P
Portrait
Guest
Con’t/
Hello again, dear friends.
The subjection of the wife to her husband is indeed within the framework of the “order of love” (Casti Connubii, para. 26), yet this Encyclical expressly states that "This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let the women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is head of the wife, and Christ is head of the Church”. The “order of love” merely forbids either despotism or craven fear, which within a pious Catholic family would seldom, if ever at all, be an issue. No decent Catholic man will ever seek to rule his household in an imperious manner and will, moreover, always treat his beloved spouse with the respect that is due to her as the “weaker vessel” (I Pet. 3: 7). All jolly elementary stuff for an informed Catholic.
Our own common sense should inform us, dear friends, that a wife should not have to “obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife”. Once again, this is unlikely to happen within a pious Catholic family where both spouses are submissive to our Lord, for in such a household unreasonable demands will not be a feature of family life. Certainly, a wife is not forbidden to use her own reasoning powers and must do so if she is to ascertain whether a demand is reasonable or unreasonable. Nevertheless, this exception does not afford her *carte blanche *permission to challenge or disobey her husband whenever it suits her just to selfishly get her own way. This would be a clear repudiation of the husband as legitimate head of the household, the one who “occupies the chief place in ruling” (CC, para. 27). None of this is too complicated and it is a sad reflection of the times that even many putative Catholics have issues with this good and sane teaching.
Needless to say, dear friends, no devout Catholic husband would treat his wife as a minor who must slavishly obey his orders and who, accordingly, is not permitted to think for herself. In a fallen world I would not stop to deny that even in some Catholic households such tyrannical men do exist, but they are a very small minority. Some extremist feminists may suggest that Catholicism breeds despotic husbands, but they say this, as we all know, because they are extremists who intensely dislike Catholic teaching because it is at variance with their warped ideology. Where such tyrannical husbands do exist they represent a grotesque caricature of the pious Catholic husbands and as such they are a disgrace to their sex. At any rate they find no support from authentic Church teaching.
Now for the husband rule within the home to be real and effective he must needs be the final authority, otherwise the authority is meaningless and is only of a titular sort. As I have said in a pervious post, when a disagreement arises within the home matters can usually be resolved by calmly talking matters through until there is a meeting of minds. However, on the rare occasion when pious Catholic spouses reach an impasse, the ultimate decision making must rest with the husband as the “chief of the family and head of the wife” (Arcanum, 1880). To argue against this is to deny that the husband is the “chief of the family and head of the wife” and therefore to reject authoritative Church teaching in both Arcanum and Casti Connubii.. Yes of course “divine charity” must be “the constant guide to their mutual relations”, but that does not and indeed cannot negate the truth the husband rules and the wife obeys (CC, para. 29). This may not chime with modern egalitarianism and feminist ideology, but it is Catholic truth nonetheless and the faithful are not required to apologise for it or feel embarrassed about it. Unless the husband is the final authority their will ultimately be anarchy within in the home, for it is impossible for the home to have two heads who have equal authority. This is a recipe for chaos and will never work in practice. For example, what if a husband believes listening to pop/rock music is an unwholesome influence upon his children, but his wife does not share that belief. As head of the home and responsible for the spiritual welfare of his children, he must have the final say in such a matter and the wife must humbly accept and respect his decision. Again, if the families budget will not stretch to a holiday this year, the wife must meekly accept this and not put pressure upon the husband to change his mind by sulking or quarrelling. However, I am bound to say that such disagreements will seldom occur within pious Catholic households, where a consensus generally obtains because there are shared beliefs. Incidently, this underscores the importance of entering into Holy Wedlock with a suitable and godly spouse, otherwise problems will soon manifest themselves.
This teaching was generally accepted prior to the emergence of godless feminism during the Sixties, when their was widespread rejection of traditional norms - that “whole generation with a new explanation” that was so very subversive in so many ways. Here is what a respected Catholic bible commentary said in 1953, reflecting authoritative Church teaching: “Baptism confers equality on all individuals from the point of view od religion…in society (of which the family is at once the smallest and most important unit) there is a natural hierarchy. The husband is the head; the wife is subject to him. By Baptism this order is not broken; it is ennobled. St. Paul compares it to the love of the Church for Christ, the head” (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953, Thomas Nelson & Sons, commentary on Ephesians 5: 22, p. 1124).
God bless and thankyou again, dear friends.
Con’t/
Hello again, dear friends.
The subjection of the wife to her husband is indeed within the framework of the “order of love” (Casti Connubii, para. 26), yet this Encyclical expressly states that "This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let the women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is head of the wife, and Christ is head of the Church”. The “order of love” merely forbids either despotism or craven fear, which within a pious Catholic family would seldom, if ever at all, be an issue. No decent Catholic man will ever seek to rule his household in an imperious manner and will, moreover, always treat his beloved spouse with the respect that is due to her as the “weaker vessel” (I Pet. 3: 7). All jolly elementary stuff for an informed Catholic.
Our own common sense should inform us, dear friends, that a wife should not have to “obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife”. Once again, this is unlikely to happen within a pious Catholic family where both spouses are submissive to our Lord, for in such a household unreasonable demands will not be a feature of family life. Certainly, a wife is not forbidden to use her own reasoning powers and must do so if she is to ascertain whether a demand is reasonable or unreasonable. Nevertheless, this exception does not afford her *carte blanche *permission to challenge or disobey her husband whenever it suits her just to selfishly get her own way. This would be a clear repudiation of the husband as legitimate head of the household, the one who “occupies the chief place in ruling” (CC, para. 27). None of this is too complicated and it is a sad reflection of the times that even many putative Catholics have issues with this good and sane teaching.
Needless to say, dear friends, no devout Catholic husband would treat his wife as a minor who must slavishly obey his orders and who, accordingly, is not permitted to think for herself. In a fallen world I would not stop to deny that even in some Catholic households such tyrannical men do exist, but they are a very small minority. Some extremist feminists may suggest that Catholicism breeds despotic husbands, but they say this, as we all know, because they are extremists who intensely dislike Catholic teaching because it is at variance with their warped ideology. Where such tyrannical husbands do exist they represent a grotesque caricature of the pious Catholic husbands and as such they are a disgrace to their sex. At any rate they find no support from authentic Church teaching.
Now for the husband rule within the home to be real and effective he must needs be the final authority, otherwise the authority is meaningless and is only of a titular sort. As I have said in a pervious post, when a disagreement arises within the home matters can usually be resolved by calmly talking matters through until there is a meeting of minds. However, on the rare occasion when pious Catholic spouses reach an impasse, the ultimate decision making must rest with the husband as the “chief of the family and head of the wife” (Arcanum, 1880). To argue against this is to deny that the husband is the “chief of the family and head of the wife” and therefore to reject authoritative Church teaching in both Arcanum and Casti Connubii.. Yes of course “divine charity” must be “the constant guide to their mutual relations”, but that does not and indeed cannot negate the truth the husband rules and the wife obeys (CC, para. 29). This may not chime with modern egalitarianism and feminist ideology, but it is Catholic truth nonetheless and the faithful are not required to apologise for it or feel embarrassed about it. Unless the husband is the final authority their will ultimately be anarchy within in the home, for it is impossible for the home to have two heads who have equal authority. This is a recipe for chaos and will never work in practice. For example, what if a husband believes listening to pop/rock music is an unwholesome influence upon his children, but his wife does not share that belief. As head of the home and responsible for the spiritual welfare of his children, he must have the final say in such a matter and the wife must humbly accept and respect his decision. Again, if the families budget will not stretch to a holiday this year, the wife must meekly accept this and not put pressure upon the husband to change his mind by sulking or quarrelling. However, I am bound to say that such disagreements will seldom occur within pious Catholic households, where a consensus generally obtains because there are shared beliefs. Incidently, this underscores the importance of entering into Holy Wedlock with a suitable and godly spouse, otherwise problems will soon manifest themselves.
This teaching was generally accepted prior to the emergence of godless feminism during the Sixties, when their was widespread rejection of traditional norms - that “whole generation with a new explanation” that was so very subversive in so many ways. Here is what a respected Catholic bible commentary said in 1953, reflecting authoritative Church teaching: “Baptism confers equality on all individuals from the point of view od religion…in society (of which the family is at once the smallest and most important unit) there is a natural hierarchy. The husband is the head; the wife is subject to him. By Baptism this order is not broken; it is ennobled. St. Paul compares it to the love of the Church for Christ, the head” (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953, Thomas Nelson & Sons, commentary on Ephesians 5: 22, p. 1124).
God bless and thankyou again, dear friends.
Con’t/
