Need ladies' input

[JaneGrey]

Jane, again, if I could rephrase. I’m not arguing from a clean starting neutral position that a custom should be introduced for a woman to take her husband’s name upon marriage. I’m arguing from the point where such a custom already exists (and only if it does; I see no reason to introduce such a custom where it doesn’t already exist and I don’t care; plus, there are sometimes very good reasons for a man to take his wife’s surname, which has always been an option in Europe and has happened historically). My point is that it takes a special motivation and an extra step to go against an established custom, whatever that custom be. Thus, it takes more significance than doing or not doing the exact same thing where local customs are neutral on the subject. Basically, where the default norm is for the woman to take the husband’s name and a woman must figuratively opt out of that custom if she doesn’t want to do it, then questions may start on the motivation. I don’t want to be harsh on individual people’s insecurities and irrational fears because those things must be addressed in as delicate and compassionate way as possible. However, I take issues with a vocal rebellion against supposed male domination. If a woman honestly thinks that taking the husband’s name would make her a possession, I’d be worried what other irrational fears of male domination she might also have, as they could complicate married life a big deal. As much as I’d have nothing against my hypothetical wife’s keeping her surname and in my specific individual circumstances it could even give me more peace of mind than otherwise. As you see, it’s not personal for me and I’m not at all attached to the idea that a woman should change her name per se. It’s only about reasons for opting out of an established custom where and if it exists. Basically, if I hear the “male domination” talk, I’m afraid of issues that could make coexistence difficult. It would be very difficult being married to a woman with whom every course of action would have to take into account whether her independence has been appropriately asserted. Even from my point of view, as the last man interested in domination.

Sorry, only just saw this as have been busy with work issues for the past week. I dont want to hijack this thread with the name thing again so basically I ll just say this - I understand what you are saying alot more than i did previously.

However I think we have to agree to disagree that a woman breaking tradition (where it is tradtion) by opting to not take her husband’s name, is necessarily fighting against male dominance. IMO there is nothing unusual about breaking those traditions which just make no sense to us.

Then again, I come from a family which though devoutly catholic, have no expectations about this kind of thing. So I was having trouble imagining a culture where there are such norms.

 

[chevalier]

Sorry, only just saw this as have been busy with work issues for the past week. I dont want to hijack this thread with the name thing again so basically I ll just say this - I understand what you are saying alot more than i did previously.

However I think we have to agree to disagree that a woman breaking tradition (where it is tradtion) by opting to not take her husband’s name, is necessarily fighting against male dominance. IMO there is nothing unusual about breaking those traditions which just make no sense to us.

Then again, I come from a family which though devoutly catholic, have no expectations about this kind of thing. So I was having trouble imagining a culture where there are such norms.

No worries, Jane. And I’m not saying that every woman who refuses to follow a tradition of this kind is necessarily fighting against male dominance etc. I’m only saying that this may be the case (which is why I, as a man, have a “what is there?” feeling when hearing about it) and if it actually is the case (which is not a given), then it is really troubling. It’s one thing marrying someone who has a manageable level of grrrl power tendencies or stubborn traits, another living with someone who believes that male domination, male conspiracies etc. are true.

By the way, the first woman in the family who refuses to change the name must realise that her mother did it, her grandmother did it etc., so she’s the first one, and also must realise that her surname, in such a case, comes from her father, which means it is a man’s surname just as the husband’s would be, putting a dent in that logic.

Heh, reminds me of a story of a young templar who wanted to keep his own coat of arms instead of the standard issue shield of the order.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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.

It is Biblical, not cultural.

 

[severus68]

It is Biblical, not cultural.

Thank you but according to you.

 

[Dan_Daly]

My Vatican link to the 1992 Catechism appears to be missing the passage you quoted. Please give me your link. If it is in the 1992 C, then my apologies

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3.HTM

Hopefully that works.

Pax.

 

[severus68]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3.HTM

Hopefully that works.

Pax.

Thank you.

Please see this

"10 It is therefore no surprise that catechesis in the Church has again attracted attention in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, which Pope Paul Vl considered the great catechism of modern times. the General Catechetical Directory (1971) the sessions of the Synod of Bishops devoted to evangelization (1974) and catechesis (1977), the apostolic exhortations Evangelii nuntiandi (1975) and Catechesi tradendae (1979), attest to this. the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985 asked "that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals be composed"13 The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, made the Synod’s wish his own, acknowledging that "this desire wholly corresponds to a real need of the universal Church and of the particular Churches.“14 He set in motion everything needed to carry out the Synod Fathers’ wish.”

I think the above is very clear. The 1992 Catechism is what we should follow today.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Amen to that. My wife uses her maiden name. I don’t see a problem with that.

The surname issue is really a cultural one, not a religious one.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Thank you.

Please see this

"10 It is therefore no surprise that catechesis in the Church has again attracted attention in the wake of the Second Vatican Council, which Pope Paul Vl considered the great catechism of modern times. the General Catechetical Directory (1971) the sessions of the Synod of Bishops devoted to evangelization (1974) and catechesis (1977), the apostolic exhortations Evangelii nuntiandi (1975) and Catechesi tradendae (1979), attest to this. the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops in 1985 asked "that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals be composed"13 The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, made the Synod’s wish his own, acknowledging that "this desire wholly corresponds to a real need of the universal Church and of the particular Churches.“14 He set in motion everything needed to carry out the Synod Fathers’ wish.”

I think the above is very clear. The 1992 Catechism is what we should follow today.

Yes and no. Yes, we should follow the new Catechism. No, we should not reject or exclued or ignore all other Church teaching that came before it. To do so would be to fall into the error of modernism. The 1992 Catechism spends a great deal of time explaining the importance of tradition both Tradition with a capital T and tradition with a small t. A great deal of the 1992 Catechism is made up of quotes and references from earlier documents. It makes perfect sense to read those documents. It makes sense to dive into the fulness of Church teaching- in fact it makes so much sense its what the 1992 Catechism tells us to do.

Truth does not contradict Truth. The Truth the Church teaches did not spring up from no where in the 1960s, 1990s, or 2000s. God has been revealing Himself to us from the dawn of time.

Pax.

 

[severus68]

Yes and no. Yes, we should follow the new Catechism. No, we should not reject or exclued or ignore all other Church teaching that came before it. To do so would be to fall into the error of modernism. The 1992 Catechism spends a great deal of time explaining the importance of tradition both Tradition with a capital T and tradition with a small t. A great deal of the 1992 Catechism is made up of quotes and references from earlier documents. It makes perfect sense to read those documents. It makes sense to dive into the fulness of Church teaching- in fact it makes so much sense its what the 1992 Catechism tells us to do.

Truth does not contradict Truth. The Truth the Church teaches did not spring up from no where in the 1960s, 1990s, or 2000s. God has been revealing Himself to us from the dawn of time.

Pax.

I agree that Truth, that is, God’s truth does not change. The 1992 Catechism is a comprehensive and concise statement of the doctrine of the Church.

I personally think your referring to the Catechism of the Council of Trent is to support your position with regard to women. We can always find something in an old church document to support our views. I am not putting down Church tradition and history and I appreciate the development of the currrent Catechism from past sources including the Roman Catechism.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I personally think your referring to the Catechism of the Council of Trent is to support your position with regard to women.

I have not tried to hide the fact that I think it clearly supports the Church teaching that a husband is the head of his family and that a wife should submit to his authority.

I will reiterate my thought that “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church” is at least as demanding of a command, if not much more so, as “wives submit to your husbands”. I am emphatically not claiming that men have any sort of divine authority to abuse their wives. It is the opposite. Men are commanded to love them with a total, self sacrificing love.

If I recall, the line in the Roman Catechism about a wife not going out without her husband’s permission was one that really struck a chord with you as out of date. I would respond with the following:

1. Nowhere in the new catechism does it say a wife can go wherever she wants without her husband’s permission. So there is no direct contradiction.
2. If a husband were to be unreasonable and unloving in the exercise of his authority, that would be abuse. I don’t give my wife a “hall pass” to run out to the store. I will say that the MANNER in which this authority is exercised has changed quite a bit from the time of the Council of Trent to today. However, the underlying authority has not changed. If for example, my wife wanted to go to a “gay marriage” ceremony because she knew one of the people involved, it would be a my duty as her husband to forbid her to go. There are other examples in the Catechism of a power/authority that is always present but rarely exercised when wed to Christian charity- the death penalty would be one such example.

Pax.

 

[Walking_Home]

I have not tried to hide the fact that I think it clearly supports the Church teaching that a husband is the head of his family and that a wife should submit to his authority.

I will reiterate my thought that “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church” is at least as demanding of a command, if not much more so, as “wives submit to your husbands”. I am emphatically not claiming that men have any sort of divine authority to abuse their wives. It is the opposite. Men are commanded to love them with a total, self sacrificing love.

If I recall, the line in the Roman Catechism about a wife not going out without her husband’s permission was one that really struck a chord with you as out of date. I would respond with the following:

1. Nowhere in the new catechism does it say a wife can go wherever she wants without her husband’s permission. So there is no direct contradiction.
2. If a husband were to be unreasonable and unloving in the exercise of his authority, that would be abuse. I don’t give my wife a “hall pass” to run out to the store. I will say that the MANNER in which this authority is exercised has changed quite a bit from the time of the Council of Trent to today. However, the underlying authority has not changed. If for example, my wife wanted to go to a “gay marriage” ceremony because she knew one of the people involved, it would be a my duty as her husband to forbid her to go. There are other examples in the Catechism of a power/authority that is always present but rarely exercised when wed to Christian charity- the death penalty would be one such example.

Pax.

---

Would the wife have the same authority to forbid her husband going to a “gay marriage”.

 

[Dan_Daly]

She would be absolutely right in telling him he should not to go.

She would not have the authority to forbid him from going though.

If a husband told his wife TO go, she would not be bound to obey, as he does not have the authority command her to sin.

 

[Walking_Home]

She would be absolutely right in telling him he should not to go.

She would not have the authority to forbid him from going though.

If a husband told his wife TO go, she would not be bound to obey, as he does not have the authority command her to sin.

---

I see – the husband “forbids” – the wife can only tell him. This lack of being able to “forbid” - places the wife in a lesser position --doesn’t it.

 

[Walking_Home]

---

 

[Dan_Daly]

---

I see – the husband “forbids” – the wife can only tell him. This lack of being able to “forbid” - places the wife in a lesser position --doesn’t it.

It places her in a different position. I went over this earlier in the thread. A friar is not a lesser human being than his “superior” at the abbey-who can forbid him from doing things. A parishoner is not a lesser human being than his pastor- who can forbid him from doing things. A child is not a lesser human being than his parents- who can forbid him from doing things. A pastor is not a lesser human being than his Bishop, and a Bishop is not a lesser human being than the Pope.

Different roles. Different responsibities. Same image and likeness of God.

I will add that anyone who thinks “being in charge” is all staying up late and eating as much dessert at you want, is missing a lot of what it entails. The weight of responsibility is a very real thing. I’m not complaining. I’m just saying that there is a temptation not to WANT the responsibities God has given you on many occassions. There’s a reason every President, whether you like their politics or not, looks like they’ve aged 15 years over 4 years in office.

A true Christian leader is a servant. They don’t make a decision based on what is best for them, they make it based on what is best for those they lead.

Pax

 

[severus68]

 

[severus68]

I have not tried to hide the fact that I think it clearly supports the Church teaching that a husband is the head of his family and that a wife should submit to his authority.

I will reiterate my thought that “husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church” is at least as demanding of a command, if not much more so, as “wives submit to your husbands”. I am emphatically not claiming that men have any sort of divine authority to abuse their wives. It is the opposite. Men are commanded to love them with a total, self sacrificing love.

If I recall, the line in the Roman Catechism about a wife not going out without her husband’s permission was one that really struck a chord with you as out of date. I would respond with the following:

1. Nowhere in the new catechism does it say a wife can go wherever she wants without her husband’s permission. So there is no direct contradiction.
2. If a husband were to be unreasonable and unloving in the exercise of his authority, that would be abuse. I don’t give my wife a “hall pass” to run out to the store. I will say that the MANNER in which this authority is exercised has changed quite a bit from the time of the Council of Trent to today. However, the underlying authority has not changed. If for example, my wife wanted to go to a “gay marriage” ceremony because she knew one of the people involved, it would be a my duty as her husband to forbid her to go. There are other examples in the Catechism of a power/authority that is always present but rarely exercised when wed to Christian charity- the death penalty would be one such example.

Pax.

A benevolent slave owner is still a slave owner and his slave is still a slave.

No, it was another poster but yes, today as opposed to the caveman era, it is unjust to want that.

The 1992 Catechism is comprehensive.

 

[Dan_Daly]

So do see yourself as a slave to your pastor or your bishop or the Pope? Or do you refuse to acknowledge that they have any authority over you? If you have children, are they your slaves? Or do you not have any authority over them? Please answer as these are not rhetorical questions. You are equating authority to slavery. Is this a univeral principle you hold? If not, why would authority only be slavery in a marriage?

Pax.

 

[severus68]

It places her in a different position. I went over this earlier in the thread. A friar is not a lesser human being than his “superior” at the abbey-who can forbid him from doing things. A parishoner is not a lesser human being than his pastor- who can forbid him from doing things. A child is not a lesser human being than his parents- who can forbid him from doing things. A pastor is not a lesser human being than his Bishop, and a Bishop is not a lesser human being than the Pope.

Different roles. Different responsibities. Same image and likeness of God.

I will add that anyone who thinks “being in charge” is all staying up late and eating as much dessert at you want, is missing a lot of what it entails. The weight of responsibility is a very real thing. I’m not complaining. I’m just saying that there is a temptation not to WANT the responsibities God has given you on many occassions. There’s a reason every President, whether you like their politics or not, looks like they’ve aged 15 years over 4 years in office.

A true Christian leader is a servant. They don’t make a decision based on what is best for them, they make it based on what is best for those they lead.

Pax

A child has less rights and is subject to the authority of his parents because he is a child and has to attain maturity. A pastor does not and cannot forbid anyone from doing anything. He can and would advise. Submitting to superiors is for practical purposes. It is under a social contract and a requirement by law of the country/order. A marriage should be bound by love and respect, dominance should not be part of it.

Only God is perfect and only God can make perfect decisions.

 

[Dan_Daly]

The 1992 Catechism is comprehensive.

It depends on how you define comprehensive. If you mean it covers everything possible in exhaustive detail, then no it is not. The CCC is not the only document a Catholic should go to for answers about their faith, and it does claim to be. It would be physically impossible to cram all of Church teaching into a single book. “Sola CCC” would be as heretical as Sola Scriputra.

Pax.