V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
So there’s equality in a hierarchy? I could have sworn those two words were antonyms.
Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband
- Status
X
Xantippe
Guest
St. Monica’s husband was pagan, right?
B
Bookcat
Guest
I have explained -see other posts. Try to keep up
B
Bookcat
Guest
Yes and she would submit to those today whom God has established…
The submission of a wife to her husband is not a thing “of some distant time”.
Again we are talking about authentic Christian approach. And one ought not loose site either of the submission of Christians to each other and husbands and wives mutual submission. It is all of a whole.
B
Bookcat
Guest
S
sailor28
Guest
Did you even read this entire passage? Do you believe that Augustine had a correct understanding of healthy behavior in a marriage? It is clear to me that the church’s understanding of marriage has evolved tremendously since the 500’s. That is the way the church works: it evolves. It is not an official Catholic teaching that the husband is the head of the wife.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
I absolutely give up on this retrograde misogynistic junk. I’ll leave you with some words from severus:
severus68:
B
bitterhope
Guest
Well as a wife who embraces the role of submission I can assure you I am not my husbands slave. It is insulting to think such a thing. At my parish there is a group of moms that get together each week and do Bible study and also various Catholic books on motherhood and marriage. Each and everyone of us agrees that our husband is the head and we are the heart. That is 50+/- women of various ages, with 1-13 children apiece. We come from all walks of life, a few are widowed, some are divorced, and some are newlyweds. The rest of us are somewhere in between 5-30 years of marriage. Most are college educated. Some work, some stay home. Some are rich (extreme wealth), some are poor, their rest are in the middle. This is the Church teaching we all readily agree with and are all glad that we have the easier role. Birth control and many other topics are touchy, but the differences in husband and wife roles are very clear to us all. As the head, the weight of it all is on the mans shoulders. As the heart, we can easily influence him to do as we prefer. Hasn’t anyone noticed how often as humans we follow our heart instead of our brains? Emotions are very powerful. Most Catholics know that prayers and devotion to Mary gets results, even when other prayers go unanswered. That is an example of how a submissive woman is not a passive doormat. Look at how Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit. That is an example if how a submissive woman can lead a man astray. But look at who God was the most upset with in the Creation story. Our men have it much harder than we women choose to admit to ourselves out of fear that we may appear weak.
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
This is good, you should feel insulted. That’s your conscience speaking.
Because you’re less capable, right? That’s why you were given the easier role, because God made you female and females just can’t hack it, yeah?
A submissive woman is not a passive doormat because of an unsubstantiated anecdotal claim you made that concerns the irrelevant subject of the effectiveness of prayers to Mary when compared to other prayers?
I really doubted you for a while there but now I’m convinced!
The difference between us is that some of us have stopped blaming every women for the sins of Eve. Others are apparently not so willing to move on.
Yes, you accept a teaching that treats you as such. Weak, but also incapable, lacking, dim-witted, all of that. Heck, they’ve dug into your spirit so much that they’ve even got you promoting the thing now.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
It’s OK. Her husband, having the place of Christ in his home, is a slave, too…
Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave… Phil 2:5-7
Or a Pope:
Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and savior Jesus Christ… 2 Pet. 1:1
On the other hand, it beats the alternative:
They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption, for a person is a slave of whatever overcomes him… 2 Pet. 2:19
Do not be deceived. You will be a slave to something or someone, no matter what you do. Be wise in how you choose:
*Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, although you were once slaves of sin, you have become obedient from the heart to the pattern of teaching to which you were entrusted. Freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness. I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your nature. For just as you presented the parts of your bodies as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness for lawless ness, so now present them as slaves to righteousness for sanctification. For when you were slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness. But what profit did you get then from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now that you have been freed from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit that you have leads to sanctification, and its end is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. *
Rom 6:18-23
You call me ‘teacher’ and ‘master,’ and rightly so, for indeed I am. If I, therefore, the master and teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash one another’s feet. I have given you a model to follow, so that as I have done for you, you should also do. Amen, amen, I say to you, no slave is greater than his master nor any messenger greater than the one who sent him. If you understand this, blessed are you if you do it. John 13:13-17
So, actually, yes, you are a slave. There is no question about that. The only question is whether you will choose a good master or a bad one.
*And all the time the joke is that the word “Mine” in its fully possessive sense cannot be uttered by a human being about anything. In he long run either Our Father or the Enemy will say “Mine” of each thing that exists, and specially of each man. They will find out in the end, never fear, to whom their time, their souls, and their bodies really belong - certainly not to them, whatever happens. At present the Enemy says “Mine” of everything on the pedantic, legalistic ground that He made it: Our Father hopes in the end to say “Mine” of all things on the more realistic and dynamic ground of conquest,
Your affectionate uncle
SCREWTAPE***
C.S. Lewis, Letter 21, The Screwtape Letters**
T
thewanderer
Guest
I’m not going to get into a discussion about that particular passage for a number of reasons, one being that I don’t have the context and without the context it is hard to know what was actually being said. Another important reason is that this is not an example of authoritative Church teaching, so, ultimately it just amounts to an opinion. Yes, St. Augustine is a saint, but that doesn’t mean everything he ever said is correct and accurate and to be emulated.
Yes, the Church’s teaching on marriage has evolved, but not by throwing out what was written before, rather by expanding upon it to further explain it. Were you aware that Casti Conubii, the very same authoritative encyclical you want to throw out, actually makes it very clear that it is contrary to Catholic teaching to view a woman as less intelligent, or prudent than a man? That it is contrary to Catholicism to view her as, or treat her as, a child or a slave? The Church has never authoritatively taught or held such things, and, even while promoting a head/heart relationship has explicitly proclaimed that such a view is incompatible with Catholic teachings. Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, the view you are rejecting was never actually Church teaching in the first place? That maybe when the Church spoke of a submissive wife it was not speaking of the wife being treated like a child or slave but rather had something else in mind altogether?
I agree with you that those who claim that the husband always gets last say if the couple can’t agree are wrong, the difference is I believe that Church teaching throughout the ages contradicts their opinion as well, and, in particular the encyclical Casti Conubii itself contradicts such a position. The difference between us is that you insist on assuming the Church’s definition of a head/heart relationship is the same as your definition of a head/heart relationship, and you believe this despite the fact that the Church has made it very clear, even as the Church insisted on the importance of a head/heart relationship, that a relationship where the woman is treated as though she were a child or a slave is not acceptable. The new expansion of the Church’s understanding and teachings on marriage does not contradict what it taught in the past, it merely expands upon it.
T
thewanderer
Guest
:banghead:
Saying you believe in a head/heart dynamic or “submissive wife” dynamic in marriage does not necessarily mean you believe women are weak, incapable or dim-witted.
If a woman, of her own free will, decides that she wants to show her love to her husband by entrusting him with the final decision on most matters in their marriage then who are we to tell her that she can’t? or that her act of love is a sign of weakness and dim-wittedness? Its not that she can’t make decisions, its that she decides to give that privilege/responsibility to her husband as an act of love and trust towards him.
Any view of the marital relationship that views women as less intelligent or capable of making good decisions has been explicitly rejected by Casti Conubii. That is not, nor has it ever been, a kind of relationship promoted by the Church. And so, it is wrong of you to assume that anybody promoting a head/heart relationship is promoting one that is contrary to Church teaching rather than one that is in line with Church teaching.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
I’m really actually surprised that you think in such black and white as to be able to say that. Even most secular organisations distinguish between a hierarchy of duty that doesn’t diminish the equality of every member of the organisation. Outside of the job, the boss is just a guy and the employee is just another guy. No more powerful kings, powerless slaves, inferior classes or lesser races. All equal and taking their place in the hierarchy in service to others and God with the gifts given by the Holy Spirit to do so.
It was one of Jesus major principles that ‘the first will be last and the last will be first’. St Paul teaches us about the nature of charisms as gifts of the Holy Spirit given us to serve our fellow man for Gods kingdom. These gifts aren’t something we can abuse or boast about because they are given not for our own glorification, but Gods. The leader will be the servant and the servant will be the leader. The hierarchy displays the gifts Gods given us and our responsibility to use them in service.
No, hierarchy and equality are the communion of the new law.
S
Starrsmother
Guest
I think you put this very well. I know I couldn’t have done so well in stating my opinion. I have been married 46 years. I was married in 1968 when I was 17 and my husband was 20. No, I wasn’t pregnant–but he was going to Vietnam and we talked my parents into signing for me and allowing us to marry 6 months before he left. Together we raised 5 kids and lost a sixth. Having said that, I don’t pretend to be an expert on anyone’s marriage but my own–and sometimes I’m not even an expert on mine.
In my opinion, I agree that the husband should “man up” and lead his family as much as his personality allows anyway… It took my hubby awhile to learn that fact–but when you marry as kids, there’s a huge learning curve. In my opinion it isn’t nearly as important who makes any given decision as that whomever makes it, both parties respect the others authority–especially where the kids are concerned. If I was at work and my husband decided to feed the kids p-nut butter sandwiches for supper instead of the casserole I’d carefully made and put in the frig–so be it. If I told our daughter that she could try out for cheerleading even though it cost $600.00 where we lived in Texas, my husband shut up and backed my decision. Kids shouldn’t see parents fighting–EVER. If there’s an issue you disagree on, the 2 parents should take it to the bedroom or go for a drive and talk or whatever.
Secondly, the word “divorce” should never come up in a fight. If you once say that word it will hang over your marriage for a long time. And I do mean a LONG time.
Thirdly, it doesn’t matter who makes more money–both parents should help with necessary jobs around the home–and the kids should be given chores and expected to do them and do them well (not half #ss) as soon as they are old enough. Believe me, 4 or 5 years old is not too young to pick up their own room or dust–at least some things. As a nurse practitioner, I always made more than my husband–BUT it was still “our money”. That took me awhile to learn, but once I did, many fights were in the past.
Lastly, in some ways–especially if you have a bigger family–it’s important to remember that it’s “us vs the kids”. Kids will manipulate, try to pit one parent against the other and do a multitude of things to get their way,especially when they reach their teens. My husband and I learned, for instance, that if one of the kids came to him while I was at work and told him that I’d okayed them to sleep over at a friend’s, that he needed to call me and find out for sure if I really had said okay–and not something more like “Maybe, we’ll see–”
In other words–and this is really the big one–all 4 big are wrapped into one–a married couple must be best friends and know that they have each others backs–ALWAYS–cause nobody else will have your backs and when your kids are grown and gone, it will be just you and your spouse again. If you’ve spent 30 or 40 years fighting over kids, or money, or whatever and letting resentments build—remember that that is the relationship you’ll be living in for the last part of your life. Who wants that?!
P
Portrait
Guest
Dearly beloved friends,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
It admits of no doubt whatsoever that the Catholic Church unequivocally and unmistakably teaches the natural hierarchy within the home. Those who reject the headship of the husband and the dutiful submission of the wife are dissenting from authoritative *standing *Church teaching. Casti Connubii, 1930 cites with approval a previous Encyclical, namely Arcanum, 1880 on Christian marriage:
"With great wisdom our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which we have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honour or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide in their mutual relations, both in him who rules and her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church” (CC, para. 29)
One cannot help but feel that were a Pope to utter such words today he would be branded an ‘extremist’ and charged with encouraging the oppression of women. As Catholic’s, dear friends, we must resist the false egalitarianism of our age, which emanates from heretical secular feminism. Encyclical Church teaching must be received by the faithful with docility, regardless of how old that teaching may be. It does not become mouldy and worthless with the passage of time, for if that were the case then Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii would not have cited the teaching of his predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, with approval. Truth remains truth, which is why we speak of ‘timeless truth’. Moreover, the current catechism of the Catholic Church does not deny the headship of the man and the natural hierarchy within the home, which is hardly surprising since that is still authoritative standing Church teaching that has not and cannot be repealed. Not all Church teaching is contained within the pages of our catechism and we must be jolly careful that we do not fall into a sort of ‘sola catechism’ mentality which is as equally erroneous as its Protestant counterpart, sola scriptura.
Whilst some contemporary Catholics may wince at the idea, the Church does undoubtedly teach a one-sided set up within the domestic church, for as Casti Connubii plainly teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman” and that the woman must be subject to her husband “as to the Lord” (para. 26). Thus to talk of a chap being “the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman” strongly supports the position that a ruler-subject relationship does exist between the spouses. If this were still doubted then one only has to look at the teaching of Aracanum, 1880, which clearly declares that “The husband is chief of the family and head of the wife” and then proceeds to speak of “him who commands and her who obeys”, language which unambiguously points in the direction of a one-sided arrangement with the domestic church. This, dear friends, leaves no room for a ‘mutual submission’ theory, at least as this is commonly understood by some modern Catholics, who are desperate to force Church teaching to conform to false egalitarian ideology, that is to say heretical Modernism.
Common sense dictates, dear friends, that a husband as “chief of the family and head of the wife” (Arcanum, 1880) would be utterly pointless if the chap could not exercise any authority or adopt a leadership role within his household. That is just wildly absurd and illogical, but most importantly it undercuts the official Church teaching of both *Arcanum *and Casti Connubii. What many are doing in these iconoclastic times is seeking liberation from the traditional family model with its so called ‘gender stereotypes’ and they should be honest enough to acknowledge this as their agenda. Thus it is hardly surprising that the Church teaching in the above mentioned Encyclicals is anathema to them and why they reject and dismiss them as no longer relevant in the modern age. However, as previously remarked, truth, especially Catholic truth, remains truth and does not become untruth with the passage of time - the headship of the husband and the submission of the wife will remain Catholic truth until the end of time.
Many contemporary Catholics, especially those with theologically conservative leanings, will gladly acknowledge the husband’s headship and the wife’s submission within the home, but then will effectively nullify that teaching and divest it of any real meaning by appealing to the ‘limitations’ of Casti Connubii, 1930. In my opinion, dear friends, this is jolly disingenuous and seems to me a subtle way of destabalizing the plain and obvious meaning of the Encyclical in question. However, I will concede that many are sincerely seeking to understand the Church teaching correctly, but perhaps they have been influenced, albeit unwittingly, by false equality ideology more than they realize. Again many of the youth quite rightly wish to make the Church appealing to their contemporaries and not hinder her mission to the modern world. However, we our objective is not to court popularity or make Holy Mother Church seem credible in the irreligious times in which our lot is cast. Rather, we must declare the authoritative teaching of the Church, no matter how unpalatable that may be, not our own personal explication of that teaching by specious argumentation.
However, dear friends, there are, I would freely admit, certain qualifications in Casti Connubii to the Church teaching of the natural hierarchy within the family home. In my next post I will discuss these.
God bless and thankyou for your time.
Con’t/
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
It admits of no doubt whatsoever that the Catholic Church unequivocally and unmistakably teaches the natural hierarchy within the home. Those who reject the headship of the husband and the dutiful submission of the wife are dissenting from authoritative *standing *Church teaching. Casti Connubii, 1930 cites with approval a previous Encyclical, namely Arcanum, 1880 on Christian marriage:
"With great wisdom our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which we have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honour or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide in their mutual relations, both in him who rules and her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church” (CC, para. 29)
One cannot help but feel that were a Pope to utter such words today he would be branded an ‘extremist’ and charged with encouraging the oppression of women. As Catholic’s, dear friends, we must resist the false egalitarianism of our age, which emanates from heretical secular feminism. Encyclical Church teaching must be received by the faithful with docility, regardless of how old that teaching may be. It does not become mouldy and worthless with the passage of time, for if that were the case then Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii would not have cited the teaching of his predecessor, Pope Leo XIII, with approval. Truth remains truth, which is why we speak of ‘timeless truth’. Moreover, the current catechism of the Catholic Church does not deny the headship of the man and the natural hierarchy within the home, which is hardly surprising since that is still authoritative standing Church teaching that has not and cannot be repealed. Not all Church teaching is contained within the pages of our catechism and we must be jolly careful that we do not fall into a sort of ‘sola catechism’ mentality which is as equally erroneous as its Protestant counterpart, sola scriptura.
Whilst some contemporary Catholics may wince at the idea, the Church does undoubtedly teach a one-sided set up within the domestic church, for as Casti Connubii plainly teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman” and that the woman must be subject to her husband “as to the Lord” (para. 26). Thus to talk of a chap being “the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman” strongly supports the position that a ruler-subject relationship does exist between the spouses. If this were still doubted then one only has to look at the teaching of Aracanum, 1880, which clearly declares that “The husband is chief of the family and head of the wife” and then proceeds to speak of “him who commands and her who obeys”, language which unambiguously points in the direction of a one-sided arrangement with the domestic church. This, dear friends, leaves no room for a ‘mutual submission’ theory, at least as this is commonly understood by some modern Catholics, who are desperate to force Church teaching to conform to false egalitarian ideology, that is to say heretical Modernism.
Common sense dictates, dear friends, that a husband as “chief of the family and head of the wife” (Arcanum, 1880) would be utterly pointless if the chap could not exercise any authority or adopt a leadership role within his household. That is just wildly absurd and illogical, but most importantly it undercuts the official Church teaching of both *Arcanum *and Casti Connubii. What many are doing in these iconoclastic times is seeking liberation from the traditional family model with its so called ‘gender stereotypes’ and they should be honest enough to acknowledge this as their agenda. Thus it is hardly surprising that the Church teaching in the above mentioned Encyclicals is anathema to them and why they reject and dismiss them as no longer relevant in the modern age. However, as previously remarked, truth, especially Catholic truth, remains truth and does not become untruth with the passage of time - the headship of the husband and the submission of the wife will remain Catholic truth until the end of time.
Many contemporary Catholics, especially those with theologically conservative leanings, will gladly acknowledge the husband’s headship and the wife’s submission within the home, but then will effectively nullify that teaching and divest it of any real meaning by appealing to the ‘limitations’ of Casti Connubii, 1930. In my opinion, dear friends, this is jolly disingenuous and seems to me a subtle way of destabalizing the plain and obvious meaning of the Encyclical in question. However, I will concede that many are sincerely seeking to understand the Church teaching correctly, but perhaps they have been influenced, albeit unwittingly, by false equality ideology more than they realize. Again many of the youth quite rightly wish to make the Church appealing to their contemporaries and not hinder her mission to the modern world. However, we our objective is not to court popularity or make Holy Mother Church seem credible in the irreligious times in which our lot is cast. Rather, we must declare the authoritative teaching of the Church, no matter how unpalatable that may be, not our own personal explication of that teaching by specious argumentation.
However, dear friends, there are, I would freely admit, certain qualifications in Casti Connubii to the Church teaching of the natural hierarchy within the family home. In my next post I will discuss these.
God bless and thankyou for your time.
Con’t/
F
fpt
Guest
In catholicism, there is **the concept of organic development!!! **My summary.
**If a woman believes that the man is, ontologically speaking, inferior to woman, she is on the sinful way and she is not ready for the marriage. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic. If a wife believes that her husband is, ontologically speaking, inferior to her, she is on the sinful way and she is not a good wife, by the thought. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.
If a man believes that the woman is, ontologically speaking, inferior to man, he is on the sinful way and he is not ready for the marriage. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic. If a husband believes that his wife is, ontologically speaking, inferior to him, he is on the sinful way and he is not a good husband, by the thought. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.**
A quiz about the dual humanity and about the marriage:
Is there an ontological equality and an ontological equity between the male human and the female human? YES
Are there same rights for man and woman, and are there particular rights for each sex? YES
Is there an ontological equality and an ontological equity between the male spouse and the female spouse, between husband and wife? YES
Are there same rights for husband and wife, and are there particular rights for each spouse? YES
Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable donation of persons? YES Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable reception of persons? YES Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable submission between wife and husband? YES
**
Are there different spheres? YES Do we have to make difference between those spheres? YES**
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the household or [family]? YES AND NO,* the balance, the moderation, the reason, the rule of reason, the rights of each one are the rules.*
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the couple? NO
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the conjugal sexuality? NO
Do we have to follow the Colleen Hammond’s view on the notion of submission of wife??? NO Do we have to follow the Raylan Alleman’s view about the notion of submission of wife ??? NO Do we have to follow the Ronald Conte Jr’s view on the notion of submission of wife ??? NO Their views are unacceptable, in my humble opinion.
The egalitarianism is morally wrong. The radical feminism is morally wrong. The radical masculism is morally wrong
The equality and equity of rights, of duties and of obligations are the keys.
Before the marriage this topic should be discussed in order to know if the fiancée and the fiancé are on the same page. Are they compatible? Do they have the same acception of the notion of conjugal submission? The same mentality in doxa and in praxis? The same needs, the same hopes, the same vows, the same wills, the same requirements…etc???
**If a woman believes that the man is, ontologically speaking, inferior to woman, she is on the sinful way and she is not ready for the marriage. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic. If a wife believes that her husband is, ontologically speaking, inferior to her, she is on the sinful way and she is not a good wife, by the thought. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.
If a man believes that the woman is, ontologically speaking, inferior to man, he is on the sinful way and he is not ready for the marriage. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic. If a husband believes that his wife is, ontologically speaking, inferior to him, he is on the sinful way and he is not a good husband, by the thought. This thought / doxa is immoral and is not catholic.**
A quiz about the dual humanity and about the marriage:
Is there an ontological equality and an ontological equity between the male human and the female human? YES
Are there same rights for man and woman, and are there particular rights for each sex? YES
Is there an ontological equality and an ontological equity between the male spouse and the female spouse, between husband and wife? YES
Are there same rights for husband and wife, and are there particular rights for each spouse? YES
Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable donation of persons? YES Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable reception of persons? YES Is there a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable submission between wife and husband? YES
**
Are there different spheres? YES Do we have to make difference between those spheres? YES**
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the household or [family]? YES AND NO,* the balance, the moderation, the reason, the rule of reason, the rights of each one are the rules.*
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the couple? NO
The man [the male spouse, the husband] as head of the conjugal sexuality? NO
Do we have to follow the Colleen Hammond’s view on the notion of submission of wife??? NO Do we have to follow the Raylan Alleman’s view about the notion of submission of wife ??? NO Do we have to follow the Ronald Conte Jr’s view on the notion of submission of wife ??? NO Their views are unacceptable, in my humble opinion.
The egalitarianism is morally wrong. The radical feminism is morally wrong. The radical masculism is morally wrong
The equality and equity of rights, of duties and of obligations are the keys.
Before the marriage this topic should be discussed in order to know if the fiancée and the fiancé are on the same page. Are they compatible? Do they have the same acception of the notion of conjugal submission? The same mentality in doxa and in praxis? The same needs, the same hopes, the same vows, the same wills, the same requirements…etc???
F
fpt
Guest
For infomation:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=800069
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=823388
An simple illustration:
According to the blog “Fix the family”, if a daughter has the intellectual skills and wants to go to college, morally speaking:
Does she have the right to ask to be helped by her parents, financially speaking? Does she have the right to choose the academical field and the academical disciplines? Does she have to obey to her parents about the choice of her future academic degree?
Do the parents have the natural right to impose, directly or indirectly, the academical field to their daughter, at the university or at the college?
If in the couple, Dad and Mum disagree about sending the daughter to college, who has to have the ultimate decision? By principle, the Dad because he is the male of the family, the leader of the family, the boss of the family, and because the wife has to be a submissive wife? Does the wife has to have the moral obligation of agreeing with her husband and of being on the same line in her external forum and even in her internal forum?
I would like to know your answers!!!
For solving:
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…t-spes_en.html
The Pastoral Constitution, “Gaudium et Spes” (29) discusses equality and differences among men.
Men means male and female or only male, in function of sentences and of context?
This text is clear. No discrimination, in the noble sense, in function of sex, concerning the education, the instruction, the learning, the formation and even for the higher education (college or university). It is a moral obligation of struggling against those mentalities and those practices (the fact of refusing *the education and co *to females) for the mother, the father and thus for the parents.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=800069
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=823388
An simple illustration:
According to the blog “Fix the family”, if a daughter has the intellectual skills and wants to go to college, morally speaking:
Does she have the right to ask to be helped by her parents, financially speaking? Does she have the right to choose the academical field and the academical disciplines? Does she have to obey to her parents about the choice of her future academic degree?
Do the parents have the natural right to impose, directly or indirectly, the academical field to their daughter, at the university or at the college?
If in the couple, Dad and Mum disagree about sending the daughter to college, who has to have the ultimate decision? By principle, the Dad because he is the male of the family, the leader of the family, the boss of the family, and because the wife has to be a submissive wife? Does the wife has to have the moral obligation of agreeing with her husband and of being on the same line in her external forum and even in her internal forum?
I would like to know your answers!!!
For solving:
vatican.va/archive/hist_c…t-spes_en.html
The Pastoral Constitution, “Gaudium et Spes” (29) discusses equality and differences among men.
- Since all men [male and female] possess a rational soul and are created in God’s likeness, since they have the same nature and origin, have been redeemed by Christ and enjoy the same divine calling and destiny, the basic equality of all must receive increasingly greater recognition.
Men means male and female or only male, in function of sentences and of context?
This text is clear. No discrimination, in the noble sense, in function of sex, concerning the education, the instruction, the learning, the formation and even for the higher education (college or university). It is a moral obligation of struggling against those mentalities and those practices (the fact of refusing *the education and co *to females) for the mother, the father and thus for the parents.
S
Sereta
Guest
The thing is,not everyone has the same notion of what femininity means and what masculinity means.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
If it’s not an official Catholic teaching, then the Church is not Christ’s Church, since the headship of a husband is explicitly and unambiguously taught in Scripture.
Of course the Catholic Church teaches it. The verse is subject to interpretation on what it means to be “head”, but it is clearly taught by the Church that the husband is head of his wife.
F
fpt
Guest
**I will be a little bit provocative in order to be very clear. **
“If I try to institute a weekly family rosary, should she agree?”
The weekly family rosary is *not a moral obligation coming from the natural moral law, is not a moral obligation coming from the ecclesiastic law and is not a moral obligation coming from the canon law. *
This discipline is not a catholic obligation, only, a personal choice. Thus, the husband or the wife has no power to impose and to force this institution: it is only a proposal. The use of the moralism, of the culpabilism, of the scrupulism and of the apparitionism for setting up *is not normal, that is unfair and that is insane.
*
WHY???
Because the conjugal faith being a natural thing, the husband or the wife cannot impose strict disciplines to the other and / or to the family, that are stronger than the natural moral law. The husband or the wife does not have this natural power.
The marriage is not a seminary. The couple is not seminary. The family is not seminary. The true moralism, the true culpabilism, and the true scrupulism in order to get some stuff,* even spiritual things,* are not very sane: it is very unfair.
I know that this message can disturb, but I say a catholic truth.!!!
“If I try to institute a weekly family rosary, should she agree?”
The weekly family rosary is *not a moral obligation coming from the natural moral law, is not a moral obligation coming from the ecclesiastic law and is not a moral obligation coming from the canon law. *
This discipline is not a catholic obligation, only, a personal choice. Thus, the husband or the wife has no power to impose and to force this institution: it is only a proposal. The use of the moralism, of the culpabilism, of the scrupulism and of the apparitionism for setting up *is not normal, that is unfair and that is insane.
*
WHY???
Because the conjugal faith being a natural thing, the husband or the wife cannot impose strict disciplines to the other and / or to the family, that are stronger than the natural moral law. The husband or the wife does not have this natural power.
The marriage is not a seminary. The couple is not seminary. The family is not seminary. The true moralism, the true culpabilism, and the true scrupulism in order to get some stuff,* even spiritual things,* are not very sane: it is very unfair.
I know that this message can disturb, but I say a catholic truth.!!!
- Status