Makes absolutely no sense.Not interested. We are on CAF who is in line with what the Church says.
Please watch those personal remarks.Oh please…are you trying to be obtuse? Still completely and utterly missing the point.
Children “get” their faith from their fathers. They don’t necessarily get taught the ins and outs and everything from their fathers. But their religious PRACTICE is transmitted and instilled through the father.
There ARE differences between men and women. Children learn different things from mothers than they do fathers. By “learn” I mean “get”. the essence and ability to do things in practice, not necessarily the “how”.
You are missing the point as well. I won’t respond till you actually respond to what the article says.Please watch those personal remarks.
Some fathers instill their faith in their children, not all. Some mothers are the ones who instill the faith in their children,. Ideally and as taught by the Church both parents teach the faith and practise it as examples to their children.
How do you transmit faith/religion/religious practice?
I have to disagree. Each family is different. In my personal experience - relatives, friends - the mother has been responsible for remaining Catholic.Not really. I have seen marriages between devout Catholic women and atheist men. No matter how diligently the woman tries to impart the faith to her children, the children chose atheism anyway. In fact this happened in my own family.
Yes,
When children are erroneously “groom” to see the father as the spiritual leader-- yes his involvement/non-involvement will impact the children. When children are correctly brought up to see both mother and father as equals in transmitting the Faith – the non-involvement of the father will have less impact on the children.
That’s fine. I am not going to read an article from that site. Try citing the CCC, JPII.You are missing the point as well. I won’t respond till you actually respond to what the article says.
You are right on the money.
If the children are brought up seeing the mother take the back seat compared to the father – the father will have more pull with the children – practicing or not.
Yes, lets disregard a scientific study because the CC has NEVER gotten itself into trouble for doing that before! Let’s not make false gods out of the CC or JPII because we like what they say. We do not want to be modern day legalistic Pharisees or Sadducees. Church doctrines have been changed (i.e. geocentric vs heliocentric business) to reflect new insight.That’s fine. I am not going to read an article from that site. Try citing the CCC, JPII.
You should try reading TOB. It’s there.That’s fine. I am not going to read an article from that site. Try citing the CCC, JPII.
There is no contradiction here. If instead of isolating sentencea in the scripture you would actually read the church’ s teaching and read the entire scripture you would find the answer to all the questions/ objections you are making. Your view is not what the church teaches, why don’t you try to learn the teaching of the church instead of going into a rant about but what are the others requirements. Go read the CCC and JPIIAnd what about the woman’s requirements? So a man is supposed to die for his wife while the wife can do as she pleases. Here is the problem, no one balances their genders requirements and prefer to only focus on the others. If a man is doing as Christ does then what is the wife’s requirement? What is that leadership and leading by example doing? Sounds like teaching the wife by example to me hence leading her still. Contradiction number 2.
And what happens if the woman changes her mind? Suddenly decides she doesn’t want to jeopardize her career? People’s minds change and its rarely in a more Christ-centered way.
The CCC although insightful neglects research that shows a fathers spiritual life more strongly influences regular church attendance than a mothers. That is scientific fact. Deny it if you like but I didn’t make the data (touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-01-026-f and likeateam.com/roles-dads-play-in-the-spiritual-development-of-their-children/)
Not according to the research data (touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-01-026-f).
To all:
All religion through the ages has been about 1 thing, keeping hubris in check. Mankind has a nasty problem with ego and doesn’t like to follow. That is clearly apparent even among many who claim to speak for one religion or another. It’s part of the human condition. Men have been charged to give their lives for their wives, and wives have to give something in return too. This is part of “being one flesh” and acting as one. You can’t have 2 pilots anymore than you can have a dictator running a country. We strive for the ideal even if we can’t reach it. There are plenty of women in happy marriages where the husband leads and it works. Telling them “they got it wrong” is as arrogant as it gets. That what “being one flesh” is about.
Mmmmm if this is so true then can you explain to me how st Francis and st martin De porres got the religion installed on them?Oh please…are you trying to be obtuse? Still completely and utterly missing the point.
Children “get” their faith from their fathers. They don’t necessarily get taught the ins and outs and everything from their fathers. But their religious PRACTICE is transmitted and instilled through the father.
There ARE differences between men and women. Children learn different things from mothers than they do fathers. By “learn” I mean “get”. the essence and ability to do things in practice, not necessarily the “how”.
I see. That blows that out of the water, then.
Where exactly did this idea of men being the “spiritual head” come from? Is it solely from the verses about how wives should “submit” and husbands should “love”? Is it discussed in the Catechism? I’m honestly not sure. It’s an idea I grew up with in my Protestant church, but not one my parents actually adhered to (at least, not the way my mother’s church said they should). I know that in Lutheran circles, it’s considered wrong to give a woman any chance to teach men about the faith, such that women are not allowed to teach high school boys about the Lutheran faith, while unordained men are. In fact, some churches will even require freshman boys to lead senior girls during youth group meetings, which is pretty silly.
I’m not really familiar with how the idea plays out in Catholic circles, so I’d need to know where the idea of the man as the “spiritual head” originally comes from. Are we just working with the verses in Ephesians, or are there other resources?
Is it seriously just a command to husbands to sacrifice for their families? And if so, why don’t wives have to do that?
Honestly, I’m very very skeptical of this whole “spiritual head” thing. Any time I’ve heard anyone talk about it the only thing they seem to refer to is the passage in ephesians as a way of avoiding the one-sided submission interpretation. However, as Casti Conubi clearly eliminates one-sided submission as a possibility while still upholding the content of the ephesians passage I am kind of inclined to believe that this idea of a spiritual head falls into the whole “open to life” category. A well intentioned idea/phrase, but not one actually taught by the Church. I am, of course, more than willing to be shown otherwise and would be very interested in finding something more definitive on this subject, but until then I will definitely not see it as authoritative.Oh, I found some stuff that might be useful:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=52772- this is an “ask an apologist” answer from this very site, which basically says husbands and wives should discuss things and go with whatever seems to be the best option. It also says that the roles of husband and wife are not absolutely defined in the Catechism because for the most part, they just aren’t absolute; the spouses should divide responsibilities according to who is most suited for the task. It also says that wives are not subordinate to their husbands.
jimmyakin.org/2004/04/spiritual_heads.html- This is an answer from Jimmy Akin that says basically the same thing, but with more elaboration and bullet points. Unfortunately, it affirms that men should be the “spiritual leaders” in their families, without really saying what that means.
So while I’ve ruled out several things that “spiritual headship” isn’t, I still have very little idea what it is. :ehh:
One: church doctrine never changes. Two: hrocentri has never ever in the history of the church been a church doctrine. I am sorry for saying this but you have a huge lack of knowledge about the catholic church.Yes, lets disregard a scientific study because the CC has NEVER gotten itself into trouble for doing that before! Let’s not make false gods out of the CC or JPII because we like what they say. We do not want to be modern day legalistic Pharisees or Sadducees. Church doctrines have been changed (i.e. geocentric vs heliocentric business) to reflect new insight.
Don’t know their lives, but very likely had strong uncles or other male father figure types. Single unit immediate families haven’t always been autonomous. We all have wounds and they can be healed.Mmmmm if this is so true then can you explain to me how st Francis and st martin De porres got the religion installed on them?
I didn’t have any strong male figures in my life yet I ( and all my siblings) still managed to pick up the faith from my mother (father out of the picture entirely) Yes, statistics show that the fathers faith plays a larger role in the childs faith, but I would be very curious as to whether any of those studies have adjusted for the factor of which parent had more control/took more of a lead in their lives.Don’t know their lives, but very likely had strong uncles or other male father figure types. Single unit immediate families haven’t always been autonomous. We all have wounds and they can be healed.
Incorrect…scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.htmlOne: church doctrine never changes. Two: hrocentri has never ever in the history of the church been a church doctrine. I am sorry for saying this but you have a huge lack of knowledge about the catholic church.
No one is saying they are inferior. They were just given a different responsibility that is no less important than the one given to men. No one chooses it, its assigned by God.Edit: I’ve deleted this post because what I said was not charitable. This conversation is getting under my skin. I will no longer continue any discussion here or elsewhere re: the alleged inferiority of women.
No one is saying they are inferior. They were just given a different responsibility that is no less important than the one given to men.** No one chooses it, its assigned by God**.
Edit: I’ve deleted this post because what I said was not charitable. This conversation is getting under my skin. I will no longer continue any discussion here or elsewhere re: the alleged inferiority of women.