T
TheAmazingGrace
Guest
Says who?
- Status
X
Xantippe
Guest
A husband correcting his wife in public (when he could easily wait and do so at home/when the kids aren’t in earshot) is just as much hurting his family’s public reputation as a wife correcting her husband. It just looks bad when either spouse shows disloyalty to the other. (I’m not talking about correcting wrong information though, but about correcting conduct unless there’s an immediate safety issue.)
I have to say that my dad’s criticism of my mom (even when it was wholly deserved) undermined my mom’s authority with us kids and made us more disrespectful of her than we would have been otherwise. His criticism made her a less effective parent, which was really bad as she had to spend a lot more time with us than he did. My mom, on the other hand, built our dad up to us kids. Now that I’m a middle-aged mom of the same age my mom was at the time, I realize how unfair it was that my mom encouraged us kids to respect our dad, but my dad did not pay a fraction as much attention to making sure that my mom was treated with respect.
N
NonTimendum
Guest
It is common sense, the Lord put the husband as the head of the family and demanded submission of the wife to the authority of the husband. If he is the authority than how could this authority be real if she has a veto power? If she only must submit when she decides she wants to than this is not submission but egalitarianism.
From where does she gain this veto-power over her husbands authority? It was not given to her by any tradition, nor by the Lord, nor by the Church. If he must “love her as Christ loves the Church” by sacrificing himself for her and laying down his life for her then this puts him below her, except in that he has authority over her. From where did the woman gain this special dispensation where she has rights over him but he posesses none over her?
If you think there is no duty of the wife to submit then you must either reject the clear teaching of the Holy Spirit or twist it so far out of meaning that you render the entire scripture subject to your own opinion and thus by usurping the authority of the husband you indeed usurp the authority of God.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Yes, but that’s rather different from NonTimendum’s “Disagreeing with and or contradicting your man in public.”
I have to say, I don’t see a lot of these amazingly rude people in public, but I live in the South.
R
reggieM
Guest
Catechism of the Council of Trent
Duties Of A Wife
On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling hint lord.
To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.
Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.
Duties Of A Wife
On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling hint lord.
To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband’s consent.
Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.
R
reggieM
Guest
Casti Connubi
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
- 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] …
- With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.”[30]
X
Xantippe
Guest
“Sorry I didn’t mention your business meeting tomorrow morning when you were scheduling a breakfast meeting with somebody else–I didn’t want to usurp your authority.”
I feel like your approach does not really make room for the possibility of husbands and wives **helping ** and **looking out **for each other.
Also, there is such a thing as the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If something would make you feel disrespected, don’t do it to your wife.
N
NonTimendum
Guest
God told Eve that she would desire to control her husband (usurp his authority) but that Adam would rule over her. St. Paul confirmed that God demanded submission from the wife “as the Church submits to Christ” which is total obedience. Total obedience. Not when we want, not according to our desires, but total and complete.
However you treat your husband is how you will treat the Lord. To usurp the one is to usurp the other.
X
Xantippe
Guest
I was wanting to point out that it’s odd for a Catholic to have an idea of a husband as God-Emperor-Pope of his family when there is an actual pope in Rome, there’s a confessor to seek counsel from in case of serious marital disagreement, and Casti Connubii takes a non-legalistic approach to wifely submission:
“27. 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.”
“28. 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.”
That’s Pope Pius XI.
Obviously, wifely submission is in Casti Connubii–but it doesn’t look like what you have been describing, which is more of a master-slave relationship.
D
DarkLight
Guest
I suspect it depends on what you mean by the distinction.
One should, of course, strive to be kind and loving in all one’s interactions, whether in public or in private. Perhaps even more in private where there is no public manners to restrain one’s behavior with.
Propriety demands that certain discussions be held in private, simply because they are not suitable for the public sphere. It is generally better to offer constructive criticism in private than in public, but that does not free anyone from the obligation to keep it loving!
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
Yeah, this just reflects poorly on the social graces of both people. Everyone has disagreements, but they should both avoid those subjects in public and if someone else touches on one, the couple should good naturedly change the subject together.
Digging into or correcting your partner in front of others is just trashy behavior that makes your whole marriage look weak. I don’t care what gender you are, it’s not a show of unity, it’s a hillbilly thing to do.
And that doesn’t just apply to spouses. Parents who publicly chastise their kids instead of stepping outside or going to the car make me cringe. And it’s terrible management for a boss to cut down or fail to back a subordinate in front of others, even if there are disciplinary actions taken in private.
Sure, men can claim a Biblical right to be boorish, but it’s really not going to impress anyone or make his family look good.
X
Xantippe
Guest
It is not unknown for husbands to want their wives to use contraception, be sterilized, or to perform “unnnatural acts.” Are Catholic wives supposed to obey their husbands when they ask for those things? These issues come up pretty regularly.
Your reading of Genesis is odd (though currently popular in some circles). In the RSV, it says, "16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
To me, it seems to be a more reasonable interpretation to read that as meaning:
–childbirth is going to be much more painful
–but you will still sexually desire your husband (despite the childbirth pain that sex will cause)
–and your husband will rule over you.
It beats me why one would read “your desire shall be for your husband” and not see that as meaning sexual desire, especially given that the previous clause relates to pain in childbirth.
N
NonTimendum
Guest
In the family, the husband is the Pope. (Edit: not even the Pope, but Christ himself.)
I’ve said that the wife has to decide for herself when the time has come where her husband’s behavior has become so egregious that he requires correction or where she is bound to disobey. However, since we have to come up with intrinsic evils and grave matter to justify disobedience it would seem that the tacit admission is that the authority of the husband is the default and requires extreme circumstances to usurp.
Anyway the point of the thread was a (woman?) asking what girls do to their partner that “emasculated” them. What I originally said pertained to that.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
From Fr. Cantalamessa – Preacher to the Pontifical household. The “rule over you” – is not an authorization from God – but a bitter forecast. God saw what pride will do to some men.
1
1neophyte
Guest
The plot thickens…
T
TheAmazingGrace
Guest
There’s only one Christ, dude. This “husband is the absolute authority” BS is straight out of the garbage marriage manuals that psychopaths like Michael Pearl are given to writing.
Not once in the entire New Testament did Jesus imbue married men with the authority you claim they have. That idea crops up maybe three times in the writings of Paul, where he says just as many times that husbands and wives should be subordinate to EACH OTHER out of respect for Christ, and not deny each other their rights.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
This is more like fundamentalist protestant thinking.
R
Roseeurekacross
Guest
Care to explain what you mean by this?
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
100%. Especially since Catholic wedding vows don’t even mention obedience. Total obedience is definitely not Catholic.
In my experience a functional marriage can be a partnership between two adults without ever needing to think about who is in charge. Mutual respect goes a long way.
D
DarkLight
Guest
I have wondered sometimes if some of the talk about women “usurping” men comes as much from men who have difficulty imagining this concept. If one starts with the idea that someone must be in charge all the time, then of course a woman pushing for a change to that system must be trying to exert control over a man. That was certainly the sort of rhetoric I grew up with - the idea that in every relationship one person had to be in control at all times, and it was only a matter of whether that would be the man or the woman.
- Status