Need ladies' input

[severus68]

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.

My paragraphing followed your so please read in the context.

 

[severus68]

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.

It is comprehensive. For understanding and explaination you read more.

 

[Dan_Daly]

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.

• A pastor can and should forbid his flock from doing or not doing certain things. I’ve seen several priests do it.

-Are practical purposes not something that comes up in a marriage?

-I never said anything about dominance. I did say a lot about love and respect and sacrifice. You can have submission, obedience, authority, and leadership…all without dominance.

I never claimed anyone other than God was perfect or made perfect decisions.

 

[Dan_Daly]

My paragraphing followed your so please read in the context.

I have read in the context, and I still have the question, forgive me if I’m missing something obvious, but my question remains:

What about a husband having authority over his wife would be intrinsically like slavery?

If other relationships with authority- parent/child, parishioner/pastor, priest/biship, etc are not like slavery, why not and what is the difference from marriage?

 

[Walking_Home]

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

---

The way you have it – the wife would be in the same position as a child --since the husband “forbids”. The child cannot “forbid” the parents – as the wife cannot “forbid” the husband. The husband “forbids” them both.

 

[Dan_Daly]

It is comprehensive. For understanding and explaination you read more.

So something, like a book that was also a comprehensive and authoritative document of Church teaching and which the CCC called “work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching”, that would be the kind of thing you could go to in order to gain better understanding and explanation, no?

Pax and God Bless.

 

[Dan_Daly]

---

The way you have it – the wife would be in the same position as a child --since the husband “forbids”. The child cannot “forbid” the parents – as the wife cannot “forbid” the husband. The husband “forbids” them both.

Yes, in this particular aspect of the family relationships, a husband can forbid his wife to do something. He can also forbid his child from doing something. That does not mean wife=child. There are plenty of other things going on in the family. The Pope can give an order to a bishop. He can also give an order to a parish priest. That does not make the parish priest a bishop.

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes, in this particular aspect of the family relationships, a husband can forbid his wife to do something. He can also forbid his child from doing something. That does not mean wife=child. There are plenty of other things going on in the family. The Pope can give an order to a bishop. He can also give an order to a parish priest. That does not make the parish priest a bishop.

---

As far as the husband “forbidding” — Yes – the wife is regulated to a child like status.

 

[Dan_Daly]

If you want to see it that way, but I would disagree. The husband is the head of the family. He has authority over all the other members of the family. That does not make the husband-wife relationship the same as the father-child relationship.

Pax.

 

[Walking_Home]

If you want to see it that way, but I would disagree. The husband is the head of the family. He has authority over all the other members of the family. That does not make the husband-wife relationship the same as the father-child relationship.

Pax.

---

Disagreeing does not change that —the wife is regulated to a child like status

 

[Kit15]

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.

So can the husband refuse to listen to the wife because she cannot forbid him? And if not, what is the difference between telling someone and forbidding them?

Actually…what if we picked something that was not an intrinsic sin. You said your wife does not have a “hall pass” to go out to the store whenever she likes. Do you have a similar restriction placed on yourself?

I mean…I don’t run out to the store without telling my husband where I’m going because I owe him that courtesy. And unless he has a reason for me not to go to the store, he has no objections.

On the flip side, he doesn’t run to the store without telling me either. Not that I’d have objections but he knows I like to know where he’ll be.

There was a time where DH had made a couple of large purchases to update his personal recording studio. He told me about every single one of them and I said “You know the state of our finances better than I do. If we can afford it, knock yourself out.” But when one day I approached him saying I’d like to buy a piece of expensive software (which was still cheaper than one of his microphones), suddenly we didn’t have enough money for it. Eventually he had to admit he was placing more financial restrictions on me than he was on himself and taking advantage of his “head of the household” status without realizing it. I did the get the software and he’s gotten better at setting an example since then.

Point being that as the head of the house, it’s important for you to not get so self-absorbed in your role as head of the house that you care more about your wife’s submission than your own sacrifice.

I don’t mind my husband being the leader because he doesn’t make it a foul aftertaste in my mouth. He’d sooner cut his finger off than hang vocabulary like “submit” or “forbid” or “head of the house” over me. He worries about his job. I worry about mine.

 

[severus68]

Yes, in this particular aspect of the family relationships, a husband can forbid his wife to do something. He can also forbid his child from doing something. That does not mean wife=child. There are plenty of other things going on in the family. The Pope can give an order to a bishop. He can also give an order to a parish priest. That does not make the parish priest a bishop.

A bishopship is a position, a bishop is appointed. A bishop is in a position in a hierachy. The only hierachy in a Christian marriage is Christ above, husband and wife below on the same level.

Yes, wife equals child plus serf plus child minder plus unpaid housekeeper plus provider of benefits.

 

[severus68]

So something, like a book that was also a comprehensive and authoritative document of Church teaching and which the CCC called “work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching”, that would be the kind of thing you could go to in order to gain better understanding and explanation, no?

Pax and God Bless.

No as we have a current Cathechism.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Point being that as the head of the house, it’s important for you to not get so self-absorbed in your role as head of the house that you care more about your wife’s submission than your own sacrifice.

I agree with this comment completely.

You may have misunderstood my “hall pass” comment. My intent was to say that my wife does NOT have one, meaning she does not ask my permission every time she wants to go anywhere. Why? Because I trust her and love her.

Pax.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I thought of another good example supporting the headship of a man in his family. Actually, my wife thought it- she’s a very smart lady.

Who commited Original Sin?

Adam.

The CCC, as well as all other Church teaching, is quite clear on this.

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Why Adam? Eve ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil first. There are two possibilities I see:

1. Adam’s sin began the moment he failed to protect his wife from the serpent. He failed to meet the responsibilties God had placed on him as head of his family.
2. Perhaps, Adam could have refused to eat when offered the fruit by Eve, and the Fall would not have occured.

I’m more inclined to believe #1, but either way, or some other explanation, the fact remains that Adam’s sin is Original Sin.

As I’ve been saying, headship and authority is not license to dominate someone else. It’s a responsibility to protect them.

Pax.

 

[Dan_Daly]

A bishopship is a position, a bishop is appointed. A bishop is in a position in a hierachy. The only hierachy in a Christian marriage is Christ above, husband and wife below on the same level.

Yes, wife equals child plus serf plus child minder plus unpaid housekeeper plus provider of benefits.

You are drawing more ideas into the discussion. So if a wife stays home and her husband doesn’t “pay” her for the work she does in the home, is that oppression? Also, what is wrong with minding children? Is it an enslavement for woman or a godly calling? I would say the latter. The “woman’s liberation” movement would say the former.

“Women’s Liberation” is a completely non-sensical term that I reject completely. The ideas says that women must be liberated from:

-husbands
-children
-the home
-the church

It’s impossible to be liberated from those things because they are not enslavements. So if we reject the term “women’s lib” what term fits? Let’s look at what else the movement espouses:

-the strong (parents) can only reach their full potential by using force (abortion) against the weak (unborn children)
-human beings are purely biological creatures, or at minimum there are only biological differences between men and women.
-The Church is an oppressor
-Men are animalistic brutes

There is a name for that idea. It’s social darwinism.

I have not broadened the discussion up to this point, but as you bring up the idea of economic oppression and the bondage of caring for children, as well as the specific question of submission to the husband, I thought it now appropriate to do so.

This idea of social darwinism brought us Nazism, Marxism, and Feminism. It’s filled up graves from Auschwitz to the gulag to Planned Parenthood abortion mills. Many of those tossed into the graves were women and girls, which reveals the lie…“women’s lib” has done more to enslave and destroy women than all the evils, real and imagined, that it’s opposed ever did.

Pax and God Bless

 

[chevalier]

“Women’s Liberation” is a completely non-sensical term that I reject completely. The ideas says that women must be liberated from:

-husbands
-children
-the home
-the church

I’d essentially be afraid of that if faced with some form of focus on liberation or with oppression language. Generally, to marry, I’d need to be sure the other person understands marriage involves mutuality, compromise, shared decision making and no longer not having to take anybody into account when making certain decisions (anything from issues concerning children to spending time together or alone and out, giving and accepting attention, companionship and so on). It’s devastating to face “my way or highway” alternatives from someone you care for and are emotionally invested in. Let alone someone who has the power to make you effectively single for decades as long as the marriage was valid at the wedding. All the more problem if in the mind of the prospective candidate the Church is also a potential oppressor (what then with sexual ethics, openness to life etc.).

 

[Dan_Daly]

I’d essentially be afraid of that if faced with some form of focus on liberation or with oppression language. Generally, to marry, I’d need to be sure the other person understands marriage involves mutuality, compromise, shared decision making and no longer not having to take anybody into account when making certain decisions (anything from issues concerning children to spending time together or alone and out, giving and accepting attention, companionship and so on). It’s devastating to face “my way or highway” alternatives from someone you care for and are emotionally invested in. Let alone someone who has the power to make you effectively single for decades as long as the marriage was valid at the wedding. All the more problem if in the mind of the prospective candidate the Church is also a potential oppressor (what then with sexual ethics, openness to life etc.).

This ties right back into my post very early on in the thread, in which I said I would not have married a woman who refused to take my last name, and cautioned other men from doing so.

In the American culture, the unwillingness of a woman to take her husband’s name, is a sign that to at least some small degree she has bought into the ideology of “women’s liberation” aka social darwinism. Why would a bride need to keep her name in order to retain “independence” when a husband and wife are not called to be indepenedent of one another- rather to become one flesh? Ideas grow in a person’s mind gradually in most cases. A young girl doesn’t march off and join NOW on a whim, just as a man doesn’t suddenly decide to become a member of the KKK or Black Panthers. Not taking a married name, getting a prenuptial agreement drawn up, using the title “Ms” instead of “Miss” or “Mrs”- all of those are signs that the ideas you fear have taken seed.

I will again restate that the evil of the “women’s movement” has not come about primarily because of women. It’s come about because of men. Men who have shirked their responsibilities and men who have actively pushed the agenda as a means of gaining power, prestige, wealth, etc.

Again, this ties back to Original Sin…Adam’s sin.

Pax and God Bless.

 

[severus68]

QUOTE=Dan Daly;8223299]You are drawing more ideas into the discussion. So if a wife stays home and her husband doesn’t “pay” her for the work she does in the home, is that oppression? Also, what is wrong with minding children? Is it an enslavement for woman or a godly calling? I would say the latter. The “woman’s liberation” movement would say the former.

“Women’s Liberation” is a completely non-sensical term that I reject completely. The ideas says that women must be liberated from:

-husbands
-children
-the home
-the church

I am just setting out what you take a wife’s role to be. While there is nothing wrong but I would think and rewarding to have and take care of children, a woman is also her own person.

It’s impossible to be liberated from those things because they are not enslavements. So if we reject the term “women’s lib” what term fits? Let’s look at what else the movement espouses:

-the strong (parents) can only reach their full potential by using force (abortion) against the weak (unborn children)
-human beings are purely biological creatures, or at minimum there are only biological differences between men and women.
-The Church is an oppressor
-Men are animalistic brutes

There is a name for that idea. It’s social darwinism.

I have not broadened the discussion up to this point, but as you bring up the idea of economic oppression and the bondage of caring for children, as well as the specific question of submission to the husband, I thought it now appropriate to do so.

This idea of social darwinism brought us Nazism, Marxism, and Feminism. It’s filled up graves from Auschwitz to the gulag to Planned Parenthood abortion mills. Many of those tossed into the graves were women and girls, which reveals the lie…“women’s lib” has done more to enslave and destroy women than all the evils, real and imagined, that it’s opposed ever did.

Pax and God Bless

I am all for feminism and the equality of women. I will just say that its rather a stretch and really illogical to say that the equality of women leads to genocide and abortion.

 

[Walking_Home]

I am just setting out what you take a wife’s role to be. While there is nothing wrong but I would think and rewarding to have and take care of children, a woman is also her own person.

Pax and God Bless

I am all for feminism and the equality of women.** I will just say that its rather a stretch and really illogical to say that the equality of women leads to genocide and abortion.**​

That is a common tactic – I have seen used when certain type of people. They try to poison the well — by bringing in abortion and the like.