One more thread about submission

[marymary1975]

One thing that reading this thread, which has so many really beautiful and serious responses on it, has made me start to consider is that authority in a husband - if he is a truly good, loving, sensitive and well-disposed man - can be the most incredible gift to his wife, and open up new kinds of security and peace for her.

Submission, honestly, frightens me. But so does love. So does marriage. So does the giving up of one’s self to another. Submission only makes sense to me in that context - that both DH and I would give up our autonomy, him by his promise to stand like a rock between me (and our children) and the often-hostile forces of the outside world, putting our needs and feelings above his own with Christ as his model, and me by allowing him to do that, placing myself and the children under his leadership and protection.

In truth I think the Church has almost nothing to say about how this dynamic works itself out between individual couples. There is no list of “he must do this” and “she must do that”, which is why this subject usually descends into banality and farce once people start arguing over whether the wife can take charge of the family finances, and whether it makes a difference if her husband is a recovering gambler, etc. But I think that submission, like marriage, can be a gift of God IF it is undertaken as seriously, lovingly, broadmindedly and prayerfully as marriage itself should be. And like marriage, it can go very wrong if there is selfishness or miscommunication. Submission is not a reason to throw away your common sense, sense of humour, capabilities, or good judgement as an adult woman. But although submission makes me nervous, I also wish for it. When I think about DH’s authority, the best image it gives me is of his arm around my shoulders, warm and strong, that I can lean against. I need to be a sensible, capable woman with the capacity to survive without that arm if he were not here - that’s just common sense. But being able to lean against him like that is a gift.

Yes, the concept understood as Christ meant the structure to be , and applied following Jesus’ example, and understanding it under the light of the entire doctrine of the church and the whole gospel (no cherry pickings) can be a gift of God.

The problem arises as a result of man’s sinful nature. Men will sin and err and take advantage and will make mistakes, and as a result of human pride and greed many want to take advantage of it. That is why Casta Cannubis has quite a list of situations when submission is out of the question. That is why too the cathecism indicated that there is a mutual submission. When the idea is brought down to reality with two sinners, things can get complicated and many things are going to depend on particular circumstances not on a general concept. In those situations more than looking at “who is the head and who needs to follow who” the question should me more what would Jesus expects me to do and how he expects me to act in light of his entire teaching.

 

[Xantippe]

Remember that we are all sinners,and that the management cannot be perfect all the time,but we must not give up.

If my husband does not wish to “take charge” of getting the five of us out of the house on Sunday, is that sin? Or is that just being pragmatic about our individual gifts?

We are individuals and should think about our actual individual talents and personal qualities, rather than cutting each other up or stretching each other to fit a Procrustean bed.

mythweb.com/encyc/entries/procrustes.html

 

[Xantippe]

A man must not act like a women,and a women must not act like a man,if they do then thats an insult to God.

What do you mean “act like a woman” or “act like a man.”

Would you like to provide a list?

 

[Xantippe]

Y
2. The notion of headship in a family is the same as the “divine right of kings.” The Church would argue that both the king and peasant have the same dignity but by virtue of birth the king was chosen to lead and the peasant to submit. Of course, the king was meant to exercise his leadership in the same way that Christ exercised it. This didn’t work very well, did it? Man is a fallen creature and when given power, he will abuse it. The same is true on the micro level of the family as on the macro level of a country.

St.catherinefan,

You seem a little confused about the history of the term “divine right of kings.”

Have a look at this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

You’ll notice that (for fairly obvious reasons–kings and popes have been butting heads since forever), the idea of the “divine right of kings” is not part of traditional, orthodox Catholic teaching and never has been. In fact, as the Wikipedia article describes, Thomas Aquinas views the killing of an evil and tyrannical king (tyrannicide) as morally quite acceptable.

This is yet another piece of evidence suggesting that traditional Catholic teaching does not in fact expect total and unquestioning obedience to authority figures.

 

[marymary1975]

If my husband does not wish to “take charge” of getting the five of us out of the house on Sunday, is that sin? Or is that just being pragmatic about our individual gifts?

We are individuals and should think about our actual individual talents and personal qualities, rather than cutting each other up or stretching each other to fit a Procrustean bed.

mythweb.com/encyc/entries/procrustes.html

Exactly, if the management is not good then the wife doesn’t have to follow and that is why Casta Cannubis has an entire list in which this doesn’t apply.

 

[UbiCaritas]

There’s nothing “unserious” about anything I’ve written. My point is that, logically, to the extent some want wives to submit, let’s examine what they are being expected to submit to. Further, my illustrations should just evoke an immediate “no.” The fact that some here think the answer to my questions are complex says a great deal about them. Further, IMHO it is relevant that, when I ask these questions, the defenders of “wives must submit” suddenly flee and won’t answer.

I grew up in extreme traditionalist Catholic culture, a culture which has borrowed a lot from extreme fundamentalist Protestantism on the subject of wifely submission. Your questions weren’t at all unreasonable.

There was a poster here some time ago who wrote from, IIRC, an extremely fundamentalist Protestant perspective. Sadly, I was never entirely certain if she was trolling because while what she said was quite extreme, it is accepted belief in certain circles. (Albeit, I should add, certainly not a teaching of the Church.) For example, she said that while she believed abortion to be murder, if her husband ordered her to get an abortion she would because her job was to obey him, and if he told her to do something wrong, it would be his sin and not hers. Obviously, the Church teaches that a woman (assuming she’s of full mental capacity) is responsible for any sins she commits, just as a man is responsible for any sins he commits.

Frankly, as for my marriage, we’re rather too busy raising our daughter, dealing with work issues, and wrangling the five million house-related things that seem to come up on a daily basis to spend time arguing over whether I’m supposed to submit to him, him to me, or all of the above. Neither of us makes unilateral decisions unless they’re about things so minor that the other person won’t care. We sort them out together because we’re a team. Period.

 

[UbiCaritas]

St.catherinefan,

You seem a little confused about the history of the term “divine right of kings.”

Have a look at this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

You’ll notice that (for fairly obvious reasons–kings and popes have been butting heads since forever), the idea of the “divine right of kings” is not part of traditional, orthodox Catholic teaching and never has been. In fact, as the Wikipedia article describes, Thomas Aquinas views the killing of an evil and tyrannical king (tyrannicide) as morally quite acceptable.

This is yet another piece of evidence suggesting that traditional Catholic teaching does not in fact expect total and unquestioning obedience to authority figures.

I may be wrong, but I’ve picked up from stcatherinefan’s writing that she may have come from a relatively extremist background like mine. (If not, please correct me, and my apologies.)

To this day, in extreme trad circles the divine right of kings is brought up a lot–mostly about how America shouldn’t have seceded from England. It’s not in the least a logical line of thought–I mean, look at times and places where dynasties changed on a near-weekly basis, and mostly on the grounds of who could lop whose head off first!–but it’s a common idea. It seems to tie into the idea that you should never, ever disagree with a traditional priest about anything, up to and including the most idiotic and innocuous things that have nothing whatsoever to do with morality, because as priests they’re a reflection of Christ as a priest and a king. It’s wacky in the extreme.

 

[Xantippe]

There was a poster here some time ago who wrote from, IIRC, an extremely fundamentalist Protestant perspective. Sadly, I was never entirely certain if she was trolling because while what she said was quite extreme, it is accepted belief in certain circles. (Albeit, I should add, certainly not a teaching of the Church.) For example, she said that while she believed abortion to be murder, if her husband ordered her to get an abortion she would because her job was to obey him, and if he told her to do something wrong, it would be his sin and not hers. Obviously, the Church teaches that a woman (assuming she’s of full mental capacity) is responsible for any sins she commits, just as a man is responsible for any sins he commits.

There’s a Protestant book called “Me? Obey Him?” that seems to have been fairly influential that talks about the abortion example.

books.google.com/books?id=GRdHcAyXCg4C&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=%22me+obey+him%22+abortion&source=bl&ots=CDT7gYaxsx&sig=9uUXf2IprnalHQRpF3MKSTqG6yw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bmpwVaPGFNKoogTEgYGQAQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22me%20obey%20him%22%20abortion&f=false

Lots of interesting browsing in there.

In the abortion example, the author thinks that the reason the husband in the example insisted on the abortion is that that’s what the wife herself secretly wanted, and if she had actually wanted to not have an abortion, she would have prevailed if she had grovelled adequately.

“Suppose, instead of agreeing with him, that the baby was a bad mistake, that she had said, “Dear, I believe that this precious little life is from God, even if we don’t feel ready for it. I’m sorry I haven’t done a good job of keeping the house clean and caring for the children. With God’s help, I can fix that; and I can take care of this new baby, too. I’ll try not to demand things we can’t afford. I’ll save money every way I can. I believe it would be a sin against God to murder this little baby. I beg you, please don’t make me get an abortion.””

“If she had said that to her husband, I believe God would have put into his heart a fear of breaking His law so strong that he would have backed off from the abortion. God promised in 1 Corinthians 10:13 that He will always make a way to escape temptation so we won’t have to sin. I believe a proper appeal would have caused that man to change his mind about the abortion.”

Blech.

There’s so much cross-pollinization with Evangelical Protestantism that has been a positive thing for Catholic life, but fundamentalist Protestant influence on Catholics with regard to marriage is extremely toxic.

 

[Xantippe]

I also have never been convinced by comparisons of the husband-wife relationship to other relationships such as parent-child, general-soldier, boss-employee, etc. It is difficult for me to state why but I suppose my concern is, what about the unity of the married couple? The other relationships may involve “headship” but does not include unity.

Also, AFAIK in Catholic marriage, the wife does not promise to “obey” the husband. So it is not quite right to compare the relationship to, say, a monk and his abbot.

I think your intuition is correct. Here are some reasons:

1. The authority that a parent has over a child is temporary. At some point, unless the child is severely disabled, the child will leave home as a legal adult and make their own way in the world. Also, Casti Connubii says explicitly that the wife’s submission is not identical to that of a minor child.
2. Similarly, the general and the boss do not have lifelong authority over the soldier or employee. The employee may leave at any time (with perhaps some contractual penalties) and the soldier will leave military service, perhaps within a year or two. The soldier’s obedience may be extreme (the soldier must obey even in the face of death), but unless he dies during service, he doesn’t have to obey the same general for the rest of their lives.
3. The soldier must not obey illegal orders.

usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

1. The commanding officer or boss may be fired or transferred by higher-ups. Husbands don’t get fired from their spousal office by higher-ups, unless you’re in a cult where spouses are periodically reassigned.
2. If there is some sort of malfeasance going on, it is morally acceptable for a soldier or employee to be a whistle blower, to report and publicize atrocities, looting, embezzlement and fraud and to refuse to participate in. Even minor selfishness and graft (having your employees wash your car or watch your kids) is often frowned on, particularly in elected officials.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Swift

1. If a soldier or employee participates in wrong-doing, they will be punished, right along with their superiors.
2. Very importantly, although the soldier may be technically on duty 24/7, he does get to go on leave on occasion. He doesn’t have the same level of supervision at all times–there are occasions when he is able to relax and enjoy himself, far far from authority. Also, the soldier doesn’t bunk with his general. When he’s not deployed, he may have a home of his own. This is even more true of employees and their relationship with a boss. They may owe a boss a solid 40+ hours of work a week and professional behavior on the job, but the rest of the week, they do not answer to him with regard to where they go to church, who they vote for, what they do for hobbies, how many kids they have, or how they spend their money.
3. Hopefully, there isn’t a sexual relationship going on in the parent-child, general-soldier, or boss-employee relationships.
4. It’s not wrong to change employers as often as you wish to.

You are also correct about the lack of a vow of obedience. I’d argue that because marriage is supposed to be lifelong, it inherently needs to be more flexible than the relationships that have been cited as analogous. There needs to be more flexibility and give, because the relationship is designed to go on for decades under a variety of different circumstances.

 

[hesso12]

Specifically, what does that mean?

Can you give a specific example?

What is a woman doing if she is acting like a man?

Same question for a man acting like a woman.

Is this a specific behavior or a specific job or both?

Where in the Catechism or the bible can you find this statement?

I’d like to know exactly what kind of behavior or job is considered “acting” like a man or “acting” like a woman and also how does this pertain to marriage.

**Deuteronomy 22:5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I Corinthians 6:9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,**

The Greek words there are malachoi for effeminate and arsenokoitae for “abusers of themselves with mankind”. A better translation of arsenokoitae would be sodomite; a moral literal one would be “man bedder”.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

**Deuteronomy 22:5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I Corinthians 6:9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,**

The Greek words there are malachoi for effeminate and arsenokoitae for “abusers of themselves with mankind”. A better translation of arskoitae would be sodomite; a moral literal one would be “man bedder”.

And I’ll keep that in mind if my husband ever starts bedding men.

Masculinity and femininity are so much deeper than things like clothes and type of work. I could become an underwater welder, start dressing like Dan Conner, and spend every night in a sports bar with a pint of beer and I would still be feminine, I would still relate to people and situations the way I do now (which is to say, femininely), and I would still be the ‘little woman’ in my marriage.

 

[Xantippe]

**Deuteronomy 22:5. The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I Corinthians 6:9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,**

The Greek words there are malachoi for effeminate and arsenokoitae for “abusers of themselves with mankind”. A better translation of arsenokoitae would be sodomite; a moral literal one would be “man bedder”.

Not sure how that applies to the marriage discussion…

Does that mean I need to confess having borrowed my husband’s sweaters?

Also, what is your hermeneutical principle for deciding which elements of Old Testament law to keep and which not to keep? Because I am pretty sure that there are many laws in Deuteronomy that you would not wish to be bound by.

 

[hesso12]

Not sure how that applies to the marriage discussion…

I will tell you

Does that mean I need to confess having borrowed my husband’s sweaters?

No

lAso, what is your hermeneutical principle for deciding which elements of Old Testament law to keep and which not to keep?

The Old Testament Law
Ceremonial Law: This type of law relates to Israel’s worship. (Lev 1:1-13) The laws pointed forward to Jesus Christ and were no longer necessary after Jesus’ death and resurrection. Though we are no longer bound to them, the principles behind the ceremonial laws, that is to worship and love God, still apply.
Civil Law: This law dictated Israel’s daily living (Deut 24:10-11); but modern society and culture are so radically different that some of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. The principles behind the commands are used to guide our conduct.
Moral Law: The moral laws are direct commands of God. A good example are the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:1-17). The moral laws reveal the nature and will of God, and still apply to us today. We do not obey this moral law as a way to obtain salvation, but to live in ways pleasing to God.

Because I am pretty sure that there are many laws in Deuteronomy that you would not wish to be bound by.

I would rather be bound to it if this is what God wants.

 

[hesso12]

10 Bible reasons why a wife must submit to her husband regardless of culture:

• Creation order: Man was created first, woman second. "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. " 1 Timothy 2:13
• Creation origin: Man and all creation was created by God directly out of dust, whereas woman was created through the man’s rib. "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. " Genesis 2:7 Woman is the only creature not made from dust. Woman derives her origin from Man. "The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. " Genesis 2:22 “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man” 1 Corinthians 11:8
• Creation purpose: Woman created for man: “for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” 1 Corinthians 11:9
• Man named woman: Adam named the animals and was to rule over them. "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. " Genesis 2:19 “rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:28 When Eve was brought to Adam, he named her, showing he was to rule over woman as well. “The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”” Genesis 2:23
• Delegation principle: God commanded directly to Adam alone. The prohibition to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was made directly by God to Adam. Adam, in turn relayed what God said to Eve. Eve had not yet been created when God told Adam about the forbidden tree. Eve never actually heard God say this direct, but had to trust Adam’s word on the matter. “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”” Genesis 2:16-18
• Woman sinned first: The devil tempted Eve and she, not the man, was first deceived. Because of this, man put Eve under the headship of Adam. "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. " 1 Timothy 2:14; “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”” Genesis 3:1
• God rebuked Adam first after they ate the forbidden fruit: Although Eve was the logical person for God to rebuke first, God went to Adam, showing that God considered Adam the “head of the family” for both. "Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” " Genesis 3:9
• Man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of man: “For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7
• Paul pointed Christians to the Mosaic Law that was 1500 earlier and a different culture: 1 Cor.14:34
• Peter pointed Christians to Sarah, 2000 years earlier and a very different culture: 1 Pet. 3:5-6.

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

 

[hesso12]

There’s a Protestant book called “Me? Obey Him?” that seems to have been fairly influential that talks about the abortion example.

books.google.com/books?id=GRdHcAyXCg4C&pg=PA98&lpg=PA98&dq=%22me+obey+him%22+abortion&source=bl&ots=CDT7gYaxsx&sig=9uUXf2IprnalHQRpF3MKSTqG6yw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bmpwVaPGFNKoogTEgYGQAQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22me%20obey%20him%22%20abortion&f=false

Lots of interesting browsing in there.

In the abortion example, the author thinks that the reason the husband in the example insisted on the abortion is that that’s what the wife herself secretly wanted, and if she had actually wanted to not have an abortion, she would have prevailed if she had grovelled adequately.

“Suppose, instead of agreeing with him, that the baby was a bad mistake, that she had said, “Dear, I believe that this precious little life is from God, even if we don’t feel ready for it. I’m sorry I haven’t done a good job of keeping the house clean and caring for the children. With God’s help, I can fix that; and I can take care of this new baby, too. I’ll try not to demand things we can’t afford. I’ll save money every way I can. I believe it would be a sin against God to murder this little baby. I beg you, please don’t make me get an abortion.””

“If she had said that to her husband, I believe God would have put into his heart a fear of breaking His law so strong that he would have backed off from the abortion. God promised in 1 Corinthians 10:13 that He will always make a way to escape temptation so we won’t have to sin. I believe a proper appeal would have caused that man to change his mind about the abortion.”

Blech.

There’s so much cross-pollinization with Evangelical Protestantism that has been a positive thing for Catholic life, but fundamentalist Protestant influence on Catholics with regard to marriage is extremely toxic.

I am not a Protestant,but eastern catholic.

 

[Walking_Home]

10 Bible reasons why a wife must submit to her husband regardless of culture:

• Creation order: Man was created first, woman second. "For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. " 1 Timothy 2:13
• Creation origin: Man and all creation was created by God directly out of dust, whereas woman was created through the man’s rib. "Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. " Genesis 2:7 Woman is the only creature not made from dust. Woman derives her origin from Man. "The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. " Genesis 2:22 “For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man” 1 Corinthians 11:8
• Creation purpose: Woman created for man: “for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.” 1 Corinthians 11:9
• Man named woman: Adam named the animals and was to rule over them. "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. " Genesis 2:19 “rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:28 When Eve was brought to Adam, he named her, showing he was to rule over woman as well. “The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”” Genesis 2:23
• Delegation principle: God commanded directly to Adam alone. The prohibition to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, was made directly by God to Adam. Adam, in turn relayed what God said to Eve. Eve had not yet been created when God told Adam about the forbidden tree. Eve never actually heard God say this direct, but had to trust Adam’s word on the matter. “The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”” Genesis 2:16-18
• Woman sinned first: The devil tempted Eve and she, not the man, was first deceived. Because of this, man put Eve under the headship of Adam. "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. " 1 Timothy 2:14; “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”” Genesis 3:1
• God rebuked Adam first after they ate the forbidden fruit: Although Eve was the logical person for God to rebuke first, God went to Adam, showing that God considered Adam the “head of the family” for both. "Then the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” " Genesis 3:9
• Man is the glory of God, woman is the glory of man: “For a man is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7
• Paul pointed Christians to the Mosaic Law that was 1500 earlier and a different culture: 1 Cor.14:34
• Peter pointed Christians to Sarah, 2000 years earlier and a very different culture: 1 Pet. 3:5-6.

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

---

You are posting another fundamentalist protestant erroneous interpretation…

bible.ca/marriage/submission-independent-of-culture.htm

 

[Sarcelle]

What do you mean “act like a woman” or “act like a man.”

Would you like to provide a list?

If you ask 1000 people on the you get 1000 different answers.

I don’t think the criteria for acting like a man/woman is codified in either the Bible or in the Catechism. Of course that does not stop individuals from assuming they are the authority on how men and women should behave.

 

[hesso12]

I grew up in extreme traditionalist Catholic culture, a culture which has borrowed a lot from extreme fundamentalist Protestantism on the subject of wifely submission. Your questions weren’t at all unreasonable.

There was a poster here some time ago who wrote from, IIRC, an extremely fundamentalist Protestant perspective. Sadly, I was never entirely certain if she was trolling because while what she said was quite extreme, it is accepted belief in certain circles. (Albeit, I should add, certainly not a teaching of the Church.) For example, she said that while she believed abortion to be murder, if her husband ordered her to get an abortion she would because her job was to obey him, and if he told her to do something wrong, it would be his sin and not hers. Obviously, the Church teaches that a woman (assuming she’s of full mental capacity) is responsible for any sins she commits, just as a man is responsible for any sins he commits.

Frankly, as for my marriage, we’re rather too busy raising our daughter, dealing with work issues, and wrangling the five million house-related things that seem to come up on a daily basis to spend time arguing over whether I’m supposed to submit to him, him to me, or all of the above. Neither of us makes unilateral decisions unless they’re about things so minor that the other person won’t care. We sort them out together because we’re a team. Period.

Before protestant churches existed,the submission of the wife was followed in catholic church and still is,for catholic’s from many parts of the world.

 

[hesso12]

If you ask 1000 people on the you get 1000 different answers.

I don’t think the criteria for acting like a man/woman is codified in either the Bible or in the Catechism. Of course that does not stop individuals from assuming they are the authority on how men and women should behave.

yes

 

[Xantippe]

---

You are posting another fundamentalist protestant erroneous interpretation…

bible.ca/marriage/submission-independent-of-culture.htm

Right.

Hesso12, you say you’re an Eastern Catholic, but your postings on marriage so far reek of fundamentalist Protestantism.

People have asked you to think about what the limitations of wifely submission are and you ran away from those questions.

Think about it–what are the limits? At what point is a wife justified in saying, nope, I’m not doing that?

You can’t just keep posting the exact same verses on submission without grappling with what the day-to-day application needs to look like.

Also, if you’re unmarried, not a priest and not a therapist, it is pretty cheeky of you to keep arguing about this with married people with actual experience of successfully and productively living with another adult under the same roof and having a family together.