Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband

[thewanderer]

If you’re suggesting that man is head and therefore the woman should “submit”, I must disagree.
I will not further belabor the point, which has apparently already been made.
Over and out,
Mac

What I’m saying is that both Scripture and the Catholic Church teach that that is the case. Take from that what you will, but if you believe that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit such that it will not err in its official teaching or hold that the scriptures are divinely inspired I don’t know how you can avoid the conclusion that the man is the head, and the woman must submit to the man, just as it would be pretty difficult to avoid the conclusion that both husband and wife must submit to each other, as that is another Church teaching which is also explicit in the Bible.

The odd thing about this thread is that while in other threads I have been, essentially, labelled a godless feminist for my views on this issue in this one I get the impression people think that just because I accept the fact that the Church and scripture use the phrase “the man is the head” I must therefore be some domineering woman-hating person who wants to reduce all women to be essentially slaves stuck in the house fulfilling their husband’s every selfish whim.

Just in case you were wondering, I am a married woman and me and my husband have no sort of formal arrangement where he has last say in anything. If you were to look at our marriage you would certainly conclude we follow what you call a “mutual submission” relationship. Personally, I like to think our relationship is modeled both on head/heart and mutual submission. I also like to think of myself as a feminist, and have been labelled as such by others, even outside of discussions on this particular topic. I have even had Severus and Walking_Home, who both posted earlier in this thread insisting that headship does not exist agreeing with me on other threads on this very same topic. The fact that I accept that the term headship is used by the Church does not automatically mean that believe marriage is a power struggle where men have all the power and women have to always give in and give men last say because women are inferior.

Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that the phrase “the man is the head” can sometimes be used to describe a healthy relationship rather than one where the woman has no power or authority and the man has all the power. The whole point of the Church’s teaching is to move away from anything that divides the husband and wife (such as power plays) and instead to unify them so that they act together as one for the good of each other and the family unit as a whole out of Christ-like love. I have thought about this topic quite a lot and I think there is a lot of interesting information in Casti Conubii that people fail to realize is there because they see “head” “submit” “obey” and assume that the encyclical is promoting a domineering, abusive, and destructive relationship dynamic. So much so that after reading the encyclical carefully I am convinced that Casti Conubii condemns the idea that a woman must always give her husband last say and that anyone who thinks that that is what it promotes is completely misreading it.

I don’t know, maybe its just me, but if I believe that a Church is inspired by God and has received God’s promise that God will guide it and ensure its official teachings won’t fall into error I tend to avoid contradicting my own beliefs by claiming that any of its official teachings are false. But hey, I guess from the looks of this thread, that must just be me.

 

[sailor28]

There’s a regular poster on this site that I have a lot of respect for who said on a thread a while back that he’s the head of the house, and as such, he makes sure that he gets to watch football every Sunday and even plans the family’s travel around it.

In my marriage, we each bring up things that we want to make sure to carve out time for-and the other does their best to accommodate.

I guess at the end of the day, one of these outlooks seems a lot more loving to me.

I agree. More often than not this is used as a power trip not as an act of service. The tendency for power and control overrides sensibilities. It a man really has to advocate for this he is just using it to boost is ego and be able to serve his own needs. I have to say that because RARELY have I seen this ideology work for the good of both spouses. Come 20 years of marriage when the woman finally wakes up, the $%^& hits the fan and it is not pretty. People can write about this all day but it can not erase what I see in real life and what scripture truly says about it.

 

[Avocadomom]

What I’m saying is that both Scripture and the Catholic Church teach that that is the case. Take from that what you will, but if you believe that the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit such that it will not err in its official teaching or hold that the scriptures are divinely inspired I don’t know how you can avoid the conclusion that the man is the head, and the woman must submit to the man, just as it would be pretty difficult to avoid the conclusion that both husband and wife must submit to each other, as that is another Church teaching which is also explicit in the Bible.

The odd thing about this thread is that while in other threads I have been, essentially, labelled a godless feminist for my views on this issue in this one I get the impression people think that just because I accept the fact that the Church and scripture use the phrase “the man is the head” I must therefore be some domineering woman-hating person who wants to reduce all women to be essentially slaves stuck in the house fulfilling their husband’s every selfish whim.

Just in case you were wondering, I am a married woman and me and my husband have no sort of formal arrangement where he has last say in anything. If you were to look at our marriage you would certainly conclude we follow what you call a “mutual submission” relationship. Personally, I like to think our relationship is modeled both on head/heart and mutual submission. I also like to think of myself as a feminist, and have been labelled as such by others, even outside of discussions on this particular topic. I have even had Severus and Walking_Home, who both posted earlier in this thread insisting that headship does not exist agreeing with me on other threads on this very same topic. The fact that I accept that the term headship is used by the Church does not automatically mean that believe marriage is a power struggle where men have all the power and women have to always give in and give men last say because women are inferior.

Why is it so difficult to acknowledge that the phrase “the man is the head” can sometimes be used to describe a healthy relationship rather than one where the woman has no power or authority and the man has all the power. The whole point of the Church’s teaching is to move away from anything that divides the husband and wife (such as power plays) and instead to unify them so that they act together as one for the good of each other and the family unit as a whole out of Christ-like love. I have thought about this topic quite a lot and I think there is a lot of interesting information in Casti Conubii that people fail to realize is there because they see “head” “submit” “obey” and assume that the encyclical is promoting a domineering, abusive, and destructive relationship dynamic. So much so that after reading the encyclical carefully I am convinced that Casti Conubii condemns the idea that a woman must always give her husband last say and that anyone who thinks that that is what it promotes is completely misreading it.

I don’t know, maybe its just me, but if I believe that a Church is inspired by God and has received God’s promise that God will guide it and ensure its official teachings won’t fall into error I tend to avoid contradicting my own beliefs by claiming that any of its official teachings are false. But hey, I guess from the looks of this thread, that must just be me.

I don’t think anyone here thinks that when the scripture uses the term “submit” or “head” that it gives men license to be abusive tyrants who demand the last word on everything. At least I don’t. I mean, we aren’t really arguing over whether or not it’s cool for men to be pigs. We are arguing if they are, in ANY capacity (even a benevolent one), entitled to be the “heads” of their marital unions.

Even though my husband is a wonderful man, excellent spouse, amazing dad, and would never, ever be abusive or take advantage in any way, and does everything in the world to support me and the kids - I would NEVER say he is the solo head of our family, or that I submit to him. I often agree with him, and I will many times tell him to just make a decision because he is the better person to make that particular decision. I go out of my way to make sure he is happy within our marriage. But is he the solo “head” of our family? Nope. He doesn’t want to be (that’s not what he thinks of as a healthy marriage), nor would that be okay with me.

 

[thewanderer]

I don’t think anyone here thinks that when the scripture uses the term “submit” or “head” that it gives men license to be abusive tyrants who demand the last word on everything. At least I don’t. I mean, we aren’t really arguing over whether or not it’s cool for men to be pigs. We are arguing if they are, in ANY capacity (even a benevolent one), entitled to be the “heads” of their marital unions.

Even though my husband is a wonderful man, excellent spouse, amazing dad, and would never, ever be abusive or take advantage in any way, and does everything in the world to support me and the kids - I would NEVER say he is the solo head of our family, or that I submit to him. I often agree with him, and I will many times tell him to just make a decision because he is the better person to make that particular decision. I go out of my way to make sure he is happy within our marriage. But is he the solo “head” of our family? Nope. He doesn’t want to be (that’s not what he thinks of as a healthy marriage), nor would that be okay with me.

I admit I was taking the extreme example. But let me ask you two questions.

1. When you say neither you nor your husband would ever consider him to be, or want him to be, “head” what do you think being head means and why do you think that is the correct meaning of headship?
2. How can you honestly say you would never submit to your husband? Do you not agree that you should both submit to each other? If so, then you can hardly say it is a healthy thing to refuse to ever submit to him.

 

[Xantippe]

Avocadomom said:

“We are arguing if they are, in ANY capacity (even a benevolent one), entitled to be the “heads” of their marital unions.”

I’d make a case (in fact I have made the case on one of these threads) for a sort of domestic constitutional monarchy. Elizabeth II is the queen of England, and just about nobody disputes that, but at the same time, she does not have the right to engage in the sort of practically unlimited evil and oppressive activities that Henry VIII or Ivan the Terrible engaged in as a matter of course. Elizabeth II is the monarch, but her powers are clearly limited.

Likewise, a “constitutional monarch” husband would have a special place of honor and respect in the family, but it would be clearly understood by everybody that he does not have the right to do as he pleases.

 

[Avocadomom]

I admit I was taking the extreme example. But let me ask you two questions.

1. When you say neither you nor your husband would ever consider him to be, or want him to be, “head” what do you think being head means and why do you think that is the correct meaning of headship?
2. How can you honestly say you would never submit to your husband? Do you not agree that you should both submit to each other? If so, then you can hardly say it is a healthy thing to refuse to ever submit to him.

I consider the “head” to be the leader, period. Maybe a leader with tons of (name removed by moderator)ut from another/others, maybe a leader who mostly lies low, maybe a leader who also considers himself a servant-leader - but a leader nonetheless. The one who is ultimately responsible.

I do submit to my husband all the time because we are in a relationship and that’s what good people in relationships do. I also submit to my friends, parents, siblings, even my kids sometimes. But in the context we are talking about here, there is some expectation not that there will be simply mutual submission/respect/care - but that the husband is placed somehow ahead of the wife as far as leadership of the family goes, and that the wife submits to being lead. I just disagree with that dynamic FOR MY FAMILY. We both have equal footing on decision making and leadership again - IN MY FAMILY. Maybe another dynamic works for you? Great!

 

[Avocadomom]

Avocadomom said:

“We are arguing if they are, in ANY capacity (even a benevolent one), entitled to be the “heads” of their marital unions.”

I’d make a case (in fact I have made the case on one of these threads) for a sort of domestic constitutional monarchy. Elizabeth II is the queen of England, and just about nobody disputes that, but at the same time, she does not have the right to engage in the sort of practically unlimited evil and oppressive activities that Henry VIII or Ivan the Terrible engaged in as a matter of course. Elizabeth II is the monarch, but her powers are clearly limited.

Likewise, a “constitutional monarch” husband would have a special place of honor and respect in the family, but it would be clearly understood by everybody that he does not have the right to do as he pleases.

I think my husband does have a special place of honor and respect in our family, because he is DAD and, the one man I chose to marry. And hey - he is a really amazing man. But that does not mean he is the solo leader.

 

[thewanderer]

I consider the “head” to be the leader, period. Maybe a leader with tons of (name removed by moderator)ut from another/others, maybe a leader who mostly lies low, maybe a leader who also considers himself a servant-leader - but a leader nonetheless. The one who is ultimately responsible.

I do submit to my husband all the time because we are in a relationship and that’s what good people in relationships do. I also submit to my friends, parents, siblings, even my kids sometimes. But in the context we are talking about here, there is some expectation not that there will be simply mutual submission/respect/care - but that the husband is placed somehow ahead of the wife as far as leadership of the family goes, and that the wife submits to being lead. I just disagree with that dynamic FOR MY FAMILY. We both have equal footing on decision making and leadership again - IN MY FAMILY. Maybe another dynamic works for you? Great!

You are clearly beginning to get upset. I am sorry about that, I did not mean to upset you in any way. I only asked these questions to further get at the point that it seems to me the reason people object to the term headship is because they assume that whenever anyone uses the term they mean the husband gets the last say in all decisions. But my reading of Church teaching leads me to a very different conclusion, namely, that while the Church teaches authoritatively that the husband is the head, She also makes it clear that it is just not true that this headship means the husband gets final say in all decisions.

As for your insinuation that y husband has all the authority in decision-making in our household or always has the last say… I really don’t understand in the least why you would think that seeing as you just responded to a post of mine where I made it clear that there is no such formal arrangement in our marriage and that if you were to meet us and get to know us you would classify us as people who follow the “mutual submission” model, if you will.

This is not just aimed at you, but honestly, it really seems to me like people are not really trying to understand what I am actually saying, but rather they hear me say something even slightly positive about the phrase “headship” and then ignore what I’m actually saying and decide I must be promoting a relationship where the man always gets the last say… its getting a little tiresome… I don’t know… maybe people are afraid that if they allow that the phrase “headship” could ever be used in any way they feel like they will have to institute a formalized power system in their relationship with the husband making all decisions? I just don’t know, but it sure is hard to try and get to the point of being able to have a good discussion about what submission/headship, as promoted by the Catholic church, would look like, practically speaking, in a marriage, when the people you are speaking with ignore what you have already said and/or make assumptions about your opinion.

 

[Avocadomom]

You are clearly beginning to get upset. I am sorry about that, I did not mean to upset you in any way. I only asked these questions to further get at the point that it seems to me the reason people object to the term headship is because they assume that whenever anyone uses the term they mean the husband gets the last say in all decisions. But my reading of Church teaching leads me to a very different conclusion, namely, that while the Church teaches authoritatively that the husband is the head, She also makes it clear that it is just not true that this headship means the husband gets final say in all decisions.

As for your insinuation that y husband has all the authority in decision-making in our household or always has the last say… I really don’t understand in the least why you would think that seeing as you just responded to a post of mine where I made it clear that there is no such formal arrangement in our marriage and that if you were to meet us and get to know us you would classify us as people who follow the “mutual submission” model, if you will.

This is not just aimed at you, but honestly, it really seems to me like people are not really trying to understand what I am actually saying, but rather they hear me say something even slightly positive about the phrase “headship” and then ignore what I’m actually saying and decide I must be promoting a relationship where the man always gets the last say… its getting a little tiresome… I don’t know… maybe people are afraid that if they allow that the phrase “headship” could ever be used in any way they feel like they will have to institute a formalized power system in their relationship with the husband making all decisions? I just don’t know, but it sure is hard to try and get to the point of being able to have a good discussion about what submission/headship, as promoted by the Catholic church, would look like, practically speaking, in a marriage, when the people you are speaking with ignore what you have already said and/or make assumptions about your opinion.

Was this meant for me? I’m confused because I am totally not upset at all! Sorry, I just have a direct way of speaking/writing. If you were sitting near me, you would see I am not the least bit perturbed.

Nor did I intend to insinuate anything about your marriage. I have no idea what it’s like. Nor do I think ANYONE on CAF “lets their husband have every last word” or lives under tyranny. I get what people mean by “head/leader” and that it’s not like a big bad man calling every shot and running roughshod over his meek little wife. I totally get it. It’s subtle, and the men are truly good husbands and fathers. They listen to their wives, carefully consider their points of view, and know when to step back. I do understand what you mean, I just still don’t think it would work for me.

And that is OKAY. People should do what will make their marriage joyful and lasting.

 

[Xantippe]

Avocadomom said:

“Nor do I think ANYONE on CAF “lets their husband have every last word” or lives under tyranny.”

Well, none of the posters on the submission threads, at least. There are regularly people posting who describe fairly abusive situations and the CAF crew generally steps up and tells them so.

It’s kind of odd that none of the CAF posters who are married to ogres showed up. I guess women who aren’t married to ogres have more free time.

“And that is OKAY. People should do what will make their marriage joyful and lasting.”

Yes!

 

[severus68]

I am telling you that official Church teaching says that the husband is the head. And so, as a Catholic, you cannot go around claiming that to say the husband is the head is always false. That fact is a part of scripture as well as an official part of Church teaching. You can debate what is meant by saying the man is the head, but you cannot deny that he is the head.

As for your claim that just because the people you know don’t think about their husbands as the head, that doesn’t mean they are not following Church teaching in their relationship dynamic. The man being the head does not have to mean there is some formal arrangement whereby the man makes decisions rather than the wife. I know some people insists it means that, but it really doesn’t have to.

Thanks for the preaching and telling me what I can and cannot do. How about answering my question - If a couple do not want any headship and subordation in their marriage and on the assumption that headship, wifely submission is Church teaching as you say, is the couple sinning?

 

[severus68]

The head of a Catholic marriage is Christ.

YES!

 

[severus68]

Huh? I followed the practice that I have read from Catholic Answers Staff of adding a little when one is posting something that is not meant to be offensive etc but more in the line of jest.

I try to always post with manners and charity.

(I had answered that question already and that was a playful way of saying to see the other post).

I will take your word that those words were said in jest.

 

[bitterhope]

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.

This is completely rude, untrue and uncalled for. You are twisting each and everything said by any posters on this thread that disagree with you and decide to directly attack them instead of making any valid points against their reasons. I have not told you to lie down and have people wipe their dirt all over you or else you are a horrible woman because the only thing women are good for is being trampled on, yet you find it just fine to tell me that I am a weak, incapable, dim witted woman because I enjoy my husband being a man and leading our family. No, I am not weak, I am the mother of 8, soon to be 9, that can run my home for months or even over a year at a time completely and totally on my own. I am more than capable of every single task in our home, our yard, and our garage without help. I am the one who does the finances and takes care if the bills. I do not NEED my husband to lead me, I accept that he does. Many times it is the stronger person that chooses to surrender their will for the good of the family, just like it takes a stronger person to surrender their will to the will of God. The head of the family is very easily influenced by the heart. All of us easily let our emotions over ride our common sense. It is human nature to want happiness. If the heart is happy, we are happy. If the heart is upset, we are struggling. Sometimes our emotions are in tune with our thinking. Sometimes they are at conflict. It is the same for families. The husband being the leader of the family does not mean that he has the right to just up and decide each and every aspect if their life with no regard for the wife’s ideas. After all, a body with no heart dies. The wife cannot deny her husband the right to make decisions because a body without a head also dies. Following God’s design in the world where people find His design wrong and are quick to criticize you for doing so is not weakness. That takes strength.

 

[thewanderer]

Thanks for the preaching and telling me what I can and cannot do. How about answering my question - If a couple do not want any headship and subordation in their marriage and on the assumption that headship, wifely submission is Church teaching as you say, is the couple sinning?

It depends.

 

[severus68]

It depends.

Kindly give a straight answe - anyone?. Some here are happy to tell everyone how to live their marriages and insist that its because Christ says so Surely I (we are entitled to an answer…

 

[fpt]

The marriage is a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable donation of persons (body, soul and heart) without fusion (merger). That is also a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable reception of persons (body, soul and heart) without fusion (merger).The union is not a fusion: no negation and no denial of the other.

Each one is respected because wife and husband are members of the humanity (equality in link the human dignity, the same rights, the same obligations, the same duties) and because each one has is an own sexuation (equity in function of sex, the particular rights, the particular duties, the particular obligations). In the couple and / or in matter of the conjugal sexuality, there is no leader, no chief, no boss, no superior, no inferior, no head: equality and equity are the rules. The wife is not the servant / slave of her husband, the husband is not the servant / slave of his wife. There is a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reasonable submission of bodies between wife and husband. Here, the equity and equality are the principles.

The husband is, perhaps, the head of the family, but the natural love, the natural goodness and the catholic love (the CHARITY) are the rules of all his decisions. In reality, the husband has to respect many principles, otherwise his decisions are wrong. And thus, the wife can disagree with or has to disagree with, even she can refuse / battle against. This submission of wife in link the family has many borders and limits.

 

[fpt]

The husband is not the head of the conjugal sexuality. The husband is not the head of couple.

The husband is the head of the family: yes, but with many borders and limits. There are many fundamental rights in favor of wife.

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.

The radical feminism is morally wrong. The radical masculism is morally wrong. The egalitarianism is morally wrong. The war of sexes is morally wrong.

The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable donation of persons could be an issue concerning the validity of the marriage, under particular conditions. The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable reception of persons could be an issue concerning the validity of the marriage, under particular conditions.

The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable donation of persons could be a moral issue, under particular conditions. The refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal and equitable reception of persons could be a moral issue, under particular conditions.

The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male human and the female human could be an issue concerning the validity of the marriage, under particular conditions. The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male spouse and the female spouse, could be a moral issue concerning the validity of the marriage, under particular conditions.

The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male human and the female human could be a moral issue, under particular conditions. The refusal of the ontological equality and the ontological equity between the male spouse and the female spouse could be a moral issue, under particular conditions.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Can I make a proposal?

It seems to me that men (within a marriage) are naturally more likely to be lazy and not take responsibility.

And it seems to me that women are naturally more likely to take control and feel burdened by responsibility.

These traits are not universal, but they are tendencies.

Now suppose YOU were setting up a system for decision-making in marriage. Would you tell a husband to submit to his wife? There would be no point – the husband *naturally *submits to his wife. Personally, it is very much my instinct to say “whatever” to pretty much any plan my wife suggests.

Today, feminism has reached its greatest power, to date. And at the same time, we have more aimless, lazy, good-for-nothing men than ever before. Is this a coincidence?

For men, being a servant of the family, being a leader, is a major sacrifice. I’m not sure it’s as much of a sacrifice, for women. Rather, it’s a burden for them – as you can see from all the unhappy women in today’s society, who are burdened with jobs and home-lives that they have an inordinate amount of responsibility for.

Please read my words carefully before responding. I’m not trying to upset people or stereotype people, and I understand that different marriages have different dynamics. But there are real differences between men and women, and a belief in such real differences is a non-optional belief for Catholics. When Scripture treats men and women differently, it is likely because God is accommodating for these real differences.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Thanks for the preaching and telling me what I can and cannot do. How about answering my question - If a couple do not want any headship and subordation in their marriage and on the assumption that headship, wifely submission is Church teaching as you say, is the couple sinning?

It’s Church teaching that we ALL submit to each other. The Bible just emphasizes it in the case of wives submitting to their husbands.

Most couples who don’t follow headship guidelines simply don’t understand them – understandably enough, because our Catechisis on this point has been clear as mud lately.

As for sin, it’s unclear to me whether sin applies in this case. But goading another person into saying something you will find offensive would be sinful – and I hope that was not your reason for asking this question.