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

[Walking_Home]

I know that I said I would not comment again, for this is indeed frustrating to me.

I only wanted to chime in once more to let you know that I am a man, so there are indeed Catholic men out there who do not view marriage as a “ruler/subject” relationship.

Now that’s it, I hope I’m gone for real this time.

---

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1409783552/hC52CE1CA/
yall are so vicious.

 

[thewanderer]

You can’t make an absolute statement like that and have it hold true. Even with the heartwarming little tidbit I posted about how my father taught me bible stories, he died. Years ago, before we ever even considered Catholicism. I’m here because of a combination of you guys and my mother. She’s the one who investigated the church and brought me to mass.

I mean, every source I’ve seen, even the ones that affirmed the idea of “spiritual headship”, said that the roles were not absolute. There are exceptions, such as if one parent is unable to perform a certain task. Or if they’re dead.

If the roles are absolute, then how do wanderer and I exist?

I think you may be right. I’ve seen the phrase so often in both Protestant and Catholic circles that I just kind of assumed it was stated in the Bible, but if all we have to go on is that one chapter in Ephesians, it’s definitely not as clear-cut as people have been making it. I’m seriously considering the possibility that “spiritual headship” isn’t taught by the Church at all, at least not in the form many people have claimed. I read your post on the other thread about Casti Conubi, and while it clearly outlined a responsibility, it didn’t say anything about subservience or fathers being the primary faith teachers. It sounded like wives submitting to their husbands was something that was primarily for emergencies, and only if it was for the sake of not ripping the family apart. Not because the husband is necessarily in the right, but because it’s important for families not to be ripped apart.

It’s so completely unlike what I still hear in Protestant circles. It makes so much more sense.

:yup: I mean, if anybody could manage to produce even one scrap of evidence that ephesians is meant to be interpreted as men being the spiritual head of the household I would very carefully reconsider, but I’ve read up on this and listened to this debate and thought about this a fair amount and so far my overall impression is that since there is this troubling passage in the bible about submission people wanted to find a more palatable way of explaining it than the whole one-sided submission explanation you see around, but when you read Casti Connubi, the encyclical that deals with the marriage relationship, and, in particular, the importance of this passage from ephesians, it doesn’t sound like its talking about spiritual headship at all, but rather about the importance of giving up your own will and ego when the good of your family and marriage demands it.

I’m seeing pretty much all the men argue for female submission, other than Veritas (who already left the discussion). Mostly these threads convince me that I should never get married, because apparently getting married means that tons of people will think your husband should rule over you.

Even the threads in which men complain about their wives convince me of that, because I couldn’t stand to fail someone like that. It would drive me crazy.

Don’t be discouraged! There really are great and wonderful faithful Catholic men out there who understand the true meaning of Casti Connubi rather than the false one-sided submission interpretation. I know there are because I married one

 

[severus68]

:yup: I mean, if anybody could manage to produce even one scrap of evidence that ephesians is meant to be interpreted as men being the spiritual head of the household I would very carefully reconsider, but I’ve read up on this and listened to this debate and thought about this a fair amount and so far my overall impression is that since there is this troubling passage in the bible about submission people wanted to find a more palatable way of explaining it than the whole one-sided submission explanation you see around, but when you read Casti Connubi, the encyclical that deals with the marriage relationship, and, in particular, the importance of this passage from ephesians, it doesn’t sound like its talking about spiritual headship at all, but rather about the importance of giving up your own will and ego when the good of your family and marriage demands it.

Don’t be discouraged! There really are great and wonderful faithful Catholic men out there who understand the true meaning of Casti Connubi rather than the false one-sided submission interpretation. I know there are because I married one

You have been making some well thought out posts, thank you.

On your second para, the men in my family do not ponder about this issue at all. Marriage is about love, honour and respect and that is how we live it - we are not perfect of course as we are human.

 

[thewanderer]

HoosierDaddy, you keep asserting that the Church teaches that men are the spiritual leaders of the household… do you have any church documents to back up this claim? I have looked into this topic at length and have still failed to find anything authoritative which promotes this idea. Instead, we have Casti Connubi which speaks about the submission of wives to their husbands as being for the sake of unity of the family, as necessary for the unity of the family, without implying the woman’s reasoning or judgement to be inferior, but no mention of this submission existing with respect to the faith or spiritual matters.

 

[thewanderer]

You have been making some well thought out posts, thank you.

Thanks, It is a topic I have put a lot of thought into (especially before marrying my husband) and am finally starting to have more certain opinions about. The most eye-opening thing for me was actually reading Casti Connubi itself carefully. When I realized that Casti Conubi actually makes it clear that the idea of one-sided submission in marriage is not the Catholic vision for marriage it really took me by surprise. Sure, the language of submission and obedience in that document is much stronger than almost anybody today is comfortable with (precisely because such language automatically makes one think of one-sided submission), but when you actually take the whole of the document into account and carefully consider everything it says it becomes clear that the Church has never promoted one-sided submission. Unfortunately, all too many people, both inside and outside the Church, have done so.

On your second para, the men in my family do not ponder about this issue at all. **Marriage is about love, honour and respect **and that is how we live it - we are not perfect of course as we are human.

Yes, this. and not just any kind of love, as Casti Conubi puts it

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.
…
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.

Beautiful.

 

[gam197]

originally posted by serverus
On your second para, the men in my family do not ponder about this issue at all. Marriage is about love, honour and respect and that is how we live it - we are not perfect of course as we are human.

Maybe women ponder things more but many men certainly write about relationships( at least in songs).

youtube.com/watch?v=yfPLh_6ckzI

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

HoosierDaddy, you keep asserting that the Church teaches that men are the spiritual leaders of the household… do you have any church documents to back up this claim? I have looked into this topic at length and have still failed to find anything authoritative which promotes this idea. Instead, we have Casti Connubi which speaks about the submission of wives to their husbands as being for the sake of unity of the family, as necessary for the unity of the family, without implying the woman’s reasoning or judgement to be inferior, but no mention of this submission existing with respect to the faith or spiritual matters.

No way. nope. I have made logical posts. They have been twisted.

I am satisfied with the posts I have made.

It is best to just let this die. I surrender. I shall fight no more forever.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

HoosierDaddy, you keep asserting that the Church teaches that men are the spiritual leaders of the household… do you have any church documents to back up this claim? I have looked into this topic at length and have still failed to find anything authoritative which promotes this idea. Instead, we have Casti Connubi which speaks about the submission of wives to their husbands as being for the sake of unity of the family, as necessary for the unity of the family, without implying the woman’s reasoning or judgement to be inferior, but no mention of this submission existing with respect to the faith or spiritual matters.

I would agree with you. And you are correct about Church documents but if you read the early Fathers, there is many many a time that they explicitly discuss this. Augustine, John Chrysostom, Aquinas, Ignatius Origen, Tertullian. Especially Augustine. Should this be dismissed? A relic of a more archaic less enlightened time? Or should these writings and suggestions guide us on how to understand our Holy vocation in marriage?

Augustine alone,
Remember his household growing up?

“For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man.” Augustine, Against the Manichaeans 2, 12, 16 (A.D. 391).

“For the name of Christ is on the lips of every man: it is invoked by the just man in doing justice, by the perjurer in the act of deceiving, by the king to confirm his rule, by the soldier to nerve himself for battle, by the husband to establish his authority, by the wife to confess her submission, by the father to enforce his command, by the son to declare his obedience, by the master in supporting his right to govern, by the slave in performing his duty…” Augustine, Letters, CCXXXII (A.D. 410).

“Nor can it be doubted that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man’ [1 Cor 11:3]; and ‘Wives submit yourselves to your own husbands.’” Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence 1, 9, 10, NPNF1 5:267 (A.D. 419-420).

“Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man;’ and, ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.’ So also the Apostle Peter writes: ‘Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.’” Augustine, On Marriage and Concupiscence, Bk 1, Ch 10 (A.D. 419-420).

But my favorite is John Chrysostom.
A sample:
“

Then after saying, ‘The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is of the Church,’ he further adds, ‘and He is the Saviour of the body.’ For indeed the head is the saving health of the body. He had already laid down beforehand for man and wife, the ground and provision of their love, assigning to each their proper place, to the one that of authority and forethought, to the other that of submission. As then ‘the Church,’ that is, both husbands and wives, ‘is subject unto Christ, so also ye wives submit yourselves to your husbands, as unto God.’ For she is the body, not to dictate to the head, but to submit herself and obey.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians 5:22 (A.D. 404).

Geesh, Even I don’t believe this stuff.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

To me, this is the one that speaks the loudest as far as “Spiritual” is concerned.

“You are told, ‘You shall not commit adultery’ (Ex 20:14); that is, do not go to any other woman except your wife. But what you do is demand this duty from your wife, while declining to pay this duty to your wife. And while you ought to lead your wife in virtue — chastity is a virtue, you know — you collapse under one assault of lust. You want your wife to conquer; you yourself lie there, conquered. And while you are the head of your wife, she goes ahead of you to God, she whose head you are. Do you want your household to hang head downwards? ‘The husband is the head of the wife’ (Eph 5:23); but where the wife leads a better life than the husband, the household hangs head downwards.”
(Sermon 9, 3)

Now, Augustine is obviously posting directly to this thread.

I don’t know if I agree with it even, but it is there. And respect should be given to a man who shaped our faith, and has by far a more complete and Holy understanding of it than you or I ever will.

I don’t know. I just don’t know.

 

[thewanderer]

I would agree with you. And you are correct about Church documents but if you read the early Fathers, there is many many a time that they explicitly discuss this. Augustine, John Chrysostom, Aquinas, Ignatius Origen, Tertullian. Especially Augustine. Should this be dismissed? A relic of a more archaic less enlightened time? Or should these writings and suggestions guide us on how to understand our Holy vocation in marriage?

Augustine alone,
Remember his household growing up?

But my favorite is John Chrysostom.
A sample:
“

Geesh, Even I don’t believe this stuff.

My question was not about documentation for the man being the head of the household, but for that to mean that his headship is nonexistent in any matters but spiritual but fully in force for spiritual matters. The question of what it means to say the man is the head is a separate question, that the Church has taught so is indisputable. My question at present is simply about the claim that this headship is with respect to a “spiritual” headship. Everything I have read, including your quotes here from Church fathers as well as Casti Connubi etc lead me to believe otherwise and that this notion of a spiritual head is simply made up in modern days to make the idea of headship more palatable but does not actually have any real basis in Church teaching. To clarify what I am talking about, I am talking about the idea that men have authority over their wives in matters of the faith but in nothing else, not the idea that men have authority over their wives in all things including matters of the faith. Does that make my question more clear?

 

[Walking_Home]

I would agree with you. And you are correct about Church documents but if you read the early Fathers, there is many many a time that they explicitly discuss this. Augustine, John Chrysostom, Aquinas, Ignatius Origen, Tertullian. Especially Augustine. Should this be dismissed? A relic of a more archaic less enlightened time? Or should these writings and suggestions guide us on how to understand our Holy vocation in marriage?

Augustine alone,
Remember his household growing up?

But my favorite is John Chrysostom.
A sample:
“

Geesh, Even I don’t believe this stuff.

---

Appealing to writings from a different from a time/culture – when women were no more than property/not fit to be educated/ thought of as children “with benefits” — and trying to apply that today – says how desperate some people can get to cling to control/power.

The Catholic Church – is the only one entrusted to give us our teachings – and She has already spoken – the mutual submission of husband and wife.

 

[Walking_Home]

BENEDICTUS PP. XVI

INTRODUCTION

1. On 11 October 1992, Pope John Paul II presented the Catechism of the Catholic Church to the faithful of the whole world, describing it as a “reference text”[1] for a catechesis renewed at the living sources of the faith. Thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the desire for a catechism of all Catholic doctrine on faith and morals, which had been voiced in 1985 by the extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, came to fulfilment.

Five years later, on 15 August 1997, the Pope promulgated the editio typica of the Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae** and confirmed its fundamental purpose “as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine**, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives and prays in her daily life”.[2]

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

---

Appealing to writings from a different from a time/culture – when women were no more than property/not fit to be educated/ thought of as children “with benefits” — and trying to apply that today – says how desperate some people can get to cling to control/power.

The Catholic Church – is the only one entrusted to give us our teachings – and She has already spoken – the mutual submission of husband and wife.

I figured as much.

when women were no more than property/not fit to be educated/ thought of as children “with benefits” –

How do you know this was the case?

Appealing to writings from a different from a time/culture -

Is something we do with not only the fathers, and doctors of the CHurch but with the Bible as well. I guess we can just discard and ignore anything that does not fit our own personal theology.

Actually that is what the enemies of the CHurch do all the time. With marriage, ABC, homosexuality, etc…

What do those old dead men know anyway. We need to modernize!

All of this idea that women were uneducated less than human people flies in the face of great women in salvation history.

How about Mary?
Augustine on Mary.

Mary, a disciple of Christ

"But look here, my brothers and sisters, concentrate more, I beg you, on what follows, concentrate more on what Christ the Lord said as he stretched out his hand over his disciples: This is my mother and these are my brothers; and whoever does the will of my Father who sent me, that person is a brother to me and a sister and a mother (Mt 12:49-50). Didn’t the Virgin Mary do the will of the Father? I mean, she believed by faith, she conceived by faith, she was chosen to be the one from whom salvation in the very midst of the human race would be born for us, she was created by Christ before Christ was created in her. Yes, of course, holy Mary did the will of the Father. And therefore it means more for Mary to have been a disciple of Christ than to have been the mother of Christ. It means more for her, an altogether greater blessing, to have been Christ’s disciple than to have been Christ’s mother. That is why Mary was blessed, because even before she gave him birth, she bore her teacher in her womb.

Just see if it isn’t as I say. While the Lord was passing by, performing divine miracles, with the crowds following him, a woman said: Fortunate is the womb that bore you. And how did the Lord answer, to show that good fortune is not really to be sought in mere family ties? Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keepit (Lk 11:27-28). So that is why Mary, too, is blessed, because she heard the word of God and kept it. She kept truth safe in her mind even better than she kept flesh safe in her womb. Christ is truth, Christ is flesh; Christ as truth was in Mary’s mind, Christ as flesh in Mary’s womb; that which is in the mind is greater than what is carried in the womb.

Mary is holy, Mary is blessed, but the Church is something better than the Virgin Mary. Why? Because Mary is part of the Church, a holy member, a quite exceptional member, the supremely wonderful member, but still a member of the whole body. That being so, it follows that the body is something greater than the member. The Lord is the head, and the whole Christ is head and body. How shall I put it? We have a divine head, we have God as our head."

St. Augustine, Sermon 72/A, 7

Should I dismiss this as a male chauvinist ignorant of women? Just some dude from a different time and culture?
Or does this agree with your theology enough to be valuable. I Pulled it from the vatican web site.
Ignatius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas, Origen, Tertullian,
To dismiss them as

and trying to apply that today – says how desperate some people can get to cling to control/power.

To me that is advocating we all are unfit to be educated, and remain children with benefits.

But what do they know? They did not have strong women back then.

How about scripture? Same thing? Is scripture unable to speak to the future more enlightened woman?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My question was not about documentation for the man being the head of the household, but for that to mean that his headship is nonexistent in any matters but spiritual but fully in force for spiritual matters. The question of what it means to say the man is the head is a separate question, that the Church has taught so is indisputable. My question at present is simply about the claim that this headship is with respect to a “spiritual” headship. Everything I have read, including your quotes here from Church fathers as well as Casti Connubi etc lead me to believe otherwise and that this notion of a spiritual head is simply made up in modern days to make the idea of headship more palatable but does not actually have any real basis in Church teaching. To clarify what I am talking about, I am talking about the idea that men have authority over their wives in matters of the faith but in nothing else, not the idea that men have authority over their wives in all things including matters of the faith. Does that make my question more clear?

Yes. I misunderstood. You are correct. I do not think there would be something that would Just talk of faith and nothing else.

 

[Walking_Home]

I figured as much.

How do you know this was the case?

Is something we do with not only the fathers, and doctors of the CHurch but with the Bible as well. I guess we can just discard and ignore anything that does not fit our own personal theology.

Actually that is what the enemies of the CHurch do all the time. With marriage, ABC, homosexuality, etc…

What do those old dead men know anyway. We need to modernize!

All of this idea that women were uneducated less than human people flies in the face of great women in salvation history.

How about Mary?
Augustine on Mary.

Should I dismiss this as a male chauvinist ignorant of women? Just some dude from a different time and culture?
Or does this agree with your theology enough to be valuable. I Pulled it from the vatican web site.
Ignatius, Chrysostom, Augustine, Aquinas, Origen, Tertullian,
To dismiss them as

To me that is advocating we all are unfit to be educated, and remain children with benefits.

But what do they know? They did not have strong women back then.

How about scripture? Same thing? Is scripture unable to speak to the future more enlightened woman?

---

Not everything spoken of in the past – yes even by Saints etc. – has been incorporated and brought forth as Catholic teaching. There is a past Saint who viewed breast feeding a baby – as if it was something dirty/evil/to be hidden/an offense to the angels – that said – it was better to let an infant cry of hunger – than feed the child in the presence of others. Even though “spoken” by a Saint – the Catholic Church is most certainly against this.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

---

Not everything spoken of in the past – yes even by Saints etc. – has been incorporated and brought forth as Catholic teaching. There is a past Saint who viewed breast feeding a baby – as if it was something dirty/evil/to be hidden/an offense to the angels – that said – it was better to let an infant cry of hunger – than feed the child in the presence of others. Even though “spoken” by a Saint – the Catholic Church is most certainly against this.

Ok.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Mary, a disciple of Christ

"But look here, my brothers and sisters, concentrate more, I beg you, on what follows, concentrate more on what Christ the Lord said as he stretched out his hand over his disciples: This is my mother and these are my brothers; and whoever does the will of my Father who sent me, that person is a brother to me and a sister and a mother (Mt 12:49-50). Didn’t the Virgin Mary do the will of the Father? I mean, she believed by faith, she conceived by faith, she was chosen to be the one from whom salvation in the very midst of the human race would be born for us, she was created by Christ before Christ was created in her. Yes, of course, holy Mary did the will of the Father. And therefore it means more for Mary to have been a disciple of Christ than to have been the mother of Christ. It means more for her, an altogether greater blessing, to have been Christ’s disciple than to have been Christ’s mother. That is why Mary was blessed, because even before she gave him birth, she bore her teacher in her womb.

Just see if it isn’t as I say. While the Lord was passing by, performing divine miracles, with the crowds following him, a woman said: Fortunate is the womb that bore you. And how did the Lord answer, to show that good fortune is not really to be sought in mere family ties? Rather blessed are those who hear the word of God and keepit (Lk 11:27-28). So that is why Mary, too, is blessed, because she heard the word of God and kept it. She kept truth safe in her mind even better than she kept flesh safe in her womb. Christ is truth, Christ is flesh; Christ as truth was in Mary’s mind, Christ as flesh in Mary’s womb; that which is in the mind is greater than what is carried in the womb.

Mary is holy, Mary is blessed, but the Church is something better than the Virgin Mary. Why? Because Mary is part of the Church, a holy member, a quite exceptional member, the supremely wonderful member, but still a member of the whole body. That being so, it follows that the body is something greater than the member. The Lord is the head, and the whole Christ is head and body. How shall I put it? We have a divine head, we have God as our head."

St. Augustine, Sermon 72/A, 7

Mary is part of the Church Triumphant, as are all those in heaven.

The Church, the Mystical Body, exists on this earth, and is called the Church militant, because its members struggle against the world, the flesh and the devil. The Church suffering means the souls in Purgatory. The Church triumphant is the Church in heaven. The unity and cooperation of the members of the Church on earth, in Purgatory, in Heaven is also called the Communion of Saints. When St. Paul uses the word “Saints” in opening an Epistle, he does not mean they are morally perfect. He has in mind Hebrew qadosh, which means set aside for God, or coming under the covenant. Being such means of course they are called to moral perfection. But of course, not all have reached it in this world.

St. Augustine is showing that although Mary followed the will of the Lord perfectly, she is still part of the Church - The Church Triumphant.

Mary does the will of the Lord, perfectly.

We all should strive to follow God’s word perfectly.

But, I don’t think this passage from Augustine demonstrates anything more than although Mary followed the will of the Lord, she is still part of the Church.

It seems that the understanding of Church is not clear to the PP. Church in this sense doesn’t mean the Pope and magisterium. How could Mary “submit” to the Church Militant? She’s the Queen of the Angels, and Queen of Heaven.

She fulfills God’s will perfectly. When she was asked by the Angel Gabriel to be the Mother of the Lord, she said, “Be it done to me according to thy word”

She didn’t say, “I’ll get back to you, let me see what Joseph says, or let me see with Joachim says.”

 

[JamesBond007]

---

The above “claim” was made. The one side view that “attributes” helper to women only. “Commanded” – to be a support system for man.

I’ve also come across in some places-- dominion and stewardship over the earth was given to man only.

Both the above —are fundamentalist protestant 101.

Below is Catholicism.

Man and woman were made for each other. Each to be the helpmate to the other. Man the helpmate/helper to the woman – the woman helpmate/helper to the man.

God gave dominion/stewardship over the earth --to both man and woman. Not to man only.

CCC

And here is HOW a woman serves as a helpmeet to man…by respecting his role as “spiritual head.” Men are a helpmeet to woman by “loving them as Christ loved the Church.”

Explain to me why the Catholic Church reserves Holy Orders for men and not for women if the documents you quote mean what you think they mean. I mean clearly if men have a role that ONLY we can do then something must be different about us for this to be so. Both you and severus dodged this question I asked earlier.

I suspect a great number of women (and men) with hard feelings about the positions of husband and wife in a marriage likely have had poor examples of a good husband. Letting that be a filter in interpreting the CCC, Bible, or anything else is like viewing everything through a lense of sin. I’m sorry for whatever happened to you but its time to move past it and forgive like Jesus did. Hope forgiveness is still in the CCC…

Your chronology about who God gave the Earth to is off as well. Adam came first. The CCC is supposed to be based on the Bible. If you disregard the Bible, the CCC is nothing more than another philosophical document that is only worth the paper its written on. Nothing more. If one is in conflict with the other that is a serious matter.

---

Yes – God is the only head/leader in the marriage. For a man to “claim” headship/leadership – is to unseat God.

“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” 1 Corinthians 11:3

Guess that was a typo. Someone better do a better job of sanitizing the Bible.

 

[Sarcelle]

And here is HOW a woman serves as a helpmeet to man…by respecting his role as “spiritual head.” Men are a helpmeet to woman by “loving them as Christ loved the Church.”

Explain to me why the Catholic Church reserves Holy Orders for men and not for women if the documents you quote mean what you think they mean. I mean clearly if men have a role that ONLY we can do then something must be different about us for this to be so. Both you and severus dodged this question I asked earlier.

I suspect a great number of women (and men) with hard feelings about the positions of husband and wife in a marriage likely have had poor examples of a good husband. Letting that be a filter in interpreting the CCC, Bible, or anything else is like viewing everything through a lense of sin. I’m sorry for whatever happened to you but its time to move past it and forgive like Jesus did. Hope forgiveness is still in the CCC…

Your chronology about who God gave the Earth to is off as well. Adam came first. The CCC is supposed to be based on the Bible. If you disregard the Bible, the CCC is nothing more than another philosophical document that is only worth the paper its written on. Nothing more. If one is in conflict with the other that is a serious matter.

“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” 1 Corinthians 11:3

Guess that was a typo. Someone better do a better job of sanitizing the Bible.

Okay if the head of every woman is a man, than why did the angel Gabriel ask Mary to be mother of our Lord instead of asking her male authority figures, father or husband?

As a single woman who is my head? My father is an atheist. Should I obey if he commands me to be an atheist?