S/O of feminist thread - What is the job description for the "spiritual head" of the family?

[thewanderer]

I think I have kind of posted it. I’ve always thought of it as more a tie-breaker.

I don’t think anyone should think they are the boss, it seems we have too many of those.
Women and men should be free to do whatever their situation entails that they have to do to survive financially. If the women has the credential to be the main bread winner, then so be it with the way society is shaped today. I’m not going to lie here. I’d prefer for my own daughter to be able to raise her children but that may not be realistic. There are many women who don’t even want to be the main bread winner but it is more that they are thrown into. (That is why I posted about women and childbearing).I’d certainly prefer that they would not see contraception as an solution.

I think submission means he leads the family but hopefully in mature couples, they would love each other enough to both be able to make most decisions together. He would seldom have to be the tie-breaker.

It is so difficult because each marriage relationship is so different

Casti Connubii is a document I have to look at more.

Thanks for responding. Yeah, that sounds about like the opinion of most reasonable people I’ve talked to who like to focus on the submission of the wife to the husband. The other main opinion being that the man is only the spiritual head. I know you said you have to look at Casti Connubii more still, I’d love to hear your opinion on it after looking into it some more. Honestly, the section on the submission of wives is pretty short, and I’ve already posted a fair chunk of it, so there isn’t a ton more to it, but it is definitely an interesting read, I think especially the last paragraph where it explicitly says that the both the extent and manner of submission will vary depending on the people, place, and time in which they live, which is not an idea you hear from most people who argue about this issue. Usually you hear either “Men must always and everywhere have the last say” or “There must always and everywhere be an exact 50-50 in decision making” neither of which are really compatible with that last paragraph. Its definitely thought-provoking.

 

[thewanderer]

I also wanted to add that it is precisely this idea of men as a tie-breaker which seems so inconsistent to many Catholics with the idea of women being on an equal level and having equal dignity and being a companion rather than a subordinate. I think its precisely because it kind of implies, no matter how you put it, that women are less rational, less capable of making good decisions for their family, and so their opinions come second in the event of a tie.
Which is part of the reason I am so interested in Casti Connubii and the idea that the Church’s view of submission is radically different than what most people think of when they hear the word. I’m not gonna lie, I have more thoughts to put out there on the other sections of Casti Connubii as to what submission actually is according to the Church that I’d love to hear others opinions on, but I don’t have time to write them up right now. I’ll try to put them on here soon though.

 

[Sarcelle]

I think I have kind of posted it. I’ve always thought of it as more a tie-breaker.

I don’t think anyone should think they are the boss, it seems we have too many of those.
Women and men should be free to do whatever their situation entails that they have to do to survive financially. If the women has the credential to be the main bread winner, then so be it with the way society is shaped today. I’m not going to lie here. I’d prefer for my own daughter to be able to raise her children but that may not be realistic. There are many women who don’t even want to be the main bread winner but it is more that they are thrown into. (That is why I posted about women and childbearing).I’d certainly prefer that they would not see contraception as an solution.

I think submission means he leads the family but hopefully in mature couples, they would love each other enough to both be able to make most decisions together. He would seldom have to be the tie-breaker.

It is so difficult because each marriage relationship is so different

I have read the posts and they don’t seem that far apart - not dramatic.

Casti Connubii is a document that we all have to look at more I’ve read what you said and I think what you’ve said is true. I think the problem may be with how often men have the final say. They technically have the final say all the time but hopefully have enough sense to use it extremely sparingly.

Well said.

To me, spiritual headship means the husband must take a proactive role in bringing his family to Christ. He cannot and must not be a passive bystander with regards to his family’s spiritual health.

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of confusion and resistance within contemporary Catholicism as regards authoritative Church teaching on the natural hierarchal order within the family. Authentic Catholic teaching has always consistently taught that a wife is subject to her husband and must obey him even as the Church obeys Christ, provided the husbands demands are just and moral.

Multitudes of Western Catholic women have been influenced by the false egalitarianism propagated by Sixties feminism, which they sincerely believe is a more ‘enlightened approach’ to relations between the sexes. Sadly, dear friends, there has been, in recent times, an attempt to square the spurious equality ideology of feminism with Church teaching. The argumentation employed may be superficially plausible but it is fallacious and at variance with authentic Church teaching notwithstanding.

In his encyclical Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae 1880, on Christian marriage, Pope Leo XIII forcefully and clearly restated the traditional (and biblical) teaching:

"The husband is the chief of the family and head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honour or dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and her who obeys, a heaven born love guiding both in their respective duties. For, the husband is head of the wife; as Christ is head of the Church…Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their own husbands in all things (added emphasis mine).

It is hardly surprising, dear friends, that this authoritative teaching is intensely disliked nowadays as it is so out of kilter with the false egalitarianism of our godless age. However, as the nature of man is immutable, so also is the natural law and thus the divine order of the husband as head of the wife is not subject to change or re-interpretation with more allegedly 'maturer thinking. Undoubtedly, there has been a widespread repudiation of authoritative Church teaching because, in past times, a small number of despotic men exploited it in a very un-Catholic and un-Christian manner to cruelly exercise complete control over their spouse. That was very wrong, but it did not follow that the Church teaching itself was wrong and unsatisfactory. Re-interpreting Church teaching to remedy this wrong, bringing it into accord with the false egalitarianism of the modern age, is surely jolly misguided and a grave error. If family life is not to be utterly destroyed, then pious Catholic husbands must take responsibility and leadership and pious Catholic wives must take delight in denying their own subversive will and rendering joyful obedience to their husbands. Moreover, wives must, for the peace of the home and setting a good example to children, submit to their husbands as “unto to the Lord” (Eph. 5: 22); " ‘As to the Lord’ provides the key to the thoughts here expressed. Baptism confers equality on all individuals from the point of view of religion, but in society (of which the family is at once the smallest and important unit) there is a natural hierarchy. The husband is head of the wife; the wife is subject to him. By Baptism this order is not broken; it is ennobled. St. Paul compares it with the love of the Church for Christ, the head. There should, then, be no room for either despotism or craven fear. Pius XI (Casti Connubi, 31st December 1930): “If the husband is head of the wife, the wife is the heart” " (A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, 1953, Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd, p. 1124, added emphasis mine).

Authentic Catholic Church teaching on the husband being head of the wife, as outlined above, clearly suggests a one-sided submission. Pope Leo XIII in Arcanum expressly spoke of “him who commands and her obeys” which, if words mean anything at all, incontrovertibly suggests a one-sided set up within the domestic church. There would be very little point, dear friends, in having a husband commanding if his wife was free to disobey him whenever she pleased. Happy family life could never long be maintained in any household in which such absurdity prevailed, which explains why many modern marriages end in divorce. No matter how radical feminists, or contemporary Catholics influenced by the false egalitarianism of feminist ideology may object, the husband as head of the wife must be the final authority within the home - "What did St. Paul mean when he said that “the husband is the head of the wife”? St. Paul said that the husband is head of the wife just as Christ is head of the Church. The husband has the final authority within the family; but he must use this authority as Christ does, who “also loved the church and delivered himself up for it”. The husband must nourish and cherish his wife “as also Christ doth the church”. What is more, husbands are commanded to “love their wives as Christ also loved the Church” " (Christ in Us: Instructions in the Catholic Faith, Killgallon and Weber, Sheed & Ward 1958, p. 224, added emphasis mine). Christ in Us was, I will add, a highly respected manual of instruction for the Catholic faithful before the destructive ideology of feminism negatively impacted the world (and not a few Catholics) in the 1960’s.

Some will no doubt say by way of response that our Church teaches a ‘mutual submission’, not a one-sided submission, however this modern notion simply cannot be sustained if one is guided by the authoritative Church teaching that I discussed above.

Con’t’/

 

[Portrait]

Continued/

The whole notion of a ‘mutual submission’ within the family, much loved by some contemporary Catholics, is plainly untenable and based on a gross misunderstanding of St. Paul: “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5: 21). Sadly, dear friends, this text has been wrenched from its context and turned into a pretext to uphold a false egalitarianism that repudiates the husband as head and final authority within his family. However, this passage has reference generally to the community of the faith and encourages them to subject themselves to one another (cf. S. John 13: 1-17). Unless personal pride is mortified it is jolly difficult to maintain mutual fellowship with our brethren. Thus self-submission and not self-assertion is to be the hall-mark of the pious Catholic. Beginning at verse 22 St. Paul enjoins the kind of submission that is required in* particular* relationships, namely husbands and wives, children and parents and masters and servants (vv. 22-23; 6: 1-4, 5-9). Now it is manifestly obvious that in all of these relationships there is a ruler-subject set up in which one, husband, parent or master, commands and the other, wife, child or servant obeys. To speak of a ‘mutual subjection’ in these relationships nullifies the authority of the one who commands and renders that authority utterly meaningless, which is precisely what has occurred by the widespread acceptance of egalitarian ideology based on a godless feminism. There can be no more ‘mutual submission’ between husband and wife than there can be between parent and child and master or servant. For example, an employer or a parent is always the final authority and is never in subjection to their employees or children. For polemical purposes the distinction between the general subjection of Christian brethren and particular relationships has been ignored and nullified.

Now, dear friends, I will anticipate that someone will bring my notice to JPII’s *Mulieris Dignitatem *1988, which they will no doubt insist refutes what I have previously said as regards a one-sided submission within the domestic church. First, I will say at the outset that whatever the teaching of Mulieris it cannot invalidate or set aside Encyclicals such as Arcanum 1880 or *Casti Connubii *1930, which remain standing Church teaching even unto this day.

It should be observed that JPII presents his teaching in *Mulieris *as a ‘personal meditation’ written in the first person ("And it seems to me that the best thing is to give this text the style of a meditation") (JPII’s own emphasis). Now the level and binding authority of this "meditation’ is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive teaching which no man is at liberty to question. Moreover, Pope Leo XIII in Arcanum emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - which is to say Sacred Scripture itself - teaches that subjection is required not “only on the part of the Church” to Christ, as JPII asserts, but also on the part of the wife to her husband, because in the order of familial authority the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, as Pope Leo explicitly taught in the passage cited from Arcanum in my previous post today. It is, I think, rather significant that JPII quotes only from the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians - “For the husband is head of the wife - whilst omitting the conclusion: "as Christ is head of the Church”.

Indeed, dear friends, it is impossible to see how any authority worthy of the name could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were a ‘mutual subjection’ and no ruler-subject relation between the spouses. This whole notion of a ‘mutual subjection’ within the domestic church is not only an absurdity but also a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject and neither the Church nor the family can have two heads.

It is quite true, dear friends, that when the St. Paul and the Church speaks of a women being in subjection to her husband, it clearly means subjection in everything pertaining to the husbands legitimate authority and nothing contrary to faith and morals. In a truly pious family there will seldom be major disagreement and if they do occur they can usually be resolved by the spouses calmly talking things through together. However, the fact remains that according to authoritative Church teaching the husband is always the final authority within the home and to that a godly Catholic wife will not demur. Modern egalitarian ideology and godless feminism may intensely dislike this this teaching, but the fact is that families are not little democracies. That is just arrant nonsense and should be given no credence by the Catholic faithful. By emasculating men and stripping them of their rightful place as head of the family, many households have suffered immeasurably and children have grown up jolly confused as regards authority.

Let me conclude by saying, dear friends, that many pious Catholics women continue to joyfully accept the teaching of Holy Mother Church and obediently submit to their husbands, not questioning his God-given authority. Indeed, I know this to be true, bless God, since I am married to such a pious woman.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

In Christos

 

[thewanderer]

Hello again Portrait I see you have returned again to this thread.

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Unfortunately, there is a great deal of confusion and resistance within contemporary Catholicism as regards authoritative Church teaching on the natural hierarchal order within the family. **Authentic Catholic teaching has always consistently taught that a wife is subject to her husband and must obey him even as the Church obeys Christ, provided the husbands demands are just and moral. **

Portrait, I woud greatly appreciate hearing what you have to say about the section from Casti Connubii I pointed out which shows that wives have no obligation of any sort to obey their husband if his request is not in line with right reason rather than saying wives must obey their husband in all things but sin. This passage, along with the fact that wives are not to be viewed as having an inferior reason or judgement necessarily means that you cannot claim that wives must always obey their husbands in all things besides sin, without contradicting Casti Connubii (and so official Church teaching on this matter). I would also like to point out two more passages of Casti Connubii for you to contemplate.

it [the obligation of the wife to submit] forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin.

Casti Connubii first goes through all the things that the wives submission is not
ie, slavery, anything that demeans the wife, or treats her as though her intelligence, reason, and judgement are inferior, or an obligation to follow anything her husband suggests which is not in accord with right reason, so, anything he suggests which is truly in the best interest of the family as a whole. And then it goes on to talk about what this submission actually is. It is very interesting to me that here the Church speaks of a very limited occasion for submission to be needed, it speaks of the great danger and detriment to the family and the proximate danger of ruin. That does not sound to me as though submissive obedience is assumed to be an everyday occurance, but rather as though it is reserved only for when the family unit is truly in danger. So, when you combine this passage from Casti Connubi with the above ones I have looked at you find that not only is it wrong to claim that women must always give their husbands the last say in unless its sinful, but that the obedience the Church desires is an obedience that only needs to come into play for the sake of protecting the family from the proximate danger of ruin.

And finally we have this quote, which is even more intriguing

1. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time.

This makes it very clear that it is wrong for anyone to claim that all wives should be following this order of submission (or order of love as CC calls it) in the same way and to the same extent. It is perfectly legitimate to claim that wives today, in the US at this point in time, are not called to the same extent or form of submission as wives were, say, in Rome during the heyday of the Roman empire. In other words, even if at certain times and in certain places womens obligation to submit to their husband was more widespread and existed for small everyday things you cannot claim, based on that alone, that the Church teaches the same level of obligation exists now. The Church has made it very clear here in Casti Connubii that, while the order of a wifes submission to her husband and his loving protection and selfsacrifice for her through action is never to be changed and to exist always and everywhere, it specifically mentions that the wives half, the part of submission, will change depending on the people, the place, and the time. Which means that if you wish to argue that people today are wrong to claim that women have no need to obey their husbands request unless it was of such a grave matter that refusing to do so would tear apart their family, at which point it would be selfish of the wife to refuse, you need to show that there is a current obligation for wives in this place and in this time to a level and manner of submission greater than that. Otherwise any faithful Catholic can look to Casti Connubii and see that your argument fails to take into account a very real teaching of the Church on the matter and so your argument can be easily tossed aside by those faithful Catholics who have not been influenced by the terrible radical feminists that you so often speak of. This is all straight from Casti Connubii, one of the documents you yourself held up as being a good guide for Catholics on the Church’s thoughts on this subject.

 

[thewanderer]

And, since I’ve just realized that we’ve managed to twist this from a discussion about what headship means to a discussion about what submission means, I will try to remedy that by posting the section of Casti Connubii in which it speaks to husbands.

1. This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly called by St. Augustine the “faith of chastity” blooms more freely, more beautifully and more nobly, when it is rooted in that more excellent soil, the love of husband and wife which pervades all the duties of married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage. For matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church. This precept the Apostle laid down when he said: “Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church,”[24] that Church which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not for the sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the good of His Spouse.[25] The love, then, of which We are speaking is not that based on the passing lust of the moment nor does it consist in pleasing words only, but in the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since love is proved by deeds.[26] This outward expression of love in the home demands not only mutual help but must go further; must have as its primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in virtue, and above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their neighbor, on which indeed “dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets.”[27] For all men of every condition, in whatever honorable walk of life they may be, can and ought to imitate that most perfect example of holiness placed before man by God, namely Christ Our Lord, and by God’s grace to arrive at the summit of perfection, as is proved by the example set us of many saints.

1. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof.