The Duties of a Catholic Wife

[Portrait]

Portrait,

You are wrong on several issues.

First, let us consider Casti Connubii:

She is not to be ordered like a child, nor treated like a servant. Could you explain what “as a companion” means to you?

Then perhaps you should pray and reflect on JPII’s words. If you are incapable of understanding the concept of mutual subjection in leadership, then you are incapable of knowing that your leadership is competent and moral.

A husband who simply asserts his authority in such a situation, if both possibilities are moral, would be a bad husband indeed, treating his wife as a servant and not as a companion, for one cannot morally compel a companion to do anything that he or she does not wish to do.

The Church teaching does not prohibit collective decision-making. The husband and wife may find that that is the most effective way of deciding.

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well and thankyou for your response.

First, dear brother, no devout Catholic husband would ever order his wife like a child or treat her like servant, but this sounds more like a gross caricature of radical feminist polemics.

A man’s wife is his companion because she shares his life with him in all its ups and downs, through times of adversity as well as times of happiness. However, that has no bearing whatsoever on the ruler-subject relationship of which St.Paul and Leo XIII speak. The husband is the head of the wife and she, even as his companion, must render obedience to him in all that pertains to his legitimate authority. This has been the consistent teaching of the Church and has only been challenged with the emergence of radical feminism in the Sixties.

Authority, dear brother, cannot co-exist with the notion of mutual subjection and an abscence of the ruler-subject relation between the spouses. That surely is a simple matter of logic, for there cannot be a subject without a ruler. How can the Church or family have two heads? There is certainly, I would concede, a sense in which husband and wife, unlike Christ and the Church, are subject to one another and that is in the order of charity. However, the precise teaching of St. Paul in the Ephesians epistle relates to the order of authority, as Pope Leo XIII made abundantly clear. In the order of authority there cannot be “mutual subjection”, at least not without authority being destroyed. Moreover, husband and wife may very well be “one flesh” but that does not set aside the teaching of St. Paul or Holy Mother Church. H.H.JPII, is simply speaking on the different but compliementary nature of men and women in Mulieris Dignatatum.

The only reason, dear brother, why some contemporary Catholics reject the biblical and Church teaching on male headship is because they have been influenced, either wittingly or unwittingly, by the warped ideology of radical feminism, which strongly rejects the immutable principle of male headship that makes the man the ruling spouse in marriage. That is anathema to their godless tenets.

Collective decision making is pefectly acceptable within marriage, but in the event of an unresolvable conflict, the husband, as head of the wife, must have the final say.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[thewanderer]

Portrait, here is my problem with what you are saying. You are saying that the man must always get the last say because he is the head and leader in authority. You claim to base this on casti conubii and the pssage from St. Paul. However, the passage from St. Paul must always be unerstood in light of Church teaching and from my reading of casti conubii the Church is actually condemming the idea that a wife must always let her husband have the last say. I will pull up the quote when I have the time. But you see, your interpretation of St. Paula nd Casti Conubii is just that, your interpretation, and as such should not be presented as though it were binding Church teaching such that anyone who disagrees with you is some sort of modernist, radical feminist heretic. Your rhetoric whereby you attempt to discredit anyone who disagrees with you by asserting that if they dare to disagree with your personal opinion they must have just been influenced by heretical ideas in modern society is very tiresome, not to mention a low attempt to discredit someones thoughts via an ad hominum. Please stop presenting your own personal opinion as if it were dogma and please stop using ad hominums to discredit those who disagree with you.

 

[Baelor]

However, that has no bearing whatsoever on the ruler-subject relationship of which St.Paul and Leo XIII speak.

That is not the case at all:
Casti Connubii:

let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion

Her relationship as subject cannot be understand outside of her relationship as companion; the encyclical makes this very clear.

The husband is the head of the wife and she, even as his companion, must render obedience to him in all that pertains to his legitimate authority.

No one has argued this.

Authority, dear brother, cannot co-exist with the notion of mutual subjection and an abscence of the ruler-subject relation between the spouses.

Mutual subjection does not mean an absence of the ruler-subject relationship. Forgive me if I take the Church’s word over yours.

That surely is a simple matter of logic, for there cannot be a subject without a ruler. How can the Church or family have two heads?

You misunderstand the concept of mutual subjection as articulated by John Paul II. It is not a subversion of the subjection that the wife owes to the husband. They are separate.

In the order of authority there cannot be “mutual subjection”, at least not without authority being destroyed.

Portrait, please consider reading up on logical fallacies. This is a straw man argument.

Collective decision making is pefectly acceptable within marriage, but in the event of an unresolvable conflict, the husband, as head of the wife, must have the final say.

The number of cases where that would apply when both spouses are acting in accordance with Church teaching is essentially zero.

No one in this thread has actually argued about the leadership of the husband. It is rather the claim that he has the final say always and the wife must obey unless doing so would be immoral that is so problematic. Catholic teaching does not actually state this in the way you claimed it did, so you are asserting that your personal views are Catholic teaching when they are not.

More specifically, there are almost no conceivable circumstances in which a husband would morally assert his authority over an unwilling wife when her own preferences are not intrinsically immoral.

For example, the husband could not morally compel his wife to wear skirts if she prefers pants.

 

[thewanderer]

The number of cases where that would apply when both spouses are acting in accordance with Church teaching is essentially zero.

No one in this thread has actually argued about the leadership of the husband. It is rather the claim that he has the final say always and the wife must obey unless doing so would be immoral that is so problematic. Catholic teaching does not actually state this in the way you claimed it did, so you are asserting that your personal views are Catholic teaching when they are not.

More specifically, there are almost no conceivable circumstances in which a husband would morally assert his authority over an unwilling wife when her own preferences are not intrinsically immoral.

For example, the husband could not morally compel his wife to wear skirts if she prefers pants.

 

[thewanderer]

Here is the section from Casti Connubii that talks about this question.

1. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]
2. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it 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. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
3. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .

Now, there is a lot that is being said here and it is easy to take one aspect of this passage and focus solely on that aspect, however, to do so one will miss the full truth of what is being said, so this is not something we are likely to be able to investigate fully in a single thread.

A couple of things I would like to point out to anyone reading this thread so that they take them into account when trying to understand the full meaning of this text.

1. The primacy of husband/subjugation of women is an ‘order of love’. This is not some authoritarian order whereby one person is allowed to lord it over the other.
2. The subjection of the wife does not remove her liberty and freedom that she is owed in virtue of her human dignity. (ie, the same freedom and liberty which every person, male or female deserves)
3. Pope Piu XI specifically points out that what St Paul is speaking against in this passage is the " exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family" In other words, the point of this passage is to ensure that spouses realize that in all things they must put the good of their family first. there is no condemnation of normal freedom to make decisions about things of which there is no difference morally, but rather what is being condemmed is any action which a spouse takes even though it is harmful to the family because that spouse imagines that their freedom as a human person gives them the right to do whatever they want, even if it is harmful to their family.
4. Pope Pius XI also specifically notes that the degree and manner of subjection of a wife to her husband will differ from couple to couple depending on many variables, including that of the particular individuals, as well as the place and time in which they live. There is no one size fits all example of how this subjection is to be carried out.

Now, this by no means is a complete list of all the important points or points of worth made in the above passage, but it is rather just a starting point of things for those reading this document to note and think about prayerfully while trying to understand the fullness of the truth this document is expounding. I hope at least some people who read this thread will find it helpful.

 

[Ruthcloud]

CatholicAnne is right. I also don’t have to look any further than the bible. Christ is head of the church, and the husband is the head of his wife.Wtitten in such a plain and simple fashion even a kid could understand it, repeated many times in the bible.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

No one in this thread has actually argued about the leadership of the husband. It is rather the claim that he has the final say always and the wife must obey unless doing so would be immoral that is so problematic. Catholic teaching does not actually state this in the way you claimed it did, so you are asserting that your personal views are Catholic teaching when they are not.

Some people don’t know how to lead. This is as true in families as it is in the workplace. If not getting the final say makes you feel as though your leadership role is not being respected, then you are the one who has trouble with that role.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

CatholicAnne is right. I also don’t have to look any further than the bible. Christ is head of the church, and the husband is the head of his wife. Plain and simple, repeated many times in the bible.

That’s unfortunate since you say that you’re catholic. Catholics frequently do have to go further than the bible. Tradition is also a viable source of doctrine.

 

[Ruthcloud]

It is in very plain,clear and simple terms that even a Sunday school student could understand.
So, are the direct words of the Apostles not clear enough? Since we have Apostallic succession, do we undermine the foundation of which this is drawn from?..no!
Could you please give me examples of Holy scripture,church fathers or tradition that claim the words of the Apostles are false? Specifically that Christ is not the head of the church or that a husband is not head of the wife?

 

[thewanderer]

It is in very plain,clear and simple terms that even a Sunday school student could understand.
So, are the direct words of the Apostles not clear enough? Since we have Apostallic succession, do we undermine the foundation of which this is drawn from?..no!
Could you please give me examples of Holy scripture,church fathers or tradition that claim the words of the Apostles are false? That Christ is not the head of the church or that a husband is not head of the wife?

I don’t think that anyone is disputing that Christ is the head of the Church or that the husband is the head of his wife. That is pretty clear both in the Bible and Church teaching. Rather, what is being discussed/questioned is exactly what that means.

 

[murraymuzz]

The Catholic husband is the head of the home and the wife is the heart of the home, the husband is his wife’s servant as the wife is her husbands servant, no man can make a decision for his family without listening to his heart. In marriage the two become one flesh, their love for each other represents the Blessed Trinity in the way the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father and that mutual and infinite love creates new love in the form of the Holy Spirit, just as the love between a man and a woman creates new love in the form of a child.

A marriage shouldn’t be about who gets to make decisions and who has the final say, because it’s the Lord who makes decisions and gets the final say and when a couple have their hearts set towards God, they move as one flesh, and help each other to do the will of the Lord, and doing the Lords will is what gives people true happiness and true love.

 

[Ruthcloud]

Precisely what it says. It is a sensitive issue because we automatically assume a master-slave type scenario, that would be weird. .
Christ loved us so much He suffered at the cross for us.
The church loves Him so much we trust in Him and follow him.
Now just bring this example into a marriage,

 

[thewanderer]

Precisely what it says. It is a sensitive issue because we automatically assume a master-slave type scenario, that would be weird. .
Christ loved us so much He suffered at the cross for us.
The church loves Him so much we trust in Him and follow him.
Now just bring this example into a marriage,

The thing is, even for those, like me, who do not think of a master-slave type relationship, this could mean a couple of different things. It is a metaphor, and so its meaning is not as easily seen as something which has a strict definition. I am not saying a wife never has an obligation to allow her husband to make a decision, what I am saying is that in order to better understand what the Church actually means by this metaphor we need to spend time carefully, openly, and prayerfully reading what the Church actually has to say about the marital relationship. When reading Church documents there is almost always more to be gotten out of them than we think. The minute we think we actually fully understand a teaching, especially when it has to do with such a deep subject matter as human sexuality, is the minute we need to take a step back and start to look at it again and pray about it for the openness to realize that it is all too likely that our understanding is only partial. There is no easy or quick answer to a question about the deep mystery of human sexuality or the relationship between husband and wife.

 

[JackieMom]

I don’t think of it as a “master slave” issue, but more of a creepy “Promise Keepers” Bible belt Evangelical thing. Sorry, just my gut feeling about families where the husband is the “head” of his wife. The only thing my husband is the head of is taking out the trash. I’m the head of clipping the kids’ nails. Other than that, we have an egalitarian relationship and it works : ) We’ve never come to an impasse where it would have been helpful if we had a “defer to the male” clause. Sometimes I will give in, sometimes he will give in, and sometimes we table an issue and it works out on its own. Co-heads of the family works just fine.

 

[Ruthcloud]

Youi all make so much sense!
I am not married but I do kinda live with my fiance,we are chaste so please don’t jump to conclusioins.
I do realize that it is mutual submission. My FH is very patient with me during my more emotional times of the month, and I really respect him for that. I think we can all relate to that example.
Sometimes FH comes home and I can tell that he is in a mood and had a hard day, I try not to also go toe to toe with his mood and try to cheer him up, if that does not work then I give him his space, instead of getting hurt feelings and getting into a fuss.
So it is all good.
it is clear that the man is the head of the wife, I can try to re-wok it or rationalize it, but I am only fooling myself.

I also agree with the one poster who mentioned that it is hyperbole. Hyperbole was not meant to hide or obscure…it is not based on lies. Hyperbole is used to highlight the truth.

 

[Portrait]

That is not the case at all:
Her relationship as subject cannot be understand outside of her relationship as companion; the encyclical makes this very clear.

No one has argued this.

Mutual subjection does not mean an absence of the ruler-subject relationship. Forgive me if I take the Church’s word over yours.

You misunderstand the concept of mutual subjection as articulated by John Paul II. It is not a subversion of the subjection that the wife owes to the husband. They are separate.

Portrait, please consider reading up on logical fallacies. This is a straw man argument.

The number of cases where that would apply when both spouses are acting in accordance with Church teaching is essentially zero.

No one in this thread has actually argued about the leadership of the husband. It is rather the claim that he has the final say always and the wife must obey unless doing so would be immoral that is so problematic. Catholic teaching does not actually state this in the way you claimed it did, so you are asserting that your personal views are Catholic teaching when they are not.

More specifically, there are almost no conceivable circumstances in which a husband would morally assert his authority over an unwilling wife when her own preferences are not intrinsically immoral.

For example, the husband could not morally compel his wife to wear skirts if she prefers pants.

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your response.

The fact is, dear brother, that the wife being a ‘companion’ is no way problematic as regards the ruler-subject relationship within marriage, provided that companionship is properly understood. There is nothing contradictory with a wife lovingly submitting to the rule of her husband as head whilst at the same time supporting him in the variation of lifes fortunes etc. His wife is, after all, his “help meet” (Gen. 2: 18) who cohabits with him and is always at hand to comfort and console. How is mutual helpfulness in constant care and endeavour (see I Cor. 7: 33, 34) at variance with a wife being in subjection to her husband as head of the home and defering to his final word in certain matters? If obedience is to really mean anything at all then surely that must happen from time to time.

Whilst, dear brother, it is perfectly true that woman enjoy an equal status with men as regards redemption (Gal. 3: 28), St. Paul also teaches that our union in the Gospel of Christ does not obliterate the natural distinction between the sexes, which was established by the priority given to man at creation (I Tim. 2: 13). Therefore the immutabale principle of male headship, which has been the constant teaching of Holy Mother Church, makes the man the ruling spouse in the marriage relationship - an arrangement, I may add, not only established by creation but also endorsed in redemption. Hence, however modern secular society may find it unacceptable, a Catholic will understand that equality in the sphere of grace (Gal. 3: 28; I Pet. 3: 7) does not abrogate the God-given order for marriage. Thus the wife is under an obligation to obey her husband in everything which does not contravene the expressed will of God and the authoritative teaching of the Church. If it is objected that this seems jolly strong stuff, for the husband may be unreasonable, may be harsh, may be imperious etc., I would accept that this is a sad possibility in a fallen world. However, what St. Paul inculcates (about wives being subject to their husbands “in every thing” Eph. 5: 24) serves, in the vast majority of pious families, to maintain the peace of the household. A decent and God-fearing husband will not Lord it over his dear wife and I am sure that many Catholic spouses would happily testify to that.

It is impossible, dear brother, for a family to have two heads, which is where your argument ultimately leads, for the whole notion of authority is to make decisions to which others must render their obedience, whether it is the family or the state. Contrary, to what you state, there are many situations that can arise which can become the occasion of conflict and disagreement between spouses, for example issues relating to the rearing of children, what entertainments are wholesome or unwholesome and immodest style attire. Now if a husband is to govern his household and secure the respect of his wife and children, he must surely be able to exercise leadership and that will not exclude having the final word on some matters. It is this that our modern society, impacted by a constant stream of anti-Christian feminist ideology over the last fifty years, objects to so strongly. It’s warped views on the emancipation of women and male domination have led to a shameful revolt against biblical and Church teaching. Moreover, to say that a man should not have the last word within a marriage relationship effectively undercuts his authority and is a tantamount to a denial of his ruling headship, given to him by God.

Finally, wives are to submit themselves to their husbands and accept his authority not only because it is right, but because Christ is the Head of the Church - “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” (Eph. 5: 22, added emphasis mine). The teaching of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is crystal clear on the topic now under review and it is unfortunate what some men will do to circumvent that teaching and divest it of any real meaning.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[severus68]

There is so much that I feel emasculated about as a man. My wife not “keeping her mouth shut” is NOT one of them. Just putting that out there.

Lol.

 

[Portrait]

CatholicAnne is right. I also don’t have to look any further than the bible. Christ is head of the church, and the husband is the head of his wife.Wtitten in such a plain and simple fashion even a kid could understand it, repeated many times in the bible.

Dear Ruthcloud,

Cordial greetings and avery good day. Jolly well said.

The teaching, dear friend, of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is indeed perfectly clear on this matter and that is why that Ephesians passage, for example, always elicits some very angry and confused responses. Unfortunately, there are those within the Church, especially amongst the youth, who whilst not flatly repudiating the teaching as such are desperately trying to accommodate it to current secular thinking, but by so doing are actually undermining that teaching and divesting it of any real meaning. In most cases such persons are well-intentioned and are just uncomfortable with some of the obvious implications and imperatives that emerge from the “hard sayings” of Bible and Tradition. They feel that they must find a way around these so as to make them more palatable to themselves and their pagan contemporaries. Moreover, they are convinced that the way that Church teaching has been understood by previous generations is wrong, oppressive or ‘anti-women’ and their mission is to ‘revise’ it and make it more appealing to the post-Christian mindset. This is a monumental tragedy which is down largely to poor catechesis and, to some extent at least, an embracing of the the spirit of the age.

In the pagan society of St. Paul’s day, dear friend, the inferiority of women and their lawful subjugation by men was taken for granted. It was Christianity, including St. Paul’s own teaching, which challenged that ‘fact of life’ by transforming the status of women in every society that embraced the holy religion of Christ. Thus the Apostle in Ephesians bids every Christian wife so to subject herself to her own husband (not all men) and that she regard this voluntary (not enforced) submission as a part of her obedience to Christ. It is hardly surprising that for non-Christians, in a state of sin, the divine and blessed order is invariably (though not always) disturbed in two directions: wives seek to rule their husbands and rebelliously refuse loving self-subjection; husbands tryannize their wives often to the point of virtual enslavement. Needless to say, endless woe and disharmony among spouses sadly ensues, as modern day Western society evinces only too well. If only men and women would accept that Christianity restores the divine order with all its happiness, then they would surely see that all the discussion about men having the ‘last word’ is very much the language of sinful rebellion and militant feminism.

This will be my final post in this thread as I have frequently been involved in protracted discussions on this topic before and have no wish to do so again. However, I trust that my (name removed by moderator)ut into the present thread will be found helpful to contributors and viewers alike.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[Walking_Home]

I don’t think of it as a “master slave” issue, but more of a creepy “Promise Keepers” Bible belt Evangelical thing. Sorry, just my gut feeling about families where the husband is the “head” of his wife. The only thing my husband is the head of is taking out the trash. I’m the head of clipping the kids’ nails. Other than that, we have an egalitarian relationship and it works : ) We’ve never come to an impasse where it would have been helpful if we had a “defer to the male” clause.** Sometimes I will give in, sometimes he will give in, and sometimes we table an issue and it works out on its own. Co-heads** of the family works just fine.

---

 

[severus68]

I don’t think that anyone is disputing that Christ is the head of the Church or that the husband is the head of his wife. That is pretty clear both in the Bible and Church teaching. Rather, what is being discussed/questioned is exactly what that means.

Sorry, I disagree. I disagree that the Church today says that the husband has authority over/is the head of the wife. Once you say that anyway, why shouldn’t the husband have final say?