S
Sarcelle
Guest
Should women have the permanent status of minors, needing permission from a male authority figure to travel, sign contracts, etc.?
S/O of feminist thread - What is the job description for the "spiritual head" of the family?
- Status
W
Walking_Home
Guest
The Catholic Church does not hold to the fundamentalist protestant “ideology” of some “primacy” based on who came first. Both man and woman are equal–on the same level.
And in case you didn’t know – we Catholics have the Church/Magisterium as the one and only interpreter of scripture – and how it is to be understood.
Your are sounding more --and more like a fundamentalist protestant.
G
gam197
Guest
As a single person, I would think you would be responsible for your own soul. If your parents(either one) have taught you morally and you are well above the age of reason, then I would think you would be responsible and would seek guidance from the church and/or elders.
Marriage gets a little trickier. Women are not absolved, nor are men. There are children so God has instituted an authority figure - a tie breaker?
Work, travel, and contracts are only importance in keeping some peace in the family so it is what each family decides, not that important.
J
JamesBond007
Guest
He didn’t ask her. He kind of told her and she she embraced it. I think you are blowing the authority thing out of proportion. God has authority over all but he shares that authority with others. Hence his giving man dominion over the Earth, but God still very much heads the Earth. As long as your father doesn’t make you do anything against God’s will you listen. “Honor thy father and mother.”
That’s not headship. That’s secular business that changes with the ages. If the best examples one can come up with to argue against something have to be extreme I think that says something.
Equal in VALUE, not necessarily in responsibilities. Here is a Catholic site with commentary from Popes Pius and Leo (catholicplanet.com/articles/article72.htm). Are they “wrong” too? It is not impossible that one could interpret the Magisterium according to what their pride tells them. Nancy Pelosi does that all the time when she tells Americans that her views are “Catholic.”
L
LightBound
Guest
That is not a “Catholic” site. It’s one man’s platform to spread his views and interpretations. You might want to read this before you go promoting that site, especially on Catholic Answers Forum.
catholicculture.org/culture/reviews/view.cfm?recnum=3892
J
JamesBond007
Guest
The quotes used there are directly linked to the Vatican original documents.
You are still evading the question I posed about Holy Orders for men for the 99th time. How have you rationalized excluding women from the priesthood if we’re “all the same and equal in responsibilities?” Logic shows this is not consistent.
For those questioning:
Pope Pius XI predicted this course of events in his encyclical, Casti Connubbi, in the year 1930:
“False liberty and unnatural equality [in authority] with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as among the pagans the mere instrument of man.”
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, Christian Marriage, emphasizes that subjection does not detract from the honor and dignity rightly due the woman:
“The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays… Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.”
L
LightBound
Guest
Sedevacantist, schismatic, and anti-Catholic sites also have direct quotes, but that doesn’t make them faithful to the Church. All I’m saying is exercise some prudence and caution before posting links to sites that are not faithful to the Magisterium here on CAF. It’s against forum rules to be promoting such sites, even if you’re trying to prove your point. I posted that specific site (Catholic Culture) so you can check your sources and won’t be led astray (or lead others astray) by a site just because word “Catholic” is in it or by one that appears to be faithful, but isn’t.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Thank you for your reply.
I would have to disagree with your characterization of women as permanent minors as extreme. It is not. It is happening in parts of the world today. I should know. I grew up in a Muslim country. This view of women as permanent minors is reasonable in some people’s eyes and not just Muslims. There are some Catholic bloggers who have advocated that women not attend college or live on their own but to live as permanent wards of their father should they remain unmarried. Of course if she gets married, than the husband is her head.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Yes – I agree. I have read the same – in some sites I’ve come across.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Ok, so with respect to the OP you would agree with me that there is no such job description as the Church teaches no such thing as the man being the “spiritual head”. Which, however, still leaves the question of what does headship mean then, which I am more than willing to discuss.
First, I would like to know whether you are of the opinion that if a couple is having a hard time agreeing the man automatically gets last say. My reading of Casti Connubi has led me to reject this as a possible interpretation of the passage in ephesians. So, if this is indeed your understanding, I would love to understand more about why you hold this interpretation to be true, and then, if you are interested, I would like to put forward my thoughts on it, specifically those to do with Casti Connubi, to see what you think about them. Just let me know if you are interested.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I will make the same request of you that I have made of HoosierDaddy. Can you please provide me with any evidence for the idea of a “spiritual” head as it is so often talked about today? Or did you instead just mean to say that the man is the head period?
I know this wasn’t directed at me, but to be perfectly honest, I don’t see how the priesthood has anything to do with the question of the roles between men and women within marriage. Yes, certain men who are called to the priesthood are given a special role of servitude that is denied to all other people (both men and women). Yes, women are not called to this service. That does not necessarily translate into other roles and situations the way you are implying.
As you are no doubt aware, as Catholics we are called to understand the Bible in light of Church teaching. Now, seeing as we have an authoritative encyclical, Casti Conubii, which deals with this very topic I suggest that in order to unpack just what exactly is meant by this passage we must take into account what Casti Conubii has to say on the matter. From my reading and study of Casti Conubii I have found that the document ultimately forbids a one-sided submission where the man automatically gets last say. If you disagree with me on this, and believe that Casti Connubii does not forbid such a relationship, or, even further, that it commands such a relationship to exist I would be more than happy to discuss this with you. However if you are not interested in investigating and trying to better understand the Church’s interpretation of this then there really isn’t anything to discuss. I assume the OP is attempting to understand the Church’s position on this matter, so, to stay on topic, we should be concerned with determining just what exactly it is the Church has to say about it rather than basing our opinion solely off the Bible and ignoring the guidance the Church has given us on the matter.
J
JamesBond007
Guest
Well, I do not live in a Muslim country and that IS an extreme example! I know of the blogger you refer to and I personally don’t like the guy much either. The problem here is people are making one too many uncharitable assumptions about this headship thing. I’ve given examples in previous posts in this thread what I mean that are not extreme like deciding how the kids will be educated, house rules, etc.
Church teaching needs to be congruent with the Bible. It should not directly conflict it because otherwise we become just another philosophical gathering that people can “adjust” to suit our human pride.
No where was I indicating a one-sided submission. I know very well husbands are commanded to die for their wives as Christ did. I however accept that and don’t trying to reinterpret scripture because that sounds “extreme,” “unpleasant,” or “unpalatable.” I also don’t expect my wife to jump in front of me to take a bullet for me. I wouldn’t hold it against her if she hid behind me in such a situation. Done deal. There are plenty examples of women out there that should make men think twice about whose “giving their life” yet I don’t see men up in arms over it. Yes, I’m sure some men took advantage of their role and the anger I see here ironically validates what happens when an important role goes unfulfilled by the one who is supposed to fulfill it.
There is not difference between a priest and a man. We are made of the same stuff. Why then does a man get the priesthood but not a woman? What is it that men “have access to” but women don’t? Don’t get me wrong, I support the all-male priesthood but these “equality” arguments are silly when we have such an arrangement as an all-male priesthood. Saying “it doesn’t matter” is a cop out and exactly the reason people look at the Catholic faith like a string of contradictions.I know this wasn’t directed at me, but to be perfectly honest, I don’t see how the priesthood has anything to do with the question of the roles between men and women within marriage. Yes, certain men who are called to the priesthood are given a special role of servitude that is denied to all other people (both men and women). Yes, women are not called to this service. That does not necessarily translate into other roles and situations the way you are implying.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Oh, trust me, I am all for making sure our understanding is in accordance with the Bible, and Casti Connubii very explicitly talks about women submitting to husbands. I was suggesting that if we are going to talk about the importance of submission because its in the Bible it is probably a good idea to make sure that our understanding of submission is the same as that of the Church’s. Which is why I brought up Casti Connubii as an excellent starting place. It is an official Church document that cannot be rejected which not only makes clear that submission is not to be one-sided, that women are not to be viewed as less than men, or less rational or capable of judgement than men, that the submmission of wives to husbands will vary, both in manner and extent depending on the people, place, and time in which they live, but also makes it very clear that this passage from the bible is important and that submission is a very important aspect of marriage which it is important to understand. It seems to me like the perfect place to start any discussion on this topic.
I hope you don’t mind me asking, but do you believe that the husband always has last say? Because if so it is my understanding that you are misunderstanding the Church’s idea of submission in marriage. If this is not what you mean, I would appreciate if you could clarify further just what exactly it is you mean by a wifes submission.
There is, however a very great difference between men that are priests and men that are not. It is not all men that are called to be priests, and those who are not called to the priesthood are not allowed to become priests. You can’t logically assume that just because some men are given a special role all men have authority over all women in all things. It makes even less sense to argue that because they have been given a special role men therefore, based solely on that fact, have certain authority over certain people in certain relationships. I am not making an argument of equality, I am rather questioning the legitimacy of your present use of the male priesthood to argue for a wives submission in marriage. We have plenty of other much more useful arguments for the submission of women, starting from the Bible and then continuing on through Church teaching, I think it would be better if you focused on those and dropped this unsatisfactory argument through the priesthood, it leaves too many loose ends to really be helpful.
S
severus68
Guest
T
thewanderer
Guest
Ok, seeing as you have posted this article to support your position I am now reasonably certain that your understanding of submission is, in fact, contrary to what the Church teaches about the matter. As I suggested, I will turn to Casti Connubii, the official Church teaching on this matter which was written long before the feminist movement or any movement within the Church to water down the idea of submission. You need have no fear that it presents the submission of wives to their husbands precisely as the Church holds it to exist. Meaning, if you contradict or refuse to accept everything in Casti Connubii you are contradicting and rejecting the official Church teaching on the matter.
Now, to Casti Conubii itself.
Here is a link to the encyclical as a whole for anyone interested vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
In order to argue against the position that women are to give men the last say in everything I will point out two very interesting statements in Casti Connubii
To sum it up, the Church makes it very clear that, unlike what is normally spouted about, that wives must submit to their husbands in anything but sin, we are told that wives have no duty to submit to their husband if their husbands request is not in harmony with right reason. The Church also makes it clear that, whatever you make of this submission thing, if your understanding of it assumes that women are less capable of reasoning, judging, and making good decisions you are wrong and your understanding of submission is wrong.
Now, lets look at those difficult cases, where husband and wife disagree, where each believes the other is reasoning incorrectly and that they themselves are the ones with right reason. Now, from Casti Conubii we have a very clear statement that wives do not have any sort of obligation to submit to their husband unless their husbands request is in line with right reason. So, the only way you could possibly make a universal statement that all wives must submit to their husbands decisions even when they disagree with them is by claiming that the husband’s will is always in line with right reason whereas the wifes will is always incorrect. However, it is impossible to hold this second position without contradicting the second point from Casti Conubii, namely, women are not to be looked on as inferior in their ability to reason and judge. In other words, it is impossible to hold to the idea that wives must always submit to their husbands, even when they disagree (sin excluded of course) without contradicting at least one of the two statements Casti Connubii makes about the correct way to understand submission. And so, it is impossible to hold that wives must always submit to their husband, even when they disagree (again except in cases of sin) without contradicting the official Church teaching on the submission of wives to husbands in marriage.
While I understand that this leaves us with a large question still, namely, just what exactly is “submission” then if it isn’t wives submitting in all things except sin even when they disagree with their husband? It is still a very important thing to recognize. No matter what it is that Submission in marriage actually is as taught by the Church, we know for certain that it is not wives always doing what their husbands want. We also know that there exists a very real and important duty for wives to submit to their husbands, at least in certain occasions, afterall, that is a part of Church teaching as well. What remains is to understand exactly what this duty is and when it does, and doesn’t, apply.
J
JamesBond007
Guest
I was referring to the comments by 2 Popes, not the author of the site! Are you saying the Popes are wrong? So the Bible is wrong and 2 Popes are wrong but your interpretation of the CCC is right?
You still did not explain why men are called to the priesthood and not women. The answer shouldn’t require an essay of “much speaking.” God clearly has a reason if we believe the Church’s teaching on this to be true.
As far as the submission thing goes, I already clarified that. Reread my posts. I sense a lot of word twisting and assumptions going on here.
T
thewanderer
Guest
That is good to know, your post was not really clear on that.I was referring to the comments by 2 Popes, not the author of the site! Are you saying the Popes are wrong? So the Bible is wrong and 2 Popes are wrong but your interpretation of the CCC is right?
The reason I haven’t explained why men are called to the priesthood rather than women is because it is honestly irrelevant to the point I made. If you think I was wrong and your argument is good, logical, and solid for what you were trying to prove feel free to actually adress the point I made, I will be more than will to continue the discussion.
I’m sorry for mistakenly assuming you supported the entire article you linked to. I am honestly not trying to twist your words, or paint you out as being a terrible person, or anything like that, and I’m sorry if I’ve come across that way. I am genuinely interested in a discussion on this topic, with you and with with anybody else who is interested, and not just out to try and beat people into accepting my view of things. As for re-reading your posts to gain a clear understanding of what your view of submission is… I’ve tried understanding and I have not been able to. Yes, I jumped the gun by assuming you agreed with the article, but you also were really not very clear about the fact that you were only promoting the words of the popes rather than those of the article in question. I would greatly appreciate it if you would clarify just what exactly your view of submission is in marriage. Do you agree or disagree with my interpretation of Casti Connubii? If you disagree, what do you think I am missing that changes things? If you agree, do you have any further thoughts on what submission actually is? (rather than my points about what it is not)
G
gam197
Guest
Not only did he give authority to priests, it seems God made women to be childbearers and why would God do that if he didn’t think women had something to add such as the ability to nurture.I was referring to the comments by 2 Popes, not the author of the site! Are you saying the Popes are wrong? So the Bible is wrong and 2 Popes are wrong but your interpretation of the CCC is right?
You still did not explain why men are called to the priesthood and not women. The answer shouldn’t require an essay of “much speaking.” God clearly has a reason if we believe the Church’s teaching on this to be true.
As far as the submission thing goes, I already clarified that. Reread my posts. I sense a lot of word twisting and assumptions going on here.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Hi gam197
I’ve noticed you have been another big advocate on this thread for the importance of the submission of women in marriage. Since this thread was created to ask not whether or not submission/headship exists in marriage but what such a submission/headship relationship would actually mean, would you mind expanding on what you believe this relationship to actually look like? I would also appreciate it if you would add your thoughts on my interpretation of Casti Connubii that I have posted above in post #211. Thanks
G
gam197
Guest
I think I have kind of posted it. I’ve always thought of it as more a tie-breaker.Hi gam197
I’ve noticed you have been another big advocate on this thread for the importance of the submission of women in marriage. Since this thread was created to ask not whether or not submission/headship exists in marriage but what such a submission/headship relationship would actually mean, would you mind expanding on what you believe this relationship to actually look like? I would also appreciate it if you would add your thoughts on my interpretation of Casti Connubii that I have posted above in post #211. Thanks
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.
- Status