The Duties of a Catholic Wife

[severus68]

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.

Well said. Isn’t that what a marriage based on love should be? Give and take, compromise, making sacrifices out of love for your spouse and children.

 

[Rico_S]

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.

It is funny, I spent an entire week with a very nice Evangelical protestant guy. Super nice, never gets angry, never swears, wife only wears skirts and has long hair, etc… He very much lives this “man is the head of wife” type arrangement. I have spent some time with both of them together, and it is clear she defers to him on most things. They seem happy and content with this arrangement.

But, this past week I spent a good deal of time with just him, he said some things in passing that seemed very…off…fairly misogynistic. Commenting on “women blabbering” and “wearing all that bling to draw attention to themselves” (we are talking earings, jeans with stitched designs on pockets, etc…not some gross display or anything). Anyway, I know this is just one instance, but I wonder if this type of evangelical understanding of “man is head of wife” fosters this type of thing.

 

[JackieMom]

It is funny, I spent an entire week with a very nice Evangelical protestant guy. Super nice, never gets angry, never swears, wife only wears skirts and has long hair, etc… He very much lives this “man is the head of wife” type arrangement. I have spent some time with both of them together, and it is clear she defers to him on most things. They seem happy and content with this arrangement.

But, this past week I spent a good deal of time with just him, he said some things in passing that seemed very…off…fairly misogynistic. Commenting on “women blabbering” and “wearing all that bling to draw attention to themselves” (we are talking earings, jeans with stitched designs on pockets, etc…not some gross display or anything). Anyway, I know this is just one instance, but I wonder if this type of evangelical understanding of “man is head of wife” fosters this type of thing.

That’s what it reminds me of - people that take the Bible literally, and use it as ammo to justify things that are not true (i.e. the “spare the rod types” that believe that God wants them to hit their kids.). Husband as “head” couldn’t sound more Evangelical or Mormon to me. All the verbose attempts of explaining it as “dual submission” (with the husband having the final word) and the husband’s role mirroring Christ’s amount to little more than “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Why can’t two grown, intelligent adults run the ship with equal authority and decision-making power? I don’t get it. 1940 called, it wants its patriarchal norms back.

 

[severus68]

That’s what it reminds me of - people that take the Bible literally, and use it as ammo to justify things that are not true (i.e. the “spare the rod types” that believe that God wants them to hit their kids.). Husband as “head” couldn’t sound more Evangelical or Mormon to me. All the verbose attempts of explaining it as “dual submission” (with the husband having the final word) and the husband’s role mirroring Christ’s amount to little more than “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Why can’t two grown, intelligent adults run the ship with equal authority and decision-making power? I don’t get it. 1940 called, it wants its patriarchal norms back.

Yes.Notice that the CCC does not state this and it is not in theCatholic marriage vows either.

 

[Walking_Home]

JackieMom:

That’s what it reminds me of - people that take the Bible literally, and use it as ammo to justify things that are not true (i.e. the “spare the rod types” that believe that God wants them to hit their kids.). Husband as “head” couldn’t sound more Evangelical or Mormon to me. All the verbose attempts of explaining it as “dual submission” (with the husband having the final word) and the husband’s role mirroring Christ’s amount to little more than “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.” Why can’t two grown, intelligent adults run the ship with equal authority and decision-making power? I don’t get it. 1940 called, it wants its patriarchal norms back.

Yes.Notice that the CCC does not state this and it is not in theCatholic marriage vows either.

---

Exactly.

 

[thewanderer]

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?

Read Casti Connubii, it is a papal encyclical.

Look, the problem here is that people read this, assume it means that the husband is supposed to have final say over everything and then either accept or reject the teaching based on that even though that is not what it actually says. Trust me on this one, I am not the kind of meek woman who has no opinions of her own, I can be very opinionated and I am not afraid to let it show. Despite that, I don’t have any problem with Casti Conubii’s teachings. Women are specifically given the right to use their own reason to determine whether or not they are obliged to obey their husband in a particular matter.

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;

I find it pretty funny when people start thinking I have some unhealthy view of marriage where the woman almost becoms a slave to the husband by losing her right to make her own decisions. That is not at all what is meant by the head/heart distinction. Yeah, I get it, its easy to read that and assume that thats what it means, but it really isn’t. If my husband decided to do something which was a stupid decision or else bad for the family in anyway then I would absolutely stand up and tell him so, I would not just let him have final say and suffer through the consequences of his bad decisions and it is precisely from Casti Conubii that I see an explicit permission from the Church for me to do so. I know a lot of people hear the words head/heart and assume all sorts of things about it which make them reject those phrases, even if they way they live their marriage is actually in accord with such a relationship. It sounds as though the head/heart relationship just doesn’t mean what you think it does. Think about it, pray about it, read about it, open your mind up to the possibility that there is some other meaning to this relationship than simply command/obey. You might just be surprized.

 

[Ruthcloud]

One poster stated people read the bible literally and use it to state things that are not true. While this is true on some cases, it falls flat in this instance. There is a big difference between the direct words of St Paul.
For example the bible states that we are to erect parapet walls on our roofs. If I was to construct a sloped roof with a parapet wall (railing)…that would be taking the bible literally. It was written for the construction of a house where people assemble on a roof top…this is conditional.
The words of Paul were not conditional or limited to a specific epic of time.
Words only take on the meaning in relation to sentences, and sentences in relation to paragraphs. The problem with denying the husband as being the head of the wife is the same problem as the example given of the nice husband and wife who only wear dresses and so forth…both ignore the text as a whole.
Paul also states in the same context that we are to subject ourselves to one and another, and does affirm that we are equal to each oither…this usually takes a backseat in the interpretation.
Yet paul does clearly state that we wives in the end are subject to our husbands, and states that this example can lead a non-believing husband to convert…this is a very powerfull statement. So how much more will it bless a believing husband by not fighting or arguing with him? It does not state doormat. It states leadership.
Paul also states that we are to be subject to the government…was this culturally based or limited to small window of time?
2 timothy is very sad since Paul knows that he is going to be killed for his faith, he did not write timothy to instigate a riot or rebellion to save him or others, he subjected himself to the state, and accepted what was going to happen to him. He chose to build up Timothy and the church in another example of selfless love and submission.
Actually read 2 timothy verse 3 it kinda fits to todays rationality.
The rationality I am reading on here is also used to make an excuse not to get married. If we are to use a married couple that perverts the words of Paul in the headship of the husband like the one previous example to undermine Pauls words, then why can’t I use the divorce statistics, or a dysfunctional marriage to justify living with my boyfriend? It is not the '40’s you know. How about using examples of bratty kids,miscarriage,disabled babies or teenage suicides to never have children.this really is an argument from a view of weakness, not strength.

 

[JackieMom]

Read Casti Connubii, it is a papal encyclical.

Look, the problem here is that people read this, assume it means that the husband is supposed to have final say over everything and then either accept or reject the teaching based on that even though that is not what it actually says. Trust me on this one, I am not the kind of meek woman who has no opinions of her own, I can be very opinionated and I am not afraid to let it show. Despite that, I don’t have any problem with Casti Conubii’s teachings. Women are specifically given the right to use their own reason to determine whether or not they are obliged to obey their husband in a particular matter.

I find it pretty funny when people start thinking I have some unhealthy view of marriage where the woman almost becoms a slave to the husband by losing her right to make her own decisions. That is not at all what is meant by the head/heart distinction. Yeah, I get it, its easy to read that and assume that thats what it means, but it really isn’t. If my husband decided to do something which was a stupid decision or else bad for the family in anyway then I would absolutely stand up and tell him so, I would not just let him have final say and suffer through the consequences of his bad decisions and it is precisely from Casti Conubii that I see an explicit permission from the Church for me to do so. I know a lot of people hear the words head/heart and assume all sorts of things about it which make them reject those phrases, even if they way they live their marriage is actually in accord with such a relationship. It sounds as though the head/heart relationship just doesn’t mean what you think it does. Think about it, pray about it, read about it, open your mind up to the possibility that there is some other meaning to this relationship than simply command/obey. You might just be surprized.

I’m curious, then. If the relationship is not what many people think it is - what is it? You say you have opinions and hold weight in the marriage. How is the different from an egalitarian marriage? How is day to day life different? I’m wondering if you can give an example. Maybe it’s just semantics? Surely every marriage has role breakdowns - I make more decisions on the kids education, husband makes more decisions about car maintenance. How is your marriage different than a typical one where both parents have equal say?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Paul also states in the same context that we are to subject ourselves to one and another, and does affirm that we are equal to each oither…this usually takes a backseat in the interpretation.

Why?

Paul also states that we are to be subject to the government…was this culturally based or limited to small window of time?

Perhaps.

If we are to use a married couple that perverts the words of Paul in the headship of the husband like the one previous example to undermine Pauls words,

They did not cover any of this in my precana program. Has anyone else’s precana experience covered this?
RicoS:

But, this past week I spent a good deal of time with just him, he said some things in passing that seemed very…off…fairly misogynistic. Commenting on “women blabbering” and “wearing all that bling to draw attention to themselves” (we are talking earings, jeans with stitched designs on pockets, etc…not some gross display or anything). Anyway, I know this is just one instance, but I wonder if this type of evangelical understanding of “man is head of wife” fosters this type of thing.

I don’t want to make any declarative judgments, but I certainly do get that misogynistic vibe from CAF. The “head of household” discussions, the discussions that treat feminism as if it was nothing more than a movement to promote birth control and abortion, etc.

 

[Ruthcloud]

Why does it take a back seat?
-i think because a modern society has twisted it to mean something different than the intentions of the author. In the light of boss-employee or Master-slave. Instead of love and devotion with harmony.

The quote from Rico is not the reality but an example of a couples perverted worldview. This could be applied to any topic.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Why does it take a back seat?
-because most focus and attention goes to the words “the husband is head of the wife”

Right.** Why?** I mean, he said both things… did he not? So why is one given so much more weight than the other?

thewanderer:

I find it pretty funny when people start thinking I have some unhealthy view of marriage where the woman almost becoms a slave to the husband by losing her right to make her own decisions. That is not at all what is meant by the head/heart distinction. Yeah, I get it, its easy to read that and assume that thats what it means, but it really isn’t.

It sure is easy to assume that! Even people that fall on your side of the argument tend to assume that:

Portrait:

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.

To be clear: “everything which does not contravene the expressed will of God and the authoritative teaching of the Church” is A LOT of stuff. Heck, it’s virtually everything. I don’t see how you escape the master/slave dichotomy. So, if a husband orders his wife to murder, lie, steal, commit adultery, stop going to Mass, etc. she doesn’t have to do that. Other than those types of things, everything is fair game?

 

[Ruthcloud]

I edited after you quoted

 

[Walking_Home]

Paul also states in the same context that we are to subject ourselves to one and another, and does affirm that we are equal to each oither…this usually takes a backseat in the interpretation.

---

Take a look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Sacrament of Matrimony. Note the — “be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ,”. Right there – the Church focuses on (centers on) – mutual subjection aka mutual submission. So no it most certainly does not take a back seat as you claim.

The grace of the sacrament of Matrimony

1641 "By reason of their state in life and of their order, [Christian spouses] have their own special gifts in the People of God."147 This grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the couple’s love and to strengthen their indissoluble unity. By this grace they "help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and educating their children."148

1642 Christ is the source of this grace. "Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony."149 Christ dwells with them, gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another’s burdens, to** “be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ,”**150 and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful love. In the joys of their love and family life he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb:

 

[Ruthcloud]

You are reading me wrong…I am referring to the common folk. Bring up Ephesians 5 or other writings along the same theme,and the focus and intensity hones in on the reference to the husband as the head,
This thread itself even drives the point home.

If you look at #1641 “in their order” this does not clash with with the writings of St Paul at all. Paul always mentions the order of creation and the order of man and wife in relation to christ and the church.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m curious, then. If the relationship is not what many people think it is - what is it? You say you have opinions and hold weight in the marriage. How is the different from an egalitarian marriage? How is day to day life different? I’m wondering if you can give an example. Maybe it’s just semantics? Surely every marriage has role breakdowns - I make more decisions on the kids education, husband makes more decisions about car maintenance. How is your marriage different than a typical one where both parents have equal say?

Well, I have to say that I am still only engaged, sorry that I wasn’t clearer about that, but I have thought a lot about this topic to try and get a better understanding of it. Honestly, I think a lot of it is semantics, though I do think there is a deeper meaning to it as well, which I am still trying to grasp more fully. At the very least, there is the fact that the sacrament of marriage is supposed to be a sign of the relation between Christ and his Church. I am trying to find where Casti Conubii talks about this and, again, will post it when I do. So, especially if the way it plays out in marriage is pretty much identical in exterior actions etc it seems that this way of thinking about it is better because it helps keep one more in touch with the great mystery of the union of Christ and His Church, of which it is a sign. On top of that, as I’ve thought about it more, I’ve realized that, at least for me, thinking about the equality of the relationship rather than the head/heart relationship tends to make me think in a more selfish way rather than to think and act selflessly for my (for now) fiance. When I’m concerned with insisting that we have an equal relationship (and yes, I’ve been there ) I find that I am worrying more about ensuring that I get as much as I deserve. When I think of it in terms of head/heart (both of us serving each other out of love etc) it turns more into a matter of worrying about the other. Maybe thats not a universal experience, but I think that it can make a difference. I would say even if you focused on the mutual submission part of that passage you would be more inclined to focus on thinking of the other rather than oneself.

I know I’m kind of just rambling here, I’m still trying to understand this better myself, which is why I suggested people take the time to prayerfully and openly read casti conubii to try and come to a better understanding themselves of what it is saying. It is definitely not just a simple clear-cut document, like most encyclicals/church teachingss there is so much depth beneath the surface that you have to dig through to get at.

In a head/heart relationship as I understand it both people will give in to the other and submit to other, I think that thinking about it as head/heart gives a different attitude to both the husband and the wife, not just in being other centered etc, but even in the way they approach their submission to each other. Its not so much that the husband will get his way more often in a head/heart combination, or even that the woman always has to obey her husband, but that when the each submits to the other their way of doing so and motivation for doing so will be altered very sslightly to help better echo the relationship between Christ and His Church. Again, I know I’m kind of just rambling, so let me know if this is just too confusing, and I can try and clarify what I mean. Trying to understand this is a work in progress, but so far this is where I’m at.

 

[thewanderer]

It sure is easy to assume that! Even people that fall on your side of the argument tend to assume that:

People that fall on my side of the argument? I don’t think so, there are more than two positions to be held here, I certainly do not side with those who act as though a wife is a semi-slave who has no freedom in things that her husband makes a decision on. So I think you are mistakenly conflating my side with those who take such a position.
I like to think of myself as being somewhere in the middle, trying to emphasize both that ‘they should submit to each other’ and the ‘head/heart’ aspects, and in the process find that narrow middle path where the two actually coincide and build each other up, rather than contrasict each other. I tend to think that is a good thing to aim for. (that is, taking all church teachingss on a matter and find a way to reconcile all of them together, rather than just saying “It is difficult to see how these reconcile, therefore I am going to accept one and reject the other” If they are both taught by the Church they both have truth to them and neither should be thrown out, but both prayerfully considered to try and gain a better understanding of the complex truth that stands behind them both. )

 

[JackieMom]

Well, I have to say that I am still only engaged, sorry that I wasn’t clearer about that, but I have thought a lot about this topic to try and get a better understanding of it. Honestly, I think a lot of it is semantics, though I do think there is a deeper meaning to it as well, which I am still trying to grasp more fully. At the very least, there is the fact that the sacrament of marriage is supposed to be a sign of the relation between Christ and his Church. I am trying to find where Casti Conubii talks about this and, again, will post it when I do. So, especially if the way it plays out in marriage is pretty much identical in exterior actions etc it seems that this way of thinking about it is better because it helps keep one more in touch with the great mystery of the union of Christ and His Church, of which it is a sign. On top of that, as I’ve thought about it more, I’ve realized that, at least for me, thinking about the equality of the relationship rather than the head/heart relationship tends to make me think in a more selfish way rather than to think and act selflessly for my (for now) fiance. When I’m concerned with insisting that we have an equal relationship (and yes, I’ve been there ) I find that I am worrying more about ensuring that I get as much as I deserve. When I think of it in terms of head/heart (both of us serving each other out of love etc) it turns more into a matter of worrying about the other. Maybe thats not a universal experience, but I think that it can make a difference. I would say even if you focused on the mutual submission part of that passage you would be more inclined to focus on thinking of the other rather than oneself.

I know I’m kind of just rambling here, I’m still trying to understand this better myself, which is why I suggested people take the time to prayerfully and openly read casti conubii to try and come to a better understanding themselves of what it is saying. It is definitely not just a simple clear-cut document, like most encyclicals/church teachingss there is so much depth beneath the surface that you have to dig through to get at.

In a head/heart relationship as I understand it both people will give in to the other and submit to other, I think that thinking about it as head/heart gives a different attitude to both the husband and the wife, not just in being other centered etc, but even in the way they approach their submission to each other. Its not so much that the husband will get his way more often in a head/heart combination, or even that the woman always has to obey her husband, but that when the each submits to the other their way of doing so and motivation for doing so will be altered very sslightly to help better echo the relationship between Christ and His Church. Again, I know I’m kind of just rambling, so let me know if this is just too confusing, and I can try and clarify what I mean. Trying to understand this is a work in progress, but so far this is where I’m at.

Thank you for that response. I guess for me, I do see mutual submission as very important. If every day you wake up and think, “How can I bless my spouse today?” That’s a good thing. Mutual service and putting one’s spouse ahead of oneself is SO important. If both work to make the other happy, what can come between them? It’s the head/heart thing that icks me out. The head implies the thinker, the decision maker, the reasonable one, the one in control. The heart represents, to me at least, being emotional, sensitive and nurturing. My husband and I are both “head” personalities. I’d never be accused of being the heart of anything!

I guess I’m still confused. Are we talking about mutual, loving service to one another, or are we talking about the husband somehow having more clout as the thinker of the family and the woman deferring to him at times of disagreement?

 

[Ruthcloud]

Mutual submission is the way to go! The real deal is that it should not depend on whether my husband does what I want. If a husband is an unbeliever, if he does not change according to my plan…I still should bless his socks off!
If a husband is a bit messy and does not put his dirty socks in the laundry, do I make his life difficult to get my way, or do I just overlook his faults and just pick them up myself? I would rather pick them up myself and not make it a big ordeal. He does 1001 good things that overshadow this. KWIM
I can’t directly control another persons actions, my job now is to best insure my husbands experience the marriage covenant is one he will never regret, as I am 100 percent his experience of marriage.A happy Catholic husband is going to ease into heaven.

 

[severus68]

Read Casti Connubii, it is a papal encyclical.

Look, the problem here is that people read this, assume it means that the husband is supposed to have final say over everything and then either accept or reject the teaching based on that even though that is not what it actually says. Trust me on this one, I am not the kind of meek woman who has no opinions of her own, I can be very opinionated and I am not afraid to let it show. Despite that, I don’t have any problem with Casti Conubii’s teachings. Women are specifically given the right to use their own reason to determine whether or not they are obliged to obey their husband in a particular matter.

I find it pretty funny when people start thinking I have some unhealthy view of marriage where the woman almost becoms a slave to the husband by losing her right to make her own decisions. That is not at all what is meant by the head/heart distinction. Yeah, I get it, its easy to read that and assume that thats what it means, but it really isn’t. If my husband decided to do something which was a stupid decision or else bad for the family in anyway then I would absolutely stand up and tell him so, I would not just let him have final say and suffer through the consequences of his bad decisions and it is precisely from Casti Conubii that I see an explicit permission from the Church for me to do so. I know a lot of people hear the words head/heart and assume all sorts of things about it which make them reject those phrases, even if they way they live their marriage is actually in accord with such a relationship. It sounds as though the head/heart relationship just doesn’t mean what you think it does. Think about it, pray about it, read about it, open your mind up to the possibility that there is some other meaning to this relationship than simply command/obey. You might just be surprized.

I am sorry but I disagree. I also do not understand how women were made equal by God, Christ treated women as equals, God gave women brains but suddenly on marriage a woman all that and has to obey her husband in all things except where she is allowed to disobey? If that is right, then what some Catholics say that women are under the authority of men, .would be true too.
This view is seen by outsiders as confirming the opinion held by some that the Church does not see women as equal to men.

 

[severus68]

Why?

I don’t want to make any declarative judgments, but I certainly do get that misogynistic vibe from CAF. The “head of household” discussions, the discussions that treat feminism as if it was nothing more than a movement to promote birth control and abortion, etc.

I agree To me, it is even more sad and discouraging that some women take that view. In my opinion, its as if they want to be self sacrificing martyrs, feel its justified as Eve tempted Adam, was made after Adam from his rib or just feel its easier to just let someone else make decisions and take responsibility. We can quote parts of the Bible to support alternative positions on some issues.
Yes, blame feminism for all the sins of the world with a “see what happens when women want all these rights” attitude.