Three Principals For Honoring Your Husband

[AngryAtheist8]

No, we do not need to be lead by a noose, we have our Church, the Holy Spirit, and God’s word to lead us, which some Catholics greatly resist at times.

AA may be very charitable with answers, but that does not make the answers correct. AA may have a great deal of book knowledge about Catholicism but that does not mean he(she) has an earnest desire to discern the depth, truth, mystery and beauty of our Faith.

I’m not sure what his/her agenda is for being here. I hope and pray that they are looking to learn and are searching for our Lord.

However as a Catholic, I look to the Church and other Catholic’s and their sources, like the priest article from EWTN that I linked and quoted previously in this thread to explain things to me. Personally, I would not choose to let someone who calls them self an Angry Atheist influence my thoughts or formation of conscience in regards to my Faith. An Atheist is somebody who denies or disbelieves in God. If this is truly their belief at this time then they can never truly understand the depths of Faith. They will look at things only from an intellectual point of view which eliminates a part of what Faith includes.

Faith is by its very nature* not* intellectual.

 

[Portrait]

You’re right, homemakers are contributing a heck of a lot to society and yet why do these women feel so unaccomplished? They are also treated as being so by their husbands (in most cases). Men are part of the problem. They need to shift their own need for superiority onto something more productive.

I have heard so many women complain:

“My husband asked me what I do all day when I wanted to take a break from the kids when he got home from work.”

“My husband treats me like being home with the kids is an easier job than what he does all day.”

Dear Serap,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The reason, dear sister, why many homemakers feel so undervalued in our contemporary society is because of radical femenist propaganda, which is wont to belittle and the role of motherhood. This, I think, is a monumental tragedy as being a mother and wife is a very demanding job where the work it seems is never done.

Catholic men of all people, should value the work and role of their wives by encouraging them and showing their deep appreciation of their labours within the home. Were they to do this, dear sister, I do not feel that the womenfolk would feel so discouraged and understimated.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I know nothing about this gentleman. He may very well be dangerous as you say, although I think that may be a bit hysterical.

What I would enjoy reading from you, is exactly where, while reading this particular article (found in the first post of this thread) you vomited.

OK, more seriously, why not break it down and discuss what parts you find so offensive. Take a section and explain where the writer is wrong in their thinking and offer some support for your POV.

Each of us stay in this thread, because obviously we hold beliefs about submission. For me that doesn’t mean not having a back bone, or being a floor rug. I have an opinion, I have a voice.

It just seems we are discussing a lot of generalities of what submission “means” to each of us. Where do you think this author got it wrong?

If fully implemented, these rules would essentially reduce women to the status of chattel. And make them almost completely dependent on fathers, husbands, and other male relatives for protection, status, and resources.

It would basically be a Catholic version of sharia style gender segregation.

Now, are you merely saying that this idea should be thoughtfully responded to, or endorsing it?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Would you say that this largely describes your worldview when it comes to women?:

Sacred Scripture clearly teaches that God gives men and women different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men are intended by God to be teachers and leaders in the Church, the family, and society. Women should not have any kind of teaching role over adult men. Women should not have any kind of leadership role over adult men.

Women should not be political leaders. In politics, a woman should not be President or Vice President or Senator or Representative or Governor or a State legislator. A woman should not have any elected or appointed political position with authority over men, because it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. A woman should not be Judge in any court of law, because courts have authority over men.

This passage is often rejected by Christians, because they are following the ideas of their culture rather than the ideas of Christ. Women sometimes say that marriage is a “50-50 partnership,” but such is not the teaching of Christ. A woman who seeks power over her husband, who fights with him for control of the family, will ruin her marriage and her family. A wife sins against God if she rejects her husband’s authority over her or if she seeks to have authority over him.

Women should not be Lectors at holy Mass. Women should not read the Scriptures aloud to the faithful at Mass. Women should not distribute holy Communion at Mass. Women should not speak at the time of the homily, not even to describe some worthy work of mercy in which they are involved. It is shameful in God’s eyes for a woman to have any such role of leadership or teaching at holy Mass and at any time in the Sanctuary.

Moreover, women should not be in charge of leading or administering a parish, even one which lacks a pastor. Women should not be on the parish council, for this is a leadership role which assists the pastor, much as the Twelve Apostles assisted Christ.

Source:
catholicplanet.com/women/roles.html

Dear AngryAtheist8,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

In an imperfect world pious disagreement among Catholics is inevitable, as it is even among secularists. The numerous debates on these boards surely bears ample witness to that fact.

It would, my dear brother, be a wonderful thing and a wonderful witness if there could be a consensus among Catholic brethren and they could always agree and dwell peacefully together in unity. Alas, it will, I fear, never happen and that is just a very sad part of the human condition. There is nothing for it, save prayer and charity.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

You did not actually answer the question.
Why?

Do you support the idea that women’s economic, political, and social power should be stripped away (as the author advocates) so that being wives and mothers is their only viable option or not?

 

[heart4home]

If fully implemented, these rules would essentially reduce women to the status of chattel. And make them almost completely dependent on fathers, husbands, and other male relatives for protection, status, and resources.

It would basically be a Catholic version of sharia style gender segregation.

Now, are you merely saying that this idea should be thoughtfully responded to, or endorsing it?

I guess, I’m reading the first post, on the first page of this thread, as an ideal. I don’t see in that particular article him referencing women as chattel. I’m not seeing it as women would be completely dependent upon men to exist in society.

I’m seeing it as, we are equal, but our roles are different once we make the choice to get married and take on the role as wife. The role will change even further when we take on the roll of mother. That doesn’t mean a man can’t cook or change a dirty diaper, or that a woman can’t be educated.

As I’ve said, I see it as an ideal. The husband and wife working seamlessly together to be united as one. Each doing their part, parts which will likely look different.

As soon as it becomes a “You do this because I’m a man, and I said so!!!” I no longer subscribe.

I absolutely believe that men and women were created differently though. Not just in anatomy but emotionally. I believe in the generality that women seek love with words and actions(gentle touch, being appreciated), and that men seek love with respect from their spouse and physical attention and admiration. Are their exceptions? Sure, but again I am speaking in generalities here.

I realize that some look for really deep meanings in things. Perhaps reading more of this gentleman’s writings would turn my stomach. I am only reading what is in the first post and responding to that.

 

[AthenaC]

I guess, I’m reading the first post, on the first page of this thread, as an ideal. I don’t see in that particular article him referencing women as chattel. I’m not seeing it as women would be completely dependent upon men to exist in society.

I’m seeing it as, we are equal, but our roles are different once we make the choice to get married and take on the role as wife. The role will change even further when we take on the roll of mother. That doesn’t mean a man can’t cook or change a dirty diaper, or that a woman can’t be educated.

As I’ve said, I see it as an ideal. The husband and wife working seamlessly together to be united as one. Each doing their part, parts which will likely look different.

As soon as it becomes a “You do this because I’m a man, and I said so!!!” I no longer subscribe.

I absolutely believe that men and women were created differently though. Not just in anatomy but emotionally. I believe in the generality that women seek love with words and actions(gentle touch, being appreciated), and that men seek love with respect from their spouse and physical attention and admiration. Are their exceptions? Sure, but again I am speaking in generalities here.

I realize that some look for really deep meanings in things. Perhaps reading more of this gentleman’s writings would turn my stomach. I am only reading what is in the first post and responding to that.

Very wise.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

sometimes I think traditional Catholics think that we (women) should be treated the same way that women are treated in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Some (such as the author from Catholic Planet) do.
But they are very much a fringe group, at least in America.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Rye,

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

Young women should attend educational institutions, dear friend, since some of them will never marry and so will be required to support themselves, whether they live at home with parents or on their own. Nevertheless, marriage is the norm for women, for God has implanted a natural instinct in both sexes for close companionship and intimacy, and this naturally results in marriage. In marriage, man and woman give and receive mutual help in sharing and bearing life’s duties and difficulties. In this sacred union, they satisfy the natural desire to start a family and to bestow their love upon their offspring, born as the fruit of their love. Moreover, within marriage, human passions are well-directed and elevated to a noble purpose. If it is not good for a man to be alone, then neither is it good for a woman. Let us remember that motherhood is a divine vocation which undoubtedly calls for great sacrifices, but it should not on that account be selfishly avoided just so that a woman can pursue her own career.

The passages in the Pastoral Epistles relating to the role of women, dear friend, have perpetual validity because they are not culturally conditioned, no more than St. Paul’s teaching on male headship is culturally conditioned. Some modern Catholics are fond of saying, it is quite true, that St. Paul’s teaching on women and male headship was only valid for his generation and cannot be regarded as binding upon our own. It is also true that the attempt is sometimes made to strengthen this culturally bound argument by an appeal to slavery. This argument is fundamentally flawed, however, as one would expect coming as it does from the liberal/femenist stable. Briefly, the analogy between women and slaves is jolly inexact on two counts. First, women are not chattel property, bought and sold in the market place, as slaves were. Secondly, though St. Paul sought to regulate the behaviour of slaves/masters, he nowhere appealed to the Scriptures in defence of slavery, whereas he certainly did base his teaching about masculine headship on the biblical doctrine of creation.

St. Paul’s statement respecting women being “workers at home” (Tit. 2: 5) occurs amidst other general requirements, that is to say, being loving towards husband and children, being chaste, being kind and self-controlled etc. Now clearly no man would deny that these have perpetual validity, thus what warrant do we have in making an exception with women being “workers at home”? Moreover, you will observe that St. Paul gives as a reason for these requirements, “that the word of God may not be discredited” (Tit. 2: 5), in other words, improper conduct on the part of young married women would easily lead to slanderous remarks with respect to the religion of Christ. Thus it is this, and not any historical context, that was the whole raison d’etre for his instructions, including the one about women being “workers at home”.

St. Paul wrote, we must remember, under divine inspiration and so it is both irreverent and unwise, my dear friend, to think he was “a tad bit mysoginistic”. Such sentiments will likely take us down the liberal path of rejecting passages of Sacred Scripture that do not fit in with our own modern day pre-suppositions and prejudices. It is a most imprudent road to go down and leaves us to judge what is applicable and binding in Sacred Scripture. The fact is, dear friend, that there is timeless teaching that is as relevant today as it was then and this applies to the ethical requirements of that Titus passage and others, which have continued validity.

So called ‘house husbands’ are unnatural and bizzare and are a denial of God-given male masculinity and should therefore be eshewed and denounced in the strongest terms. Being a homemaker, like baby rearing, is exclusivley a feminine preserve into which men should not trespass. Needless to say, it does not follow from this that the husband should never wash a dish or undertake some domestic chores, especially if his wife is indisposed for a while. However, his duty is to earn the money to support his family, he is not called upon to be a “worker at home”, for that would be to adopt a feminine role which is contrary to the natural order of things.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Wrong.
Saint Paul specifically tells slaves to obey their masters, thus supporting the authority of slavemasters (and the institution of slavery itself).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Rye,

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

Young women should attend educational institutions, dear friend, since some of them will never marry and so will be required to support themselves, whether they live at home with parents or on their own. Nevertheless, marriage is the norm for women, for God has implanted a natural instinct in both sexes for close companionship and intimacy, and this naturally results in marriage. In marriage, man and woman give and receive mutual help in sharing and bearing life’s duties and difficulties. In this sacred union, they satisfy the natural desire to start a family and to bestow their love upon their offspring, born as the fruit of their love. Moreover, within marriage, human passions are well-directed and elevated to a noble purpose. If it is not good for a man to be alone, then neither is it good for a woman. Let us remember that motherhood is a divine vocation which undoubtedly calls for great sacrifices, but it should not on that account be selfishly avoided just so that a woman can pursue her own career.

The passages in the Pastoral Epistles relating to the role of women, dear friend, have perpetual validity because they are not culturally conditioned, no more than St. Paul’s teaching on male headship is culturally conditioned. Some modern Catholics are fond of saying, it is quite true, that St. Paul’s teaching on women and male headship was only valid for his generation and cannot be regarded as binding upon our own. It is also true that the attempt is sometimes made to strengthen this culturally bound argument by an appeal to slavery. This argument is fundamentally flawed, however, as one would expect coming as it does from the liberal/femenist stable. Briefly, the analogy between women and slaves is jolly inexact on two counts. First, women are not chattel property, bought and sold in the market place, as slaves were. Secondly, though St. Paul sought to regulate the behaviour of slaves/masters, he nowhere appealed to the Scriptures in defence of slavery, whereas he certainly did base his teaching about masculine headship on the biblical doctrine of creation.

St. Paul’s statement respecting women being “workers at home” (Tit. 2: 5) occurs amidst other general requirements, that is to say, being loving towards husband and children, being chaste, being kind and self-controlled etc. Now clearly no man would deny that these have perpetual validity, thus what warrant do we have in making an exception with women being “workers at home”? Moreover, you will observe that St. Paul gives as a reason for these requirements, “that the word of God may not be discredited” (Tit. 2: 5), in other words, improper conduct on the part of young married women would easily lead to slanderous remarks with respect to the religion of Christ. Thus it is this, and not any historical context, that was the whole raison d’etre for his instructions, including the one about women being “workers at home”.

St. Paul wrote, we must remember, under divine inspiration and so it is both irreverent and unwise, my dear friend, to think he was “a tad bit mysoginistic”. Such sentiments will likely take us down the liberal path of rejecting passages of Sacred Scripture that do not fit in with our own modern day pre-suppositions and prejudices. It is a most imprudent road to go down and leaves us to judge what is applicable and binding in Sacred Scripture. The fact is, dear friend, that there is timeless teaching that is as relevant today as it was then and this applies to the ethical requirements of that Titus passage and others, which have continued validity.

So called ‘house husbands’ are unnatural and bizzare and are a denial of God-given male masculinity and should therefore be eshewed and denounced in the strongest terms. Being a homemaker, like baby rearing, is exclusivley a feminine preserve into which men should not trespass. Needless to say, it does not follow from this that the husband should never wash a dish or undertake some domestic chores, especially if his wife is indisposed for a while. However, his duty is to earn the money to support his family, he is not called upon to be a “worker at home”, for that would be to adopt a feminine role which is contrary to the natural order of things.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

You endorse educatiing girls on practical grounds, but in your ideal world wouldn’t every (or at least most) women be a homemaker, wife, and mother?

And in that ideal world, why would you need to educate girls at all?

Women are easier to ‘keep in their place’ when their illiterate and uneducated. That’s why groups such as the Taliban ban the education of girls.

 

[ryecroft]

However as a Catholic, I look to the Church and other Catholic’s and their sources, like the priest article from EWTN that I linked and quoted previously in this thread to explain things to me. Personally, I would not choose to let someone who calls them self an Angry Atheist influence my thoughts or formation of conscience in regards to my Faith. An Atheist is somebody who denies or disbelieves in God. If this is truly their belief at this time then they can never truly understand the depths of Faith. They will look at things only from an intellectual point of view which eliminates a part of what Faith includes.

Not to get off on a rant (I know I’m not Dennis Miller…) but I really take some of what I hear/watch on EWTN sometimes with a grain of salt. This is a station that was founded by a Nun who had some not so nice words for a young girl because she was serving mass - (I know that one for sure) - and she went off on a poor girl during a world youth day for playing Jesus in a skit (I believe)- needless to say
I’ve asked a friend of mine who’s a Catholic Priest and been advised to take some of the 'Angry Catholics on there with a grain of salt…" I have no doubt that many that are on EWTN would say that women need to stay at home and raise the children and leave bringing of the paycheck home to the men - in fact I’ve even heard some of it - just can’t quote a show right off hand - It does kind of make me wonder with this type of view how she ever justified doing what I would have expected many would have said was more of a ‘man’s job’ -
God Bless
Rye
God Bless
Rye

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Serap,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The reason, dear sister, why many homemakers feel so undervalued in our contemporary society is because of radical femenist propaganda, which is wont to belittle and the role of motherhood. This, I think, is a monumental tragedy as being a mother and wife is a very demanding job where the work it seems is never done.

Catholic men of all people, should value the work and role of their wives by encouraging them and showing their deep appreciation of their labours within the home. Were they to do this, dear sister, I do not feel that the womenfolk would feel so discouraged and understimated.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

That is simply wrong.

Traditionally feminine activities (such as giving birth and taking care of children) have always been little valued compared to masculine efforts (generally speaking).

To illustrate my point, grab the nearest history book you can and begin reading. I strongly suspect you will find relatively few women mentioned in the text. And most of the few women mentioned at length will be ones who engaged in traditionally masculine activities (like ruling a country).

The idea that women were respected and valued on par with men before the coming of Feminism is simply not credible.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I guess, I’m reading the first post, on the first page of this thread, as an ideal. I don’t see in that particular article him referencing women as chattel. I’m not seeing it as women would be completely dependent upon men to exist in society.

I’m seeing it as, we are equal, but our roles are different once we make the choice to get married and take on the role as wife. The role will change even further when we take on the roll of mother. That doesn’t mean a man can’t cook or change a dirty diaper, or that a woman can’t be educated.

As I’ve said, I see it as an ideal. The husband and wife working seamlessly together to be united as one. Each doing their part, parts which will likely look different.

As soon as it becomes a “You do this because I’m a man, and I said so!!!” I no longer subscribe.

I absolutely believe that men and women were created differently though. Not just in anatomy but emotionally. I believe in the generality that women seek love with words and actions(gentle touch, being appreciated), and that men seek love with respect from their spouse and physical attention and admiration. Are their exceptions? Sure, but again I am speaking in generalities here.

I realize that some look for really deep meanings in things. Perhaps reading more of this gentleman’s writings would turn my stomach. I am only reading what is in the first post and responding to that.

What are you talking about?
I wasn’t referring to the OP at all.

 

[Emmelia]

I think this is the most sickening thread I’ve ever seen on a Catholic forum…
I give up!

 

[heart4home]

What are you talking about?
I wasn’t referring to the OP at all.

Well thats’s what I’ve been talking about. Lol

 

[Portrait]

Bravo sir:thumbsup: that’s one of the most obviously biased interpretations of a (modern) official document that I have come across.

Do you have ANY good reason to think that the LETTER TO WOMEN is not addressed to women in general but instead simply particular groups of women?

Dear AngryAtheist,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response.

In the ‘Letter to Women’, dear friend, JPII addresses women, not only generally, but as various groups: thus you have “Women who are mothers”; “Women who are wives”; “Women who are daughters and sisters” “Women who work” and “Consecarated women”. He does have a paragraph where he thanks “every women, for the simple fact of being a women” and this is followed, it is true, by a general address, but specific groups are, nevertheless, still referenced in the text.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

But if women are excluded from society (like the Arabs do) why should they care?

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again. Thankyou for the above.

You seem, dear friend, to be tacitly assuming that women who are homemakers are ipso facto excluded from the wider society, which is a jolly absurd viewpoint to embrace, if that is your meaning. This is to undermine the role of motherhood and to suggest that being homemaker is an inferior station in life, which it most decidedly is not, dear friend.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think this is the most sickening thread I’ve ever seen on a Catholic forum…
I give up!

Heh…I’ve seen worse:shrug:

 

[Serap]

I think this is the most sickening thread I’ve ever seen on a Catholic forum…
I give up!

get used to it these threads surface all the time.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response.

In the ‘Letter to Women’, dear friend, JPII addresses women, not only generally, but as various groups: thus you have “Women who are mothers”; “Women who are wives”; “Women who are daughters and sisters” “Women who work” and “Consecarated women”. He does have a paragraph where he thanks “every women, for the simple fact of being a women” and this is followed, it is true, by a general address, but specific groups are, nevertheless, still referenced in the text.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Here’s the actual paragraph in question:

Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of “mystery”, to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.

Source:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html

Note that the Pope refers to the indispensable contribution of women who work. There is nothing in the text to support your interpretation that women should just work to support themselves until they can find a man who will marry them.

 

[Serap]

what this whole thing boils down to is whatever someone’s personal opinion is, they will use scripture to back it up.

St. Paul is so misquoted it’s funny. He was talking to the people of those times. Not only was he a holy and wise man, he was also conditioned in that particular culture 2000 years ago.

This is why I love reading the teachings of Pope JP II. For an older man, he was very contemporary in his teachings about women.

My kids are turning out so well. I found and retained the most wonderful caregiver and she is so loving with them. In addition, I come home at 5:00 p.m. and spend another 4.5 hours with them at night and then the weekends. They feel loved and they are happy.

Women worked full-time in the fields while grandma watched the children. My modern life is no different. Our caregiver is “auntie” to my kids and we’ll always be close to her even when she’s no longer watching our kids. she’s not a stranger to them as they really love her.