Dear catholicanne,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said, if only more Catholic women shared your sound views, but I feel that many have enthusiastically embraced the equality ideology of godless secular feminism.
The Church, dear sister, has always and consistently taught that the wife was subject to the** authority of her husband and must obey him** even as the Church obeys Christ, assuming, of course, that the husbands demands are just and moral. Moreover, it is important to note that this teaching has never been officially abrogated or declared invalid on account of its age and is therefore binding upon the Catholic faithful today.
In his encyclical Arcanum, on Christian marriage, Leo XIII forcefully and clearly restated the traditional (and biblical) teaching:
"The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honour or dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and her who obeys, a heaven born love guiding both in their respective duties. For, “the husband is head of the wife; as Christ is head of the Church…Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their own husbands in all things”.
It is usual in equality debates, dear sister, for some contemporary Catholics to make an appeal to H.H.JPII’s Mulieris Dignitatem by way of reply. First, however, it should be observed that H.H.JPII presents his teaching as a “personal meditation” (And it seems that the best thing is to give this the style and character of a meditation, his own emphasis). Now the level and binding nature of this “meditation” is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive teaching which no man is at liberty to question. Second, Pope Leo emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - which is to say the very word of God itself - teaches, namely that subjection is required not “only on the part of the Church” to Christ, as H.H.JPII asserts, but also on the part of the wife to her husband, because in the order of familial authority the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, as Pope Leo taught in the above cited encyclical. Third, H.H.JPII quotes only from the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians - "For the husband is the head of the wife, omitting the conclusion, “as Christ is head of the Church”.
Quite frankly, dear sister, I fail to see how any authority could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were “mutual subjection” and no ruler-subject relationship between the spouses. This whole “mutual subjection” notion, pushed by so many modern Catholics (including even some conservatives), is surely a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject, and neither the Church nor the family can have two heads.
When St. Paul spoke of a woman being in subjection to her husband, he meant by that in everything pertaining to the husbands legitimate authority and, of course, everything not contrary to the true Catholic Faith. The occasion could arise, hopefully seldom, if ever, within a pious family, when it will clearly be a woman’s duty to obey God rather than her own husband. In that instance the woman can and must disobey her husband.
Contrary to feminist propaganda, dear sister, a woman can have her own thoughts and opinions and there is nothing untoward with the give and take within marriage. However, the consistent teaching of Holy Mother Church has been that the husband is head of the wife. Thus, in the event of a major disagreement the husband must have the final say, otherwise we are in the situation where there are two heads and the ruler-subject relationship (taught in Ephesians 5: 22-23) would be vitiated. This sort of thing would be utterly at variance with both biblical and Church teaching and would therefore be wrong. Even today when the Western world has been subjected to a barrage of godless feminist ideology, most devout Catholic women would meekly accept the rightful submission to their husband without demur, provided that his manner was not imperious or downright unreasonable.
Woman, dear sister, who stubbornly refuse to accept their husbands authority are inviting anarchy into their homes, as well as setting a very bad and rebellious example to their children. Minor issues can usually be resolved by talking matters through calmly and by the husband always striving to show love, gentleness, reasonableness, patience and fairness to his beloved wife. However, it is a modern error, inspired by a spurious egalitarianism, that insists that families are little democracies. That is just arrant un-Christian nonsense and those who profess the holy religion of Christ should give it no credence whatsoever.
God bless and thankyou for (name removed by moderator)ut expressing the authentic Catholic position relating to the position of women within marriage.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
). That just doesn’t fit the reality we see and experience around us on a daily basis, and if there is one thing the Church does, it conforms its teachings to the reality we experience around us. I think that kind of idea of a head/heart relationship is not at all what the Church wants us to think of and is a terrible distortion of the real meaning behind this teaching. I am convinced that this wording is mostly for the sake of getting us to recognize a different aspect of the mutual submission involved in marriage.
