Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband

[SecretCatholic]

All I can say is that Catholics are not bound to a literalist interpretation of the Bible.

You have to take these verses in context of the times they were written in. The notion of a husband giving up his life for his wife was probably the equivalent of radical feminism 2000 years ago. I see it as a starting point for the liberalization of women’s lives from one of complete servitude. It broke women loose from the paradigm of that era.

What did God really intend from those verses? Well I like to think that He intended to give them dignity. How else can we interpret that husbands should love their wives like Christ loved them? Christ gave up His life for those He loved.

Certainly the notion of women’s dignity has evolved over time. They’re no longer mere chattel. There was a time when even women’s vote was considered a radical notion. God had to start that ball rolling in the context of St. Paul’s era.

No, we are not bound to a literal reading of the Bible. And I agree with the bulk of what you’re saying. But as Catholics, we accept the Church’s authority in interpretation, not our own. And the Church does note a difference in the roles of the wife and husband. What that means in practice is the discussion here. But I don’t think we can honestly claim that there is NO difference. it just doesn’t go with what the Church is saying.

Yes, I have various roles in life. But that doesn’t mean that I have to act like what others, outsiders to my marriage, think I should act like in my marriage simply because I’m “the wife”.

You certainly have no obligation to take heed of how random strangers say you should treat your husband. But as a Catholic you DO have an obligation to adhere to Church teaching, even when it refers to “the wife.” What that means in practice is what we are discussing.

I have not found in my marriage (almost as long as yours) that one person needs to be top dog or “call the shots.” I actually find the idea frightening.

I think that sums up well what the general feeling there is from many Catholic women.

I do not agree that scripture says wives have to submit to their husbands, any more than I believe we should stone adulterers to death.

How far down this rabbit hole of self-interpretation must we go? Gay Marriage also okay?

Let me re-post:

22Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: 23Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.

25Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: 26That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: 27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any; such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. 28So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. 29For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: 30Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. 32This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. 33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband.

CLEARLY, the husband is named the HEAD of the household, not the wife, and not both the husband and the wife. Clearly both husband and wife have some pretty serious obligations to one another. I think the problem lies in that “submission” or to “be subject to” in this case** is not what you think it is**. It’s not some bad, horrible slave-like thing. Perhaps it has been abused so often that it has acquired a sour taste and the social changes we have gone through have made it almost a taboo to say.

I find it more frightening to be compared to Christ on the cross!

What bold man here will start the “Practical ways that a husband should love his wife just as Christ loved the Church” thread?

I’d happily approve of it!

Beyond what Paul may have written a very long time ago, I like to focus on what The Church advises today: stay married! Whatever works will do fine.

There is no contradiction to what the Church says today and what the church and St. Paul said then. This is a false dichotomy.

 

[fpt]

These are questions about the conjugal moral to evaluate the level knowledge of each one: a conjugal quiz for summing up.

Morally speaking (in natural moral law), in the catholic marriage:

Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable donation of persons? Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable reception of persons?

Is there a leader in the couple? Is there a boss in the couple? Is there a chief in the couple? Is there a superior in the couple?

Is there a leader concerning the conjugal sexuality? Is there a boss concerning the conjugal sexuality? Is there a chief concerning the conjugal sexuality? Is there a superior concerning the conjugal sexuality?

Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable submission between wife and husband?

Are there differences between the couple and the family?

 

[severus68]

No, we are not bound to a literal reading of the Bible. And I agree with the bulk of what you’re saying. But as Catholics, we accept the Church’s authority in interpretation, not our own. And the Church does note a difference in the roles of the wife and husband. What that means in practice is the discussion here. But I don’t think we can honestly claim that there is NO difference. it just doesn’t go with what the Church is saying.

St JP II said in his MULIERIS DIGNITATEM:

"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.

In relation to the “old” this is evidently something “new”: it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is “old”: what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.49

The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The “innovation” of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual “subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ”, and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: “In Christ Jesus… there is no more man or woman”, but also wrote: “There is no more slave or freeman”. Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?"

As JPII said, it is mutual subjection.

 

[Xantippe]

SecretCatholic said:

“CLEARLY, the husband is named the HEAD of the household, not the wife, and not both the husband and the wife. Clearly both husband and wife have some pretty serious obligations to one another. I think the problem lies in that “submission” or to “be subject to” in this case is not what you think it is. It’s not some bad, horrible slave-like thing. Perhaps it has been abused so often that it has acquired a sour taste and the social changes we have gone through have made it almost a taboo to say.”

There’s no “perhaps.” It’s been abused so much that a man who shows excessive interest in wifely submission is very likely an abusive creep. It’s a huge red flag.

I can’t help but notice how many more threads pop up here on the subject of wifely submission vs. husbandly self-sacrifice. (The lack of husbandly self-sacrifice is a consistent source of misery, but you very rarely see women posting here who are eager to enforce their scriptural rights to their husband’s self-sacrifice.)

Come to think of it, those two things are essentially the same thing–submission is sacrifice, and sacrifice is submission.

By the way, while I was looking in St. Peter’s writings, I found a parallel passage to Ephesians 5.

The theme of 2 Peter 2 is submission to worldly authority. “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right.” St. Peter gets to marriage in 2 Peter 3 (which is an obvious continuation about the previous stuff about submission to worldly authority) and there’s a close parallel to Ephesians 5. “Likewise, you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.” There’s a long passage that I"ll skip on the evils of excessive dress and hair-braiding. Then, to husbands. “Likewise, you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.”

(As to the “weaker sex,” I’d note that one doesn’t need to come up with elaborate spiritual theories on this, as women are on average physically smaller and weaker than men, as well as encumbered with the various physical handicaps that accompany the female side of human reproduction.)

 

[LongingSoul]

SecretCatholic said:

“CLEARLY, the husband is named the HEAD of the household, not the wife, and not both the husband and the wife. Clearly both husband and wife have some pretty serious obligations to one another. I think the problem lies in that “submission” or to “be subject to” in this case is not what you think it is. It’s not some bad, horrible slave-like thing. Perhaps it has been abused so often that it has acquired a sour taste and the social changes we have gone through have made it almost a taboo to say.”

There’s no “perhaps.” It’s been abused so much that a man who shows excessive interest in wifely submission is very likely an abusive creep. It’s a huge red flag.

I can’t help but notice how many more threads pop up here on the subject of wifely submission vs. husbandly self-sacrifice. (The lack of husbandly self-sacrifice is a consistent source of misery, but you very rarely see women posting here who are eager to enforce their scriptural rights to their husband’s self-sacrifice.)

Who’s talking about "‘creeps’ that show excessive interest in wifely submission’? I think most of us here are females in long term marriages. I’m certainly not advocating Sharia Law by contributing here. I care about the world my daughter will be a wife in and what things make for the best marriages.

I spent more than 10 years volunteering with an organisation that offered marriage related counselling and courses and from seeing and hearing many things, I’m convinced that marriages built on a genderless ideal begin to have root rot from the very early days. What I found most surprisiing (in the early days, not any more) was the number of couples where either one or both thought they had a good marriage until some issue or another arose out of the blue to test the foundations. If the equality doesn’t have a basis in the natural complimentarity of the male and female in marriage… one finds that they don’t have respect for the other and the other finds an incapacity to cherish a spouse through the storm.

 

[EasterJoy]

Easter Joy said:

“A relative of mine was fond of this quip: In our marriage, she makes all the minor decisions, but I make all the major decisions. In 50 years of marriage, though, we’ve been very lucky–nothing major has ever come up!”

There’s a 1950s or 1960s version of that where the husband says somethink like, “In our marriage, she makes all the minor decisions (where to live, where to go on vacation), but I make all the major decisions (like what our family views are on China).”

Yes. The main thing to remember is that whenever there is a power play between Christians, something has gone very wrong. This is true whether it is a direct and obvious play to control or an indirect competition to be the “most unselfish”! It also helps to maintain what Screwtape calls a “sense of the ridiculous”!

 

[EasterJoy]

*MY DEAR WORMWOOD,

Yes; courtship is the time for sowing those seeds which will grow up ten years later into domestic hatred. The enchantment of unsatisfied desire produces results which the humans can be made to mistake for the results of charity. Avail yourself of the ambiguity in the word “Love”: let them think they have solved by Love problems they have in fact only waived or postponed under the influence of the enchantment. While it lasts you have your chance to foment the problems in secret and render them chronic.

The grand problem is that of “unselfishness”. Note, once again, the admirable work of our Philological Arm in substituting the negative unselfishness for the Enemy’s positive Charity. Thanks to this you can, from the very outset, teach a man to surrender benefits not that others may be happy in having them but that he may be unselfish in forgoing them. That is a great point gained. Another great help, where the parties concerned are male and female, is the divergence of view about Unselfishness which we have built up between the sexes. A woman means by Unselfishness chiefly taking trouble for others; a man means not giving trouble to others. As a result, a woman who is quite far gone in the Enemy’s service will make a nuisance of herself on a larger scale than any man except those whom Our Father has dominated completely; and, conversely, a man will live long in the Enemy’s camp before he undertakes as much spontaneous work to please others as a quite ordinary woman may do every day. Thus while the woman thinks of doing good offices and the man of respecting other people’s rights, each sex, without any obvious unreason, can and does regard the other as radically selfish.

On top of these confusions you can now introduce a few more. The erotic enchantment produces a mutual complaisance in which each is really pleased to give in to the wishes of the other. They also know that the Enemy demands of them a degree of charity which, if attained, would result in similar actions. You must make them establish as a Law for their whole married life that degree of mutual self-sacrifice which is at present sprouting naturally out of the enchantment, but which, when the enchantment dies away, they will not have charity enough to enable them to perform. They will not see the trap, since they are under the double blindness of mistaking sexual excitement for charity and of thinking that the excitement will last.

When once a sort of official, legal, or nominal Unselfishness has been established as a rule - a rule for the keeping of which their emotional resources have died away and their spiritual resources have not yet grown - the most delightful results follow. In discussing any joint action, it becomes obligatory that A should argue in favour of B’s supposed wishes and against his own, while B does the opposite. It is often impossible to find out either party’s real wishes; with luck, they end by doing something that neither wants, while each feels a glow of self-righteousness and harbours a secret claim to preferential treatment for the unselfishness shown and a secret grudge against the other for the ease with which the sacrifice has been accepted. Later on you can venture on what may be called the Generous Conflict Illusion. This game is best played with more than two players, in a family with grown-up children for example. Something quite trivial, like having tea in the garden, is proposed. One member takes care to make it quite clear (though not in so many words) that he would rather not but is, of course, prepared to do so out of “Unselfishness”. The others instantly withdraw their proposal, ostensibly through their “Unselfishness”, but really because they don’t want to be used as a sort of lay figure on which the first speaker practices petty altruisms. But he is not going to be done out of his debauch of Unselfishness either. He insists on doing “what the others want”. They insist on doing what he wants. Passions are roused. Soon someone is saying “Very well then, I won’t have any tea at all!”, and a real quarrel ensues with bitter resentment on both sides. You see how it is done? If each side had been frankly contending for its own real wish, they would all have kept within the bounds of reason and courtesy; but just because the contention is reversed and each side is fighting the other side’s battle, all the bitterness which really flows from thwarted self-righteousness and obstinacy and the accumulated grudges of the last ten years is concealed from them by the nominal or official “Unselfishness” of what they are doing or, at least, held to be excused by it. Each side is, indeed, quite alive to the cheap quality of the adversary’s Unselfishness and of the false position into which he is trying to force them; but each manages to feel blameless and ill-used itself, with no more dishonesty than comes natural to a human.

• cont…

 

[EasterJoy]

Letter 26, cont…

*A sensible human once said, “If people knew how much ill-feeling Unselfishness occasions, it would not be so often recommended from the pulpit”; and again, “She’s the sort of woman who lives for others - you can always tell the others by their hunted expression”. All this can be begun even in the period of courtship. A little real selfishness on your patient’s part is often of less value in the long run, for securing his soul, than the first beginnings of that elaborate and self-consciousness unselfishness which may one day blossom into the sort of thing I have described. Some degree of mutual falseness, some surprise that the girl does not always notice just how Unselfish he is being, can be smuggled in already. Cherish these things, and, above all, don’t let the young fools notice them. If they notice them they will be on the road to discovering that “love” is not enough, that charity is needed and not yet achieved and that no external law can supply its place. I wish Slumtrimpet could do something about undermining that young woman’s sense of the ridiculous,

Your affectionate uncle

SCREWTAPE*

 

[EasterJoy]

IOW–I mean to sum up the message of C.S. Lewis in Screwtape–there is nothing wrong with a situation in a marriage where each spouse frankly and honestly contends for his or her own desire. What should not happen, however, is for there to be a power play where one attempts to get his or her own way by blunt-force domination. I don’t think it is even a good idea to have the “I got my way last time so I’ll give you your way this time” system. Even more importantly, I do not think it is a good idea to falsely give with a charity you do not have–what I would call “the ditch on the other side of the road.”

Give what you have to give, and don’t pretend that you are a bigger person than you are. Smallness of heart is better dragged into the open, confessed, and accommodated than concealed with bitterness in an attempt to pass it off as charity.

So, let us say that the couple does their best to accommodate each other’s smallness and weakness by mutual submission. In my experience of couples that have been married 50 years, this does the job the* vast majority* of the time. Mutual submission and true charity do the heavy lifting in a good marriage. What remains is the question, “when one of us has to decide for both–since there must be a deciding vote in any council of two–who is given the burden of making the decision and who is given the burden of letting the other one make the decision?”

If you don’t have someone chosen to take each of those burdens before your councils begin, the specter of deadlock always hangs over you. If you do not look at being the one to make that decision as having a burden rather than a privilege, however, in which the greater degree of self-sacrifice falls on the person acting as the head, then you do not have authority as Christ intended it. Christian authority is not an authority of privilege. If that is what you have, you have missed the plainest sense of the message of the Gospels.

The New Testament apportions that burden to the husband and father in the home, like it or not. If there is not resentment “out of principle,” however, in practice this is not onerous on either spouse, because each helps the other and supports the other in decision-making. Where true charity reigns, after all, no one really bears his burden alone.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Who’s talking about "‘creeps’ that show excessive interest in wifely submission’? I think most of us here are females in long term marriages. I’m certainly not advocating Sharia Law by contributing here. I care about the world my daughter will be a wife in and what things make for the best marriages.

I spent more than 10 years volunteering with an organisation that offered marriage related counselling and courses and from seeing and hearing many things, I’m convinced that marriages built on a genderless ideal begin to have root rot from the very early days. What I found most surprisiing (in the early days, not any more) was the number of couples where either one or both thought they had a good marriage until some issue or another arose out of the blue to test the foundations. If the equality doesn’t have a basis in the natural complimentarity of the male and female in marriage… one finds that they don’t have respect for the other and the other finds an incapacity to cherish a spouse through the storm.

That’s quite the assessment from someone who volunteered with an organization that offered marriage counseling. You really have no way of assessing anyone’s marriage unless you are actually trained to do so, and the one behind the closed door who is being confided in.

I do not understand why the personal dynamic of anyone’s marriage but your own is of any concern. And I’m not just speaking to LongingSoul. Marriage is private, sacred, and deeply meaningful. To attempt to define the spousal roles for another couple strikes me as dangerous and arrogant.

 

[Avocadomom]

IOW–I mean to sum up the message of C.S. Lewis in Screwtape–there is nothing wrong with a situation in a marriage where each spouse frankly and honestly contends for his or her own desire. What should not happen, however, is for there to be a power play where one attempts to get his or her own way by blunt-force domination. I don’t think it is even a good idea to have the “I got my way last time so I’ll give you your way this time” system. Even more importantly, I do not think it is a good idea to falsely give with a charity you do not have–what I would call “the ditch on the other side of the road.”

Give what you have to give, and don’t pretend that you are a bigger person than you are. Smallness of heart is better dragged into the open, confessed, and accommodated than concealed with bitterness in an attempt to pass it off as charity.

So, let us say that the couple does their best to accommodate each other’s smallness and weakness by mutual submission. In my experience of couples that have been married 50 years, this does the job the* vast majority* of the time. Mutual submission and true charity do the heavy lifting in a good marriage. What remains is the question, “when one of us has to decide for both–since there must be a deciding vote in any council of two–who is given the burden of making the decision and who is given the burden of letting the other one make the decision?”

If you don’t have someone chosen to take each of those burdens before your councils begin, the specter of deadlock always hangs over you. If you do not look at being the one to make that decision as having a burden rather than a privilege, however, in which the greater degree of self-sacrifice falls on the person acting as the head, then you do not have authority as Christ intended it. Christian authority is not an authority of privilege. If that is what you have, you have missed the plainest sense of the message of the Gospels.

The New Testament apportions that burden to the husband and father in the home, like it or not. If there is not resentment “out of principle,” however, in practice this is not onerous on either spouse, because each helps the other and supports the other in decision-making. Where true charity reigns, after all, no one really bears his burden alone.

I think it is hard for some of us to imagine such a “deadlock” where one must finally pull rank. I think many couples who enjoy egalitarian relationships just have the sense to go with the less intrusive, disruptive or radical path if a disagreement remains.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I think it is hard for some of us to imagine such a “deadlock” where one must finally pull rank. I think many couples who enjoy egalitarian relationships just have the sense to go with the less intrusive, disruptive or radical path if a disagreement remains.

We have an informal system.

If we don’t agree, we research the decision more. Then we consider who has the most knowledge of it. But most importantly, we consider who is the most invested in it. Who has the most to lose or gain, whose family will be affected, who will be the most hurt or disappointed. And we always try to put the other first.

We just don’t fight or have a lot of disagreements, and when we do, we trust that the other person is looking out for our best interests. I guess I married well enough that no one has to submit for our marriage to function.

To say that it’s a man’s job to decide is to say that he is inherently a better decision maker. In my experience, that’s only true about 50% of the time. It really depends on the man and woman in question.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think it is hard for some of us to imagine such a “deadlock” where one must finally pull rank. I think many couples who enjoy egalitarian relationships just have the sense to go with the less intrusive, disruptive or radical path if a disagreement remains.

My point is that there ought not ever be a situation where one party “pulls rank.” Besides, you are right: in very good marriages, there is no sense of this “pull rank” business at all. If a council of two is well-matched and work in mutual charity and mutual self-sacrifice, they may not ever find themselves in a true deadlock. There is more of a sense that, “if we can’t decide, he gets stuck making the call” than any sense that the husband has some ultimate privilege to suit himself that his wife does not have. No! That is not the mind of Christ! If he gets stuck being the leader who must decide for the whole, he is stuck before God with making the decision that puts himself last and makes himself the slave of all, that puts his wife and children in the lifeboat before saving himself.

 

[Avocadomom]

We have an informal system.

If we don’t agree, we research the decision more. Then we consider who has the most knowledge of it. But most importantly, we consider who is the most invested in it. Who has the most to lose or gain, whose family will be affected, who will be the most hurt or disappointed. And we always try to put the other first.

We just don’t fight or have a lot of disagreements, and when we do, we trust that the other person is looking out for our best interests. I guess I married well enough that no one has to submit for our marriage to function.

To say that it’s a man’s job to decide is to say that he is inherently a better decision maker. In my experience, that’s only true about 50% of the time. It really depends on the man and woman in question.

Agree. The millions of hypothetical disagreement scenarios in which a couple may find themselves all have different outcomes. The decisions are based on who has the most knowledge, who is most invested, who the decision affects more, the personalities of the couple, the fallout of the decision, etc. I still can’t really imagine a scenario in which a loving husband says, “Sorry you feel that way, but this is what I’ve decided and you better accept it.”

It seems those in favor of the “husband led home” believe that those of us with equal relationships fight to the death over issues, or never let our husbands have the final say on anything. My husband has the final say on plenty, not because I submit to him, and not because he has a penis, but because I recognize that sometimes he is the better person to make the call.

 

[LongingSoul]

Most of the 50 % of marriages that fail come down to irreconcilable differences rather than abuse or infidelity. It is a big problem in marriage.

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s quite the assessment from someone who volunteered with an organization that offered marriage counseling. You really have no way of assessing anyone’s marriage unless you are actually trained to do so, and the one behind the closed door who is being confided in.

I do not understand why the personal dynamic of anyone’s marriage but your own is of any concern. And I’m not just speaking to LongingSoul. Marriage is private, sacred, and deeply meaningful. To attempt to define the spousal roles for another couple strikes me as dangerous and arrogant.

Do you not think that marriage is an important societal institution that deserves government and spiritual (name removed by moderator)ut by the wider community?

 

[EasterJoy]

Agree. The millions of hypothetical disagreement scenarios in which a couple may find themselves all have different outcomes. The decisions are based on who has the most knowledge, who is most invested, who the decision affects more, the personalities of the couple, the fallout of the decision, etc. I still can’t really imagine a scenario in which a loving husband says, “Sorry you feel that way, but this is what I’ve decided and you better accept it.”

It seems those in favor of the “husband led home” believe that those of us with equal relationships fight to the death over issues, or never let our husbands have the final say on anything. My husband has the final say on plenty, but not because I submit to him, but because I recognize that sometimes he is the better person to make the call.

Again, I think the example of a pastor in a parish helps. Very often–far more often than in most marriages!–a priest serving as the pastor of a parish going to be in a situation where prudence will tell him to rely on the expertise of someone who has less authority than he does, but who understands the situation at hand better. If he is humble, he will make his decision in support of the plan with the best credentials, and not prefer his own plan simply because it is his plan.

A mother making decisions about something her children understand better than she does can easily be in the same situation. When we have authority but not the best view, we have to be humble enough to support the person who is most likely to have the best view, and to esteem everyone else as possibly being that person once in awhile. Sometimes, after all, it is the youngest child who sees things the most clearly. Even that young child ought to be heard with humility–“I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.” Matt. 11:25-26 It pleases God when each of us is willing to the authority we are given to support the one with the best plan instead of automatically putting our own plans first.

 

[Avocadomom]

Most of the 50 % of marriages that fail come down to irreconcilable differences rather than abuse or infidelity. It is a big problem in marriage.

Well, “irreconcilable differences” is a box you check on the court filings. “Irreconcilable differences” can mean anything from “we are sick of being married” to abuse, adultery, addiction, mental illness, etc.

Most people do not divorce because of one big disagreement.

 

[Avocadomom]

Again, I think the example of a pastor in a parish helps. Very often–far more often than in most marriages!–a priest serving as the pastor of a parish going to be in a situation where prudence will tell him to rely on the expertise of someone who has less authority than he does, but who understands the situation at hand better. If he is humble, he will make his decision in support of the plan with the best credentials, and not prefer his own plan simply because it is his plan.

A mother making decisions about something her children understand better than she does can easily be in the same situation. When we have authority but not the best view, we have to be humble enough to support the person who is most likely to have the best view, and to esteem everyone else as possibly being that person once in awhile. Sometimes, after all, it is the youngest child who sees things the most clearly. Even that young child ought to be heard with humility–“I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will.” Matt. 11:25-26 It pleases God when each of us is willing to the authority we are given to support the one with the best plan instead of automatically putting our own plans first.

I guess what I am saying is that, using your parish analogy, my husband and I are co-pastors, with “his” “hers” and “ours” areas of authority. We are co-heads of our household. It works really well.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

I’m really suspicious of the motives of online laypeople who interpret Sacred Scripture and Church writing to attempt to persuade others that they’re they’re not doing it right when it comes to being in a Catholic marriage, or any marriage for that matter. It strikes me as incredibly arrogant.

It reminds me a lot of parenting forums. There are always a few who try to tell the others that they’re not parenting right. It rarely ends well.