatever I wrote caused you grief but your comment is not necessary. You’re free to ignore my views based on my age or marital status or specific sense of humour or any combination of it, however.I stopped reading here.
Christ 's humility should be emulated by all, men and women. St Paul said more than what is always quoted on these threads. I take the position taken by John Paul II.Severus, while neither the husband nor the wife is to behave like a slave owner (using the other for his own interest) or boss in a commercial enterprise (handing out tasks, supervising the career path, performing quarterly assessment, handing out promotions and pay rises) or military superior (handing out strict, absolute commands, drilling etc.) or monastic superior (guiding the conscience, compelling through a vow of obedience etc.), it very clearly says in St. Paul’s letters that the husband is the leader. Yes, the example is Jesus Christ who washed the feet of His apostles and died for us all on the cross. Yes, we should “submit to one another”, be accommodating and cooperate rather than being egoists unwilling to step down from any right or cut slack with any obligation, we should serve each other. But we cannot say that the husband is not to lead.
It is definitely not a good idea to focus on the husband’s leadership role in the sense of his being able to force a decision which the wife would be obliged to comply with despite not agreeing with it. There are better ways of telling what a marriage should look like and what it’s all about. Anybody who thinks about drilling, commanding etc. is simply not getting it. (As well as anybody who thinks the husband is entitled to get his way simply put.) However, we can’t say that the husband is not to lead or is not the head of the household. St. Paul’s letter give a very clear contrary impression.
Then you will need to take issue with St. Paul, I’m afraid (Ephesians, chapter 5):Christ 's humility should be emulated by all, men and women. St Paul said more than what is always quoted on these threads. I take the position taken by John Paul II.
Sugaring the position you take will not make it more acceptable to me, I am afraid. A wife subject to the authority of her husband has a lower position and is not equal however well she is treated by her husband.
Well what about what John Paul II had to say about it?Then you will need to take issue with St. Paul, I’m afraid (Ephesians, chapter 5):
drbo.org/chapter/56005.htm
- [22] Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: [23] Because the husband is the head of the wife*, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it:
That depends on YOUR idea of equality. Being “on the same level” or “the same as” my husband would make me horrible INEQUAL to him, because while HE is living up to his God given role, I would be REJECTING mine. Being equal in earthly standards of money or power isn’t the same as being equal in Gods plan, and I believe Gods plan for women is to be under the authority of their husbands. THAT is where I acheive what I was meant to, with my husband as leader. Making us equal .Christ 's humility should be emulated by all, men and women. St Paul said more than what is always quoted on these threads. I take the position taken by John Paul II.
Sugaring the position you take will not make it more acceptable to me, I am afraid. A wife subject to the authority of her husband has a lower position and is not equal however well she is treated by her husband.
Quote please?Well what about what John Paul II had to say about it?
Who is talking about money? Wanting to have power is so Christian for men or women?That depends on YOUR idea of equality. Being “on the same level” or “the same as” my husband would make me horrible INEQUAL to him, because while HE is living up to his God given role, I would be REJECTING mine. Being equal in earthly standards of money or power isn’t the same as being equal in Gods plan, and I believe Gods plan for women is to be under the authority of their husbands. THAT is where I acheive what I was meant to, with my husband as leader. Making us equal .
Granted, this is from the woman who would rather just go bakc and live in the 1870’s, soot and crackpot physicians and questionable food preservation and all. So take whatever I saw with this knowledge.
I thought I had posted it but anyway.Quote please?
There used to be a Catholic forum where we distinguished between the Church, as a complete spiritual/physical entity, body of Christ, and what we called the cRCC, the “corporate Roman Catholic Church” as in the fallible persons the earthly Church comprises. I thought it saved a lot of misunderstanding.Christ and Christ’s Church is pro woman. Some who form part of the Church are not, do not give women equal respect. Unfortunately, there are some women who themselves would rather women be regarded as not so equal persons.
I can appreciate what you are saying.There used to be a Catholic forum where we distinguished between the Church, as a complete spiritual/physical entity, body of Christ, and what we called the cRCC, the “corporate Roman Catholic Church” as in the fallible persons the earthly Church comprises. I thought it saved a lot of misunderstanding.
For myself, I do not find the cRCC or pro-woman at all. But I don’t care that much as I find it a reflection of culture. It is what it is.
The Church is an entirely different matter, of course.
Syri, did you happen to read the first two (and now only) installments in the Christ the Lord series Anne Rice wrote before she walked out the the Church again in a huff?oooh every fiber of my horrifically feminism-hating being wants to be aaall over this thread…
I’m sorry but a whole document won’t work. If you want to claim that this document somehow goes back on whatever St. Paul wrote, I need a specific quote. Please show me where exactly it says the man is not the head of the family or is not the leader or the family does not have any leader or something of the kind.I thought I had posted it but anyway.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html
“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.”I’m sorry but a whole document won’t work. If you want to claim that this document somehow goes back on whatever St. Paul wrote, I need a specific quote. Please show me where exactly it says the man is not the head of the family or is not the leader or the family does not have any leader or something of the kind.