Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband

[PaulinVA]

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.

I think one of the reasons for this is the natural tendency for women to set up the household. In many ways, that puts the woman in charge. Once you have children, that is amplified. So, the issue is how can a woman be in charge of the homefront and integrate the husband into day to day goings on within the house. It’s not as easy as it sounds. I’ve tried to “take control”, not in a bad way but to relieve my wife’s burden, and I always fail (in her eyes) because i simply can’t keep up with everything that is going on. I propose something, and it conflicts with other things I don’t know about. She is an awesome planner. It is much easier for us to have her set the agenda and have me take responsibility for specific tasks.

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?

No, you can’t blame feminism. Men are not lazy, good for nothing. They just don’t know where to start.

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.

I naturally am the problem solver of our family. It is no more of a burden than being the provider (which is, indeed, a burden)

There is burden and then there is burden. What most women want is for their husband to be totally responsible for certain tasks so they don’t have to worry about them …ever. I do the dishes after dinner. I do the laundry every other week, and when it needs to get done. I make sure the garbage is out. I sweep the floor regularly. I also do the finances and pay the bills.

Men just need to get in a groove of what they do.

 

[MacQ]

One might do well to come into the 21st century church…or at least 20th… and look to the documents of Vatican II, which addressed family, marriage, and women’s roles.

According to H. Richard McCord, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Family, Laity, Women and Youth:

In “Gaudium et Spes,” the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, the council said marriage was not only for procreation and “reached back to the biblical understanding of covenant” to define the sacramental bond between husband and wife, McCord said.
The idea of marriage as a covenant also emphasized “the radical equality of persons” at a time when some still saw women as the property of their husbands.Each marital partner was to fully contribute his or her gifts and abilities to the other spouse and receive the same in return, McCord said.

Enough said, I reckon.

 

[Bookcat]

One might do well to come into the 21st century church…or at least 20th… and look to the documents of Vatican II, which addressed family, marriage, and women’s roles.

According to H. Richard McCord, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Family, Laity, Women and Youth:

In “Gaudium et Spes,” the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, the council said marriage was not only for procreation and “reached back to the biblical understanding of covenant” to define the sacramental bond between husband and wife, McCord said.
The idea of marriage as a covenant also emphasized “the radical equality of persons” ]

Yes – and the Teaching of Sacred Scripture and the Catholic Church regarding what I noted above (husband being head …) does not go contrary to the equality of the person! Amen. Such is fully in keeping with the dignity of persons!

It is only misunderstanding of what such means that is problematic.

 

[Bookcat]

brantpitre.com/excerpts.html

“Wives do what?”

Dr. Pitre
Professor of Sacred Scripture
Notre Dame Seminary

• See more at: brantpitre.com/cv.html#sthash.bBa7yNe8.dpuf

and

Msgr Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington

Listen here: frpope.com/audio/21%20Sun%20B.mp3 (listen to the whole)

Other text: blog.adw.org/2009/08/an-unpopular-teaching-on-marriage/

 

[Prodigal_Son]

One might do well to come into the 21st century church…or at least 20th… and look to the documents of Vatican II, which addressed family, marriage, and women’s roles.

According to H. Richard McCord, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Family, Laity, Women and Youth:

In “Gaudium et Spes,” the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, the council said marriage was not only for procreation and “reached back to the biblical understanding of covenant” to define the sacramental bond between husband and wife, McCord said.
The idea of marriage as a covenant also emphasized “the radical equality of persons” at a time when some still saw women as the property of their husbands.Each marital partner was to fully contribute his or her gifts and abilities to the other spouse and receive the same in return, McCord said.

Enough said, I reckon.

Two people can be radically equal even if one is under the headship of the other.

Or do you have an argument to the contrary?

 

[Bookcat]

brantpitre.com/excerpts.html

“Wives do what?”

Dr. Pitre
Professor of Sacred Scripture
Notre Dame Seminary.

• See more at: brantpitre.com/cv.html#sthash.bBa7yNe8.dpuf

and

Msgr Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington

Listen here: frpope.com/audio/21%20Sun%20B.mp3 (listen to the whole)

Other text: blog.adw.org/2009/08/an-unpopular-teaching-on-marriage/

Please take some time to review the above…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think one of the reasons for this is the natural tendency for women to set up the household. In many ways, that puts the woman in charge. Once you have children, that is amplified. So, the issue is how can a woman be in charge of the homefront and integrate the husband into day to day goings on within the house. It’s not as easy as it sounds. I’ve tried to “take control”, not in a bad way but to relieve my wife’s burden, and I always fail (in her eyes) because i simply can’t keep up with everything that is going on. I propose something, and it conflicts with other things I don’t know about. She is an awesome planner. It is much easier for us to have her set the agenda and have me take responsibility for specific tasks.

But the leadership of a family has very little to do with practical planning. It has to do with family prayer, with spiritual attitudes, with large-scale priorities and decision-making, with mission-building.

Many men are very good at these things – but we rarely care about them enough to do anything. And many women are very gifted in parenting, handling finances, and planning in ways that a man could not even begin to approach. Also, I personally think that women often have much deeper and more meaningful relationships with both God and others – this is a way that my marriage has been of great benefit to me, for me to come to know my wife’s gifts in this area.

There is burden and then there is burden. What most women want is for their husband to be totally responsible for certain tasks so they don’t have to worry about them …ever. I do the dishes after dinner. I do the laundry every other week, and when it needs to get done. I make sure the garbage is out. I sweep the floor regularly. I also do the finances and pay the bills.

Men just need to get in a groove of what they do.

This is true, and acting in such a way is a form of servant leadership. But it is not the only role of a man in a family.

 

[Bookcat]

It is good to note that there is the truth on the level of the truth, the teaching itself.

And then there is the contingent practical ways that can vary in living according to that truth in the various different circumstances and cultures and persons. These ways can often vary greatly as the cultures etc vary. (In this “kind of teaching” -not in say do not murder…etc there are teachings that do not admit of such contingent aspects and differing legit ways of living them out).

Often the discussion of -the debating of this teaching - can circle around the “contingent details” of one family or place or culture that (can often) differ from one another.

The truth of the teaching (in its authentic meaning as taught by Sacred Scripture and the Church) is one thing - the legit differing application in various ways in various families, cultures etc is another (and there can even be exceptions to this particular teaching in practice -say where the husband is not able to fulfill his role here or there etc).

Lets keep this in mind in discussing these things.

 

[MacQ]

Two people can be radically equal even if one is under the headship of the other.

Or do you have an argument to the contrary?

I’d just leave it at ‘radically equal with each partner contributing their gifts fully’… and leave the “headship” thing to you folks who seem intent that it is so important for some reason. It’s too “heady” a discussion for me, and smacks of someone who wants to keep the lil woman in her place.
I don’t really have anything else to say about it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’d just leave it at ‘radically equal with each partner contributing their gifts fully’… and leave the “headship” thing to you folks who seem intent that it is so important for some reason. It’s too “heady” a discussion for me, and smacks of someone who wants to keep the lil woman in her place.
I don’t really have anything else to say about it.

“All Scripture is given to us for teaching and admonishment.”

If headship was completely unimportant to God, it wouldn’t be in Scripture.

 

[Bookcat]

I’d just leave it at ‘radically equal with each partner contributing their gifts fully’… and leave the “headship” thing to you folks who seem intent that it is so important for some reason. It’s too “heady” a discussion for me, and smacks of someone who wants to keep the lil woman in her place.
I don’t really have anything else to say about it.

Again - please lets leave aside misunderstandings and what such does NOT mean (Keep the little woman in her place…)

Just as one ought not stop with the truth of the husband being the head…and not go on talk about how that means his shedding his blood for his wife…his service…his sacrifice…is loving her as Christ the Head of the Church loves his bride the Church. One must give the whole truth - all together in its beauty.

---

The Church and God do not leave it at the equality of the persons! We do not leave aside parts of the truth! The whole truth and nothing but the truth…

Please take some time and goto the links I posted just above.

“intent that it is so important for some reason”

The reason is God. The Teaching of Sacred Scripture and the Church. The whole truth about Marriage and its splendor.

“the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church”

~ Ephesians 5:23 RSVCE

 

[bitterhope]

I think a lot of people are confusing the Catholic way of viewing the wife submitting to her husband with the secular world’s meaning of being a submissive wife. The husband being the head of the family in the secular world is not the same as a husband being the head in the way which God designed marriage to be. People need to realize that this is a Catholic website and that the Catholic view of things is promoted here. We do not agree with many parts of the world in which we live. We strive for something much greater, our ways are not always the same as the ways of society in general.

 

[Bookcat]

I think a lot of people are confusing the Catholic way of viewing the wife submitting to her husband with the secular world’s meaning of being a submissive wife. The husband being the head of the family in the secular world is not the same as a husband being the head in the way which God designed marriage to be. People need to realize that this is a Catholic website and that the Catholic view of things is promoted here. We do not agree with many parts of the world in which we live. We strive for something much greater, our ways are not always the same as the ways of society in general.

Right- the the Christian way is not to be confused with other approaches (the Christian way already came up against other ways from the very beginning).

 

[Avocadomom]

I think a lot of people are confusing the Catholic way of viewing the wife submitting to her husband with the secular world’s meaning of being a submissive wife. The husband being the head of the family in the secular world is not the same as a husband being the head in the way which God designed marriage to be. People need to realize that this is a Catholic website and that the Catholic view of things is promoted here. We do not agree with many parts of the world in which we live. We strive for something much greater, our ways are not always the same as the ways of society in general.

It is common for people to take the stance that, “If only you knew what I know/understood me better, you would agree with me!” I do think in this case people understand what you mean by “Catholic headship” - they simply STILL don’t agree with it! You need to accept that despite your very clear arguments and descriptions, people disagree with you. They aren’t misunderstanding, and they aren’t stupid. Their view of the topic is just different from yours.

I think this discussion has probably run its course. At the end of the day, we should all conduct our marriages in the way that produces the most joy, the most proverbial fruit, and the highest possibility of permenance. Whether you share the leadership role, or have a leader/sumbissive relationship - if it’s working and your marriage is happy - SUPER!

 

[Bookcat]

It is good to note that there is the truth on the level of the truth, the teaching itself.

“the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church”

~ Ephesians 5:23 RSVCE

*And then there is the contingent practical ways that can vary in living according to that truth in the various different circumstances and cultures and persons.
*
These ways can often vary greatly as the cultures etc vary. (In this “kind of teaching” -not in say do not murder…etc there are teachings that do not admit of such contingent aspects and differing legit ways of living them out).

Often the discussion of -the debating of this teaching - can circle around the “contingent details” of one family or place or culture that (can often) differ from one another.

The truth of the teaching (in its authentic meaning as taught by Sacred Scripture and the Church) is one thing - the legit differing application in various ways in various families, cultures etc is another (and there can even be exceptions to this particular teaching in practice -say where the husband is not able to fulfill his role here or there etc).

Lets keep this in mind in discussing these things.

 

[thewanderer]

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…

It depends because there are many factors you haven’t pinned down, including what exactly you mean by saying they reject headship. Me and my husband also reject headship as defined by many people, as I have already made clear in at least two of my recent posts.

 

[Bookcat]

It is good to note that there is the truth on the level of the truth, the teaching itself.

“the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church”

~ Ephesians 5:23 RSVCE

(and what that teaching does* not* mean…)

*And then there is the contingent practical ways that can vary in living according to that truth in the various different circumstances and cultures and persons.
*
These ways can often vary greatly as the cultures etc vary. (In this “kind of teaching” -not in say do not murder…etc there are teachings that do not admit of such contingent aspects and differing legit ways of living them out).

Often the discussion of -the debating of this teaching - can circle around the “contingent details” of one family or place or culture that (can often) differ from one another.

The truth of the teaching (in its authentic meaning as taught by Sacred Scripture and the Church) is one thing - the legit differing application in various ways in various families, cultures etc is another (and there can even be exceptions to this particular teaching in practice -say where the husband is not able to fulfill his role here or there etc).

Lets keep this in mind in discussing these things.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I think a lot of people are confusing the Catholic way of viewing the wife submitting to her husband with the secular world’s meaning of being a submissive wife. The husband being the head of the family in the secular world is not the same as a husband being the head in the way which God designed marriage to be. People need to realize that this is a Catholic website and that the Catholic view of things is promoted here. We do not agree with many parts of the world in which we live. We strive for something much greater, our ways are not always the same as the ways of society in general.

 

[bitterhope]

It is common for people to take the stance that, “If only you knew what I know/understood me better, you would agree with me!” I do think in this case people understand what you mean by “Catholic headship” - they simply STILL don’t agree with it! You need to accept that despite your very clear arguments and descriptions, people disagree with you. They aren’t misunderstanding, and they aren’t stupid. Their view of the topic is just different from yours.

I think this discussion has probably run its course. At the end of the day, we should all conduct our marriages in the way that produces the most joy, the most proverbial fruit, and the highest possibility of permenance. Whether you share the leadership role, or have a leader/sumbissive relationship - if it’s working and your marriage is happy - SUPER!

The reason I think that it is mostly misunderstanding is that the term is being rejected, but what is being described is very much the same. The term is what seems to be rejected not the practice. Would you, knowing your husband doesn’t want you to do something, go right on our and do it? No, you would hold off and work on convincing him. That is submitting to your husband. Likewise, barring extraordinary circumstances, your husband is not going to do anything that he knows you do not want him to do. That is him laying his life down for you. If course there may never be a time that you or your husband needs to make a decision without discussion. Hopefully it never happens. But if that time comes along, you all know and trust each other enough that it isn’t something to be feared. You know that each of you would be seeking the best interest of the other party and not just being self serving. So if you don’t like the terms being used but this is how your marriage is working, according to the Catholic model of marriage, you are living out the sacrament accordingly. Just because things are being distorted in secular society does not mean as Christians we should abandon scripture.

 

[Xantippe]

PaulinVa said some smart stuff about it being a better idea for husbands to get discrete chores, i.e. very specific, limited tasks like “do the dishes every night” or "take the trash out when the garbage is overflowing"or “take the kids to volleyball” or “brush baby’s teeth at bedtime” as opposed to amorphous, never-ending stuff like “keep everything reasonably tidy at all times” or “manage family calendar.”

I forget when this happened, but at some time we switched over to that distribution of responsibilities.

I definitely recommend it to newlyweds and young families.