L
LongingSoul
Guest
I think that the ‘swallowing of pride’ is the single most important quality of spouses. More so for spouses than in any vocation apart from the religious vocations.
Practical ways that a wife should be submissive to her husband
- Status
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Yes. Pride and a preference for one’s own way harms marriages deeply, whereas concern that the other feel the love and cherishing one has promised, put before all things, has this way of dousing the temptation to be quarrelsome. I have heard a “Mars-Venus” use of this passage that notes that husbands ought to respect their wives yet not neglect to show the love and affection behind that esteem, while wives ought to remind themselves that love for a man is not felt deeply when the respect that goes with it is not carefully made clear. The thinking was that a wife may be sad to think she is esteemed but not loved, whereas a man will be saddened to think the wife who expresses affection does not also hold him in esteem. The passage may highlight the needs more likely to be unthinkingly overlooked.
Christ himself never taught it is some fault to let others have their way. Husbands who think they have some duty to get their way in everything need to think about that. Remember his warning to those who sought out places of honor. The one who humbled himself will be exalted and the one who exalt himself will be humbled. Yet where is the worthy prophet given too little esteem? In his own town and among his own people. The wife ought to see to it this does not happen in her home.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Portrait,
If an elderly man has Alzheimers and is unable to safely operate a motor vehicle, is his wife obligated to submit and offer him the car keys if he asks her for them, knowing that giving him the keys may end in his premature death, as well as the death of innocent bystanders?
cnn.com/2003/US/West/07/16/farmers.market.crash/
Likewise, if a husband with Alzheimers refuses to take medication that will prevent further mental deterioration, is his wife obligated to honor his views on the subject?
What do you think St. Paul would say to these questions?
If an elderly man has Alzheimers and is unable to safely operate a motor vehicle, is his wife obligated to submit and offer him the car keys if he asks her for them, knowing that giving him the keys may end in his premature death, as well as the death of innocent bystanders?
cnn.com/2003/US/West/07/16/farmers.market.crash/
Likewise, if a husband with Alzheimers refuses to take medication that will prevent further mental deterioration, is his wife obligated to honor his views on the subject?
What do you think St. Paul would say to these questions?
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Plain stubborn non-compliance is a more common issue. A wife has the standing of a prophet in her own home. Nathan did not respond to King David’s sin by seizing the throne, but he had the authority to call him on his selfish defiance of right behavior very bluntly and unequivocally. A husband ought to expect the feedback of virtue’s demands to come from his wife’s mouth, too.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
My father who we always honoured as head of the family, has alzheimers. Mum looks after him in his increasingly childish ways but she always puts money in his wallet and allows him to pay when it would be much less hassle for her just to do it. She encourages him to continue to do things like open the back door of the cab so she can hop in and points him to sit up front with the driver in the way men always do. There are a myriad little ways that she puts him in the headship role when it would be easier for her to treat him like the child he has become. I think that is such a mark of respect to my father.
He often hides things and refuses to get dressed to go somewhere he doesn’t want to go and she continues to encourage him to be the man and husband he always was in achieving these ends, albiet with the sternness and consistency that you would use on a child.
It’s actually in these difficult dynamics that a spouse can demonstrate great respect for the natural heirarchy of marriage that reflect the love of God for us.
X
Xantippe
Guest
LongingSoul said:
“My father who we always honoured as head of the family, has alzheimers. Mum looks after him in his increasingly childish ways but she always puts money in his wallet and allows him to pay when it would be much less hassle for her just to do it. She encourages him to continue to do things like open the back door of the cab so she can hop in and points him to sit up front with the driver in the way men always do. There are a myriad little ways that she puts him in the headship role when it would be easier for her to treat him like the child he has become. I think that is such a mark of respect to my father.”
That’s a beautiful example.
I think in such an example we can see that headship and submission does not necessarily involve the wife’s obedience.
“My father who we always honoured as head of the family, has alzheimers. Mum looks after him in his increasingly childish ways but she always puts money in his wallet and allows him to pay when it would be much less hassle for her just to do it. She encourages him to continue to do things like open the back door of the cab so she can hop in and points him to sit up front with the driver in the way men always do. There are a myriad little ways that she puts him in the headship role when it would be easier for her to treat him like the child he has become. I think that is such a mark of respect to my father.”
That’s a beautiful example.
I think in such an example we can see that headship and submission does not necessarily involve the wife’s obedience.
F
fpt
Guest
Are there any persons who are fully nostalgic of past time in which there were civil, penal and / or administrative laws that could be used by the husband for forcing the wife to obey to him, directly or indirectly? Are you in favor of these former laws of States?
Do you regret any past laws of States in link with this conjugal topic?
S
Starrsmother
Guest
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I absolutely do NOT miss the laws you speak of. As a woman who grew up in the 60’s and went on to marry and have a family in addition to a career, I think in part, it was just those kinds of idiotic laws that helped trigger the sexual revolution and some of the radical feminist stuff that we are now plagued with today. When I was a teen, most professions such as doctors, lawyers and so on were held by men and an educated woman usually “grew up” to be a teacher or a nurse or a flight attendant. Now there’s nothing wrong with a woman in one of those professions, but I think such attitudes contributed to some of the unfortunate results we see today–such as “sex-neutral” job titles like calling a postman a post-person or a serviceman a service person–which I think are totally silly. (kind of like calling a housewife a domestic engineer). However, women feeling and often being treated like 2nd class citizens (ie a woman not being able to get a credit card or a bank account in her own name only) ended with the pendulum swinging way too far the other way, and now there are groups of truly looney women out there who seem to think that merely acknowledging them as female is somehow a slight.
There is no way in hell I would take orders from any man just because he’s a man–if he’s my boss at work, of course that’s different… I will and DO however treat my husband with love and respect. I genuinely care what he thinks about choices we make. To that end, if my husband came to me and said “Let’s say the Rosary (or do a novena, etc.) every day after dinner”, I might ask him something like “Wow! What brought that on?” but I’d be very happy to oblige. Same song, second verse if my husband particularly wanted to go somewhere for a vacation or wanted us to join a specific club or activity. I might want to know why, but over all, I love my husband and if it makes him happy then I usually am only too glad to comply—and in turn, my husband treats me the same way. For instance, we go to Mass on Saturday evenings instead of Sunday mornings because I work a lot of nights and I like to sleep late on Sundays. I don’t remember any big discussion over this–I simply said, “I’d rather go on Saturday evenings”. and he said “Okay”! Conversely, when our kids were young and still at home, my husband has more than once told someone that he’d need to check with me before he committed them to signing up for a sport or extra curricular activity.
If you have to have a law to enforce a woman’s subordinate position, the it becomes a form of slavery–which is exactly the point in Sharia law as one good example. I don’t wear burkas and I am 100% against any law that would assign me or my daughters a subordinate place in life. I am 100% for married people loving each other and both going out of their way to please the other. That is called respect–and today’s marriages could often use more of it and they’d not end in divorce so often!
F
fpt
Guest
Yes, in the past in many States in the world like today in some States, there were and there are civil laws, penal laws and administrative laws that are very in favor of “the true discrimination” between men and women and between husband and wife. Those laws are unfair and thus morally wrong. As catholic lay person, we have to battle against in the respect of the natural moral order. The past was not totally wonderful about marriage and about the men and women, morally speaking. Each period has its own issues. Often, the critics forget that. They should scan the former laws in order to understand what was wrong.I can’t speak for anyone else, but I absolutely do NOT miss the laws you speak of. As a woman who grew up in the 60’s and went on to marry and have a family in addition to a career, I think in part, it was just those kinds of idiotic laws that helped trigger the sexual revolution and some of the radical feminist stuff that we are now plagued with today. When I was a teen, most professions such as doctors, lawyers and so on were held by men and an educated woman usually “grew up” to be a teacher or a nurse or a flight attendant. Now there’s nothing wrong with a woman in one of those professions, but I think such attitudes contributed to some of the unfortunate results we see today–such as “sex-neutral” job titles like calling a postman a post-person or a serviceman a service person–which I think are totally silly. (kind of like calling a housewife a domestic engineer). However, women feeling and often being treated like 2nd class citizens (ie a woman not being able to get a credit card or a bank account in her own name only) ended with the pendulum swinging way too far the other way, and now there are groups of truly looney women out there who seem to think that merely acknowledging them as female is somehow a slight.
There is no way in hell I would take orders from any man just because he’s a man–if he’s my boss at work, of course that’s different… I will and DO however treat my husband with love and respect. I genuinely care what he thinks about choices we make. To that end, if my husband came to me and said “Let’s say the Rosary (or do a novena, etc.) every day after dinner”, I might ask him something like “Wow! What brought that on?” but I’d be very happy to oblige. Same song, second verse if my husband particularly wanted to go somewhere for a vacation or wanted us to join a specific club or activity. I might want to know why, but over all, I love my husband and if it makes him happy then I usually am only too glad to comply—and in turn, my husband treats me the same way. For instance, we go to Mass on Saturday evenings instead of Sunday mornings because I work a lot of nights and I like to sleep late on Sundays. I don’t remember any big discussion over this–I simply said, “I’d rather go on Saturday evenings”. and he said “Okay”! Conversely, when our kids were young and still at home, my husband has more than once told someone that he’d need to check with me before he committed them to signing up for a sport or extra curricular activity.
If you have to have a law to enforce a woman’s subordinate position, the it becomes a form of slavery–which is exactly the point in Sharia law as one good example. I don’t wear burkas and I am 100% against any law that would assign me or my daughters a subordinate place in life. I am 100% for married people loving each other and both going out of their way to please the other. That is called respect–and today’s marriages could often use more of it and they’d not end in divorce so often!
We seem to be almost compatible about this topic, intellectually speaking. In my humble opinion, the conjugal faith being a natural thing, the husband cannot impose strict disciplines to his wife or to his family that are stronger than the natural moral law and the standards of the catholic discipline: the marriage is not a seminary and a monastery. Only, the proposals are morally good for going into more discipline and into the devotion. 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. The husband does not have this natural power. Thus, about the catholic discipline about devotion by prayers,* a husband has no legitimity* for imposing his personal devotion to his wife or to his family. The true moralism, the true culpabilism and the true scrupulism in order to get a collective devotion are insane.
I will be a little bit provocative in order to be very clear:
The weekly family rosary or daily 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.
I know that this message can disturb, but I say a catholic truth.!!!
S
Starrsmother
Guest
Thanks for your feedback FPT. I dare say–that I think I agree with your posts more than many I’ve seen on this subject line, because you state common sense.
I agree that the church says that the husband is the head of the family just as Our Blessed Lord is the head of the Church.
The question is, what does that translate to? Jesus ,made it clear that the master must be the servant, that the first on earth will be last in heaven and vise-versa. So, if the husband is the true head of the family but also truly wishes to follow church teaching, then he will gladly serve his wife.
Truth be told, BOTH partners. in a marriage that lasts, take turns serving each other, and nobody gets into a power trip–or not very often anyway. You hit the nail on the head. Being the “head of the family” doesn’t come with a set of rules or a list of privileges either one. It’s not like being a Queen or a president. It’s an honorary title with no absolute rules. In a good marriage, both parties care for each other. My husband doesn’t own me and I don’t own him. We do love and respect each other though.In a happy marriage that lasts the test of time, both the husband and the wife are way more interested in pleasing their loved one than in arguing semantics. Again, that’s one of the many areas where muslims make their critical errors.
head of the family"
I agree that the church says that the husband is the head of the family just as Our Blessed Lord is the head of the Church.
The question is, what does that translate to? Jesus ,made it clear that the master must be the servant, that the first on earth will be last in heaven and vise-versa. So, if the husband is the true head of the family but also truly wishes to follow church teaching, then he will gladly serve his wife.
Truth be told, BOTH partners. in a marriage that lasts, take turns serving each other, and nobody gets into a power trip–or not very often anyway. You hit the nail on the head. Being the “head of the family” doesn’t come with a set of rules or a list of privileges either one. It’s not like being a Queen or a president. It’s an honorary title with no absolute rules. In a good marriage, both parties care for each other. My husband doesn’t own me and I don’t own him. We do love and respect each other though.In a happy marriage that lasts the test of time, both the husband and the wife are way more interested in pleasing their loved one than in arguing semantics. Again, that’s one of the many areas where muslims make their critical errors.
head of the family"
T
thewanderer
Guest
B
BeingSaved
Guest
Heloo,
Bible -believer, female, here, I agree the man is the head of the home, instituted by God, but scripture says as already mentioned,…‘submit yourselves one to the other’,…so man must to wife, and vice versa, however, the ‘proverbial buck’ stops at the husband’s seat.
He is accountable to God for the family. Not all wives are wise, some are still reacting to wrong actions by their fathers, so each husband must take into account where his wife came from in relating.
Love, honour, and obey,…ultimately,…although n. American women are culturally taught to reject this, it is bible teaching for a woman to submit to her husband’s lead.
I think I even read(in Christian teaching) that for a wife to not want to engage sexually, when the husband requests, there has to be a valid reason why not.
Bible -believer, female, here, I agree the man is the head of the home, instituted by God, but scripture says as already mentioned,…‘submit yourselves one to the other’,…so man must to wife, and vice versa, however, the ‘proverbial buck’ stops at the husband’s seat.
He is accountable to God for the family. Not all wives are wise, some are still reacting to wrong actions by their fathers, so each husband must take into account where his wife came from in relating.
Love, honour, and obey,…ultimately,…although n. American women are culturally taught to reject this, it is bible teaching for a woman to submit to her husband’s lead.
I think I even read(in Christian teaching) that for a wife to not want to engage sexually, when the husband requests, there has to be a valid reason why not.
B
BeingSaved
Guest
I also read, in Catholic teaching, that a wise husband will ‘lay down his life’ so to speak, for his wife. This is imitating Christ, who, although the head, laid down his ‘position’ s rights’ (although he still had the position and all that went with headship)
but he laid the rights and privileges of the position, to wash the disciples feet. (they should have washed his feet, and each others’ feet, but He led by example. this is very important, because a man sets the tone for his whole home, by what he does and says, as example. If He acts in certain ways, his wife will usually copy him and do the same, and then the children will too.
In God’s kingdom, sometimes called the Upside Down Kingdom, (because it is opposite to the world’s ways) the first is last and the last first…,etc.
but he laid the rights and privileges of the position, to wash the disciples feet. (they should have washed his feet, and each others’ feet, but He led by example. this is very important, because a man sets the tone for his whole home, by what he does and says, as example. If He acts in certain ways, his wife will usually copy him and do the same, and then the children will too.
In God’s kingdom, sometimes called the Upside Down Kingdom, (because it is opposite to the world’s ways) the first is last and the last first…,etc.
F
fpt
Guest
About the marital act, there are a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, reasonable, equal and equitable donation of bodies, and a mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, reasonable, equal and equitable reception of bodies. The conjugal submission about the sexual union is mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, reasonable, equal and equitable: not more and not less, that is the equality and equity between husband and wife concerning the right to the body, the right on the body, the right of the body, the conjugal sexual debt, the conjugal sexual obligation and the conjugal sexual duty. In the couple, the husband is not the Head of the conjugal sexuality. The doctrinal refusal and the practical refusal of the mutual, reciprocal, bilateral, equal, equitable and reciprocal submission about the union of bodies are morally wrong.
The radical masculism about the marital act is morally wrong. The misogynism about the marital act is morally wrong. The male sexism about the marital act is morally wrong.
In Catholicism, there is a regime of the natural moral order of the refusal of practicing the marital act. This regime is bilateral or unilateral. **The unilateral refusal is the exception, but it is still existing. **The wife like the husband can use it under particular conditions. About this regime, there are a equality and a equity. *The wife or the husband are put in an equal and equitable situation. No superiority, no inferiority. *
F
fpt
Guest
The husband has to make happy his wife in the respect of the natural moral order of the dual humanity. He has to make happy his wife, an obligation of means, in respecting the natural moral law. The moral of happiness in the marriage is very important. He is here for his wife, she is his first devotion. She is first in all, in the respect of the natural moral order of the dual humanity.
**He has to understand her, he has to help her, he has to please her, he has to satisfy her, he has to like her, he has to love her, he has to honor her, he has to act as a lover, a love, a soul-mate, a best friend and a boy-friend in her favor, *** in the respect of the natural moral order of the dual humanity. *
F
fpt
Guest
It is my understanding of the Holy Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) and of the Roman Catholic Teaching. If you read those documents, if you talk with the catholic priests, you can, only, conclude like that.
From Love, In Love, of Love, by Love, for Love. All is Love, in the respect of the natural moral order: the Conjugal Charity is like that.
The seeker-pleasure for the wife and for the husband, thus for the couple, in the respect of the natural moral order, is the catholic deep paradigm. The fact of seeking the pleasure for the other, for himself or herself, in the respect of the natural moral order is totally catholic.
F
fpt
Guest
My summary
The married woman is or should be the " New Eve of her Man " and the " Saint Mary Magdalena of her husband ", I mean: the Female, the Fiancée, the Bride, the Sweetheart, the Love, the Mistress, the Lover,** the Beloved**, the Muse, the Friend, the Best-friend, the Girlfriend, the Helper, the Soul-Mate, the Companion, the Partner, the Associate, the Educator, the Teacher, the Professor, the Thinker, the Philosopher, the Schoolgirl, the Pupil, the Student, the Follower, the Female Opposite Number, the Alter Ego, the Alterity, the Complementarity,* the Princess, the Queen, the Doctress*, the Nurse, the Guide of her Husband and the Person who reveals in him, his part of feminity and helps his masculinity: his Wife and the Potential Mother of their future children.
And
A catholic wife should have a huge consideration for her male. In her mind, man would be the most beautiful creature of the creation, he would be on the top of the natural creation wanted by God. He is her lover, her husband and her potential father of her children. For a catholic woman, he is her natural complementarity and her husband who is so divine, as he is coming from the creation of God. The bashing of man / husband coming from the wife is a social scandal and a moral scandal.
The married man is or should be the** " New Adam of his Woman " and the " Holy Beloved of his wife ", I mean: the Male, the Fiancé, the Bridegroom, the Sweetheart, the Love, the Lover, the Master, the Beloved, the Pygmalion, the Friend, the Best-friend, the boyfriend, the Helper, the Soul-Mate, the Companion, the Partner, the Associate, the Educator, the Teacher, the Professor, the Thinker, the Philosopher, the Schoolboy, the Pupil, the Student, the Follower, the Male Opposite Number, the Alterity, the Complementarity, the Prince, the King,** the Doctor, the Nurse, the Guide of his Wife and** the Person who reveals in her, her part of masculinity and helps her feminity : her Husband and the Potential Father of their future children.**
And
A catholic husband should have a huge consideration for his female. In his mind, woman would be the most beautiful creature of the creation, she would be on the top of the natural creation wanted by God. She is his lover, his wife and his potential mother of his children. For a catholic man, she is his natural complementarity and his wife who is so divine, as she is coming from the creation of God. The bashing of woman / wife coming from the husband is a social scandal and a moral scandal.
EQUALITY AND EQUITY
- Status