What do you think of men who want a submissive wife?

[PolarGuy]

Furthermore, Hesso, it’s easy to just say “no” to all my questions: as in no, the husband should not be allowed to always just spend his money on booze while the kids go unfed.
These questions only become hard when you want to answer “yes” then explain yourself.

 

[hesso12]

I think it will. Edify me why I’m wrong.

I can’t,I don’t like arguing.need to go

 

[Sophie_Lawrence]

A wife shows submission unto her husband when she allows him to take leadership in the relationship. His position as leader is biblical (1 Corinthians 11:3). Abraham’s wife, Sarah, is an example of a woman following her husband’s lead (1 Peter 3:6). Sarah has never been confused with being a woman who was a frail doormat. Peter notes that she was not afraid in life. Submission should not be confused with a person being weak.

Women are not commanded to submit to their husband’s because God insures that men will be just or loving. When a woman submits unto her husband, she is actually submitting unto God (Ephesians 5:22). A woman therefore does not submit because her husband deserves it in his own merit- she submits because she knows it is pleasing to her Lord. There will be times when a woman needs to submit, and her husband does not deserve it from a human perspective. But by divine right, God set the man as leader and a woman can trust that God is good. She can also know that nothing escapes God’s notice, and a wicked man will be held accountable for his actions.

When a wife submits to her husband, she does not try to take leadership from him. From the beginning of time, woman has tried to take leadership from the man- and man has often gladly given it away (Genesis 3). Some scholars believe that Genesis 3:16 refers to Eve’s new sin drive to override her husband’s headship, which has continued down the line of women. Women use many tactics to try taking control of leadership, including nagging, deception, and manipulation. This always results in sin and often, sorrowful consequences (Genesis 27). When a woman resorts to these tactics, she is trying to usurp God’s good design of relationship roles. A submissive wife must first learn to trust God’s goodness and His sovereignty.

It seems to me that you are saying wife needs to say “Yes” even if husband is even sinful. Am i understanding you correctly?

Our faith teaches no such thing

From the Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 1260. Why should we refuse to obey parents or superiors who command us to sin?

A. We should refuse to obey parents or superiors who command us to sin because they are not then acting with God’s authority, but contrary to it and in violation of His laws.

Q. 1263. Who are meant by lawful superiors?

A. By lawful superiors are meant all persons to whom we are in any way subject, such as employers or others under whose authority we live or work.

Even if submission were to mean husband as superior and wife as submissive, she does not need to follow him into sin, and wait for God to punish the husband.

Unless I am not understanding your point.

Also from the Baltimore Catechism:

. 1009. What is the outward sign in the Sacrament of Matrimony, and in what does the whole essence of the marriage contract consist?

A. The outward sign in the Sacrament of matrimony is the mutual consent of the persons, expressed by words or signs in accordance with the laws of the Church. The whole essence of the marriage contract consists in the surrender by the persons of their bodies to each other and in declaring by word or sign that they make this surrender and take each other for husband and wife now and for life.

Q. 1010. What are the chief ends of the Sacrament of Matrimony?

A. The chief ends of the Sacrament of matrimony are:

1. To enable the husband and wife to aid each other in securing the salvation of their souls;
2. To propagate or keep up the existence of the human race by bringing children into the world to serve God;
3. To prevent sins against the holy virtue of purity by faithfully obeying the laws of the marriage state.

 

[SWolf]

Hesso, you’re not answering any questions - just posting the same thing over and over in different terms.

Should the submissive wife serve whatever the husband wants to eat?

Should she allow him to spend his paycheck however he wishes?

Should she prance around in pegnoir whenever he demands?

No Bible verses, please. Just yes or no.

Thanks in advance.

What’s funny is, if you switch genders, I’ve read people tell the husband he should do similar things for his wife, otherwise he’s “not loving his wife like the Church”. Don’t give her the big house she wants? Not loving his wife enough. Saves for retirement and wife wants to spend? Doesn’t love his wife enough.

Frankly put, they’re stupid questions, and ignore the nuance of roles in marriage that Hesso is arguing.

 

[Xantippe]

Abigail was a noble wife and her husband,was a person who was slothy and did gluttony.
Her husband demanded her food for him,Abigail was noble she did not refuse she was submissive even though she was smarter,even thou she had the chances to rebel,but she did not,latter God sorted her problem’s out.

When Abigail saw David, without a word, she fell on her face before him, bowing herself to the ground. Falling at his feet, Abigail delivered the most humble, heartfelt plea for David to spare her husband’s household. But her request was not made from a heart of fear, nor was it from a heart of anger toward her husband. Rather, while she admitted that her husband was a man of bad character, she reminded David that his life was in the hands of God. His enemies would be destroyed because of God’s justice, and his own house would endure. She only asked in return that, when God had fulfilled everything He had promised, that David remember her.

I haven’t caught up with the thread, so apologies for any repetition.

From 1 Samuel 25:

“Abigail acted quickly. She took two hundred loaves of bread, two skins of wine, five dressed sheep, five seahs** of roasted grain, a hundred cakes of raisins and two hundred cakes of pressed figs, and loaded them on donkeys. 19 Then she told her servants, “Go on ahead; I’ll follow you.” But she did not tell her husband Nabal.”

I’m really struggling with how this is an example of a submissive wife. If this is submission, we really need to change our definition of “submissive” to “does the right thing for her family even when it is the opposite of what her husband wanted to happen.”

???**

 

[Xantippe]

A wife shows submission unto her husband when she allows him to take leadership in the relationship. His position as leader is biblical (1 Corinthians 11:3). Abraham’s wife, Sarah, is an example of a woman following her husband’s lead (1 Peter 3:6). Sarah has never been confused with being a woman who was a frail doormat. Peter notes that she was not afraid in life. Submission should not be confused with a person being weak.

Women are not commanded to submit to their husband’s because God insures that men will be just or loving. When a woman submits unto her husband, she is actually submitting unto God (Ephesians 5:22). A woman therefore does not submit because her husband deserves it in his own merit- she submits because she knows it is pleasing to her Lord. There will be times when a woman needs to submit, and her husband does not deserve it from a human perspective. But by divine right, God set the man as leader and a woman can trust that God is good. She can also know that nothing escapes God’s notice, and a wicked man will be held accountable for his actions.

When a wife submits to her husband, she does not try to take leadership from him. From the beginning of time, woman has tried to take leadership from the man- and man has often gladly given it away (Genesis 3). Some scholars believe that Genesis 3:16 refers to Eve’s new sin drive to override her husband’s headship, which has continued down the line of women. Women use many tactics to try taking control of leadership, including nagging, deception, and manipulation. This always results in sin and often, sorrowful consequences (Genesis 27). When a woman resorts to these tactics, she is trying to usurp God’s good design of relationship roles. A submissive wife must first learn to trust God’s goodness and His sovereignty.

Wait–how does that square with the Abigail story you gave?

It really doesn’t.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I haven’t caught up with the thread, so apologies for any repetition.

From 1 Samuel 25:

“Abigail acted quickly. She took two hundred loaves of bread, two skins of wine, five dressed sheep, five seahs** of roasted grain, a hundred cakes of raisins and two hundred cakes of pressed figs, and loaded them on donkeys. 19 Then she told her servants, “Go on ahead; I’ll follow you.” But she did not tell her husband Nabal.”

I’m really struggling with how this is an example of a submissive wife. If this is submission, we really need to change our definition of “submissive” to “does the right thing for her family even when it is the opposite of what her husband wanted to happen.”

???**

As hesso12 seems to have exited the conversation, let me give an educated guess: perhaps the idea is that Abigail was being submissive because she didn’t confront her husband and tell him “You fool, King David has protected you and you refused him hospitality, now he and his army will come and destroy us! I will now go out and beg the king for forgiveness, since you are too clueless to do it yourself!”

And certainly, “submissive” wives sneaking around behind their husbands backs instead of confronting them directly seems to happen with some regularity (I recall this came out in past topics where wifely submission was discussed.)

On the other hand, isn’t what Abigail did technically a “deception”?

I guess some people are focusing on the fact that Nabal eventually was struck down by God himself, and actually think that women married to selfish, even wicked men should patiently wait for that to happen? But that certainly isn’t keeping with the idea that one of the goals of marriage is to help the other spouse get to heaven.

 

[Xantippe]

sorry friend I can only do what I can.

So, no specific answers?

That’s not a lot of help.

I’ll add my own.

–Should she sign a tax return or insurance claim that she knows is fraudulent?

–Should she give him his car keys when he’s drunk or senile?

–Should she empty out her 401(k) on his orders when he’s manic?

–When she can see that the children have a disability, but her husband pooh poohs it, should she leave the children without needed therapy, when each year of delay means that the children will be less and less able to improve?

–Should she perform sexual acts that are immoral at his request?

I’m pretty sure that this whole submission mania is very much a Protestant fundamentalist thing, and it makes little sense in a Catholic context. A Catholic wife in doubt can always go to her priest, and it’s very likely she’ll be told that she does not have to comply with unreasonable requests. (If you look at those Casti Connubi quotes again, you’ll find that the right to refuse unreasonable requests is in the text.)

 

[pianistclare]

I just read one of the writers that Xantippe suggested and found this gem:

*There’s an intellectual problem with the idea: we are to submit to our husbands, EXCEPT in cases of abuse and alcoholism and weird sex stuff. Either the Bible is true or it’s not.

Except that we know that women aren’t supposed to go along with sin.

So how do we reconcile it?

I think the problem is that we define submission wrong. We define submission as in going along with someone’s WILL. Letting him make the decisions, and following him in that. But that makes no sense as the definition of submission because of the verse immediately before, in Ephesians 5:21: Submit to one another. How can we all be letting someone else make the decisions? Then no one would make decisions!*

I think everything comes down to this: our ultimate submission is to Christ. God NEVER asks us to submit to another authority in a way that would contravene our submission to Christ.

So when Paul said to submit to authorities, he only meant it as far as you can do so without also violating Christ’s directives. After all, Paul said to submit to authorities–but he himself did not! He spoke about Christ when he was told specifically not to.

Similarly, children are not to follow parents into sin.

When Paul says, “submit to your husbands as to the Lord”, he’s telling us to submit to our husbands in our submission to Christ. He isn’t saying to treat our husbands like Christ, because he himself never had any other primary authority above God. And God would never tell us to do that.

Submission is primarily about decision-making. I think it’s instead an attitude of the heart. As we submit to Christ, we submit to our husbands; we follow their leading; we look out for their best; we put their needs first.

Hesso: Here’s the thing. If you truly believe that your personal interpretation of Scripture is better than the Church’s, you should have NO PROBLEM defending it. You can’t.

In all Christian charity, as a sister in Christ I implore you to enroll in a great Scripture study with a priest leader. There are good CATHOLIC ones out there.
Peace.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The story of Abigail also is notable in that she went above her husband to the King, who you could argue had authority over BOTH Abigail and Nabal.

Note that even Michelle Duggar told a different story than Jim Bob about exactly where they sent their wayward son. She did so when speaking to a lawful authority figure.

 

[PolarGuy]

Swolf, when you call someone’s questions “stupid,” what you really say is “I don’t like this question but I lack the patience or articulateness to explain why I don’t like it so I’ll just say it’s stupid.”

Thus, by writing as you did, all you really accomplished was making yourself look bad.

Besides, far from being “stupid,” Hesso seemed to find them so complex and challenging that he fled from them.

Furthermore, the point - that I’ll explain with small words so you understand - is that, if you believe wives must always submit to their husbands, you must logically answer yes to my questions. They were supposed to be simple - or, heh heh ‘stupid’ if you will – but I guess that nuance was lost on you.

 

[Xantippe]

What’s funny is, if you switch genders, I’ve read people tell the husband he should do similar things for his wife, otherwise he’s “not loving his wife like the Church”. Don’t give her the big house she wants? Not loving his wife enough. Saves for retirement and wife wants to spend? Doesn’t love his wife enough.

Frankly put, they’re stupid questions, and ignore the nuance of roles in marriage that Hesso is arguing.

Eh, I don’t think I’ve seen those particular discussions on CAF, or anywhere else, actually.

Normally, people giving advice would want to know specific information. Is the proposed mortgage well under 25% of income? Well, then don’t be so stingy–go for the nicer house. Is it closer to 50% of household income? Well, then don’t do it!

Is the family already saving 10-15% of income toward retirement? Well, then why are you being stingy about whatever is left over? Is the family not saving 10-15% of income toward retirement? Then do so, and if there is no money left over, suggest to the wife that she think about finding extra income or reducing other expenses in order to afford what she really wants.

The problem with the situations you describe is that the husband is “daddy,” doling out goodies (or withholding them) from a wife that is “daddy’s little princess” and she has close to no idea of what the family’s finances look like. In a more functional household, both spouses understand the family finances, and if the spender wants something bad, the saver can always say, “I don’t see it in our budget, but you show me how to make it work and we’ll do it.” I personally had an embarrassingly long stretch as “daddy’s little princess,” and it really is possible for somebody like that to come out of it and start making good decisions–if they are involved in the budgeting process and have to start making choices between different things they want (thing A versus thing B or leisure versus extra income).

 

[SWolf]

Swolf, when you call someone’s questions “stupid,” what you really say is “I don’t like this question but I lack the patience or articulateness to explain why I don’t like it so I’ll just say it’s stupid.”

Thus, by writing as you did, all you really accomplished was making yourself look bad.

Besides, far from being “stupid,” Hesso seemed to find them so complex and challenging that he fled from them.

Furthermore, the point - that I’ll explain with small words so you understand - is that, if you believe wives must always submit to their husbands, you must logically answer yes to my questions. They were supposed to be simple - or, heh heh ‘stupid’ if you will – but I guess that nuance was lost on you.

The questions made a strawman of Hesso’s argument, and a yes/no would not suffice.

Just like “if you really loved your wife, would you use all your income to buy a big house” makes a strawman of husbandly duties towards his wife. " It shows more interest in scoring points than seeing perspectives.

As someone who’s married to very smart lady (who also happens to make more $ than I do!) I can’t help but be really unimpressed by men who want a submissive wife…it’s like they have some insecurity or defect that makes them seek out someone who won’t challenge them.

As someone who’s married to very smart lady, I can’t help but be really unimpressed by men who want an egalitarian marriages. It’s like they are cowards who don’t want to take leadership, and try to justify their wife calling all the shots as an “equal partnership”.’

Is the above completely unfair? How was it any more unfair than saying people who want a traditional marriage are insecure?

 

[pianistclare]

The questions made a strawman of Hesso’s argument, and a yes/no would not suffice.

Just like “if you really loved your wife, would you use all your income to buy a big house” makes a strawman of husbandly duties towards his wife. " It shows more interest in scoring points than seeing perspectives.

As someone who’s married to very smart lady, I can’t help but be really unimpressed by men who want an egalitarian marriages. It’s like they are cowards who don’t want to take leadership, and try to justify their wife calling all the shots as an “equal partnership”.’

Is the above completely unfair? How was it any more unfair than saying people who want a traditional marriage are insecure?

Because it’s not Christ like.
This is what we are called to. All of us. Husbands and wives.
THIS is what St. Paul speaks of, if you interpret the passages correctly. Paul did not submit to any man…he only submitted to God. We are to follow each other in Christ, and what Christ would have us do; which is chiefly to help each other to heaven, and choose the good.
When we seek the best for each other, there’s we find the will of God. Not man’s will. Or woman’s.

 

[PolarGuy]

Considering that the definition of “egalitarian” includes use of the words “fair” and “equal,” if CAF now is having people argue for UNfair and UNequal marriages based on gender, I’d say this board membership has reached a new low in “reasoning.”

 

[SWolf]

Considering that the definition of “egalitarian” includes use of the words “fair” and “equal,” if CAF now is having people argue for UNfair and UNequal marriages based on gender, I’d say this board membership has reached a new low in “reasoning.”

Submission has nothing to do with inequality and unfairness. Christ submitted to The Father, and he is not unequal and their relationship is not in any way unfair.

 

[EasterJoy]

Hesso, you’re not answering any questions - just posting the same thing over and over in different terms.

Should the submissive wife serve whatever the husband wants to eat?

Should she allow him to spend his paycheck however he wishes?

Should she prance around in pegnoir whenever he demands?

No Bible verses, please. Just yes or no.

Thanks in advance.

In practical terms:
If you do the cooking and ignore what the people you cook for like and dislike, you are asking for trouble. That is as true in a monastery or convent as it is in a family.

A Christian who puts himself or herself first when spending money is in need of correction. Submission does not mean never offering correction; rather, a Christian is open to hearing admonishment where it is warranted. That comes out of the virtue of humility, and all Christians ought to pursue it. Nathan submitted to King David, because David was the annointed King. When David had Uriah murdered so that David could have Uriah’s wife, the Lord had his prophet Nathan read David the riot act. David responded with contrition and humility, which was the altogether right thing to do. We all need that, sometimes, and sometimes there is no one with a duty to do it as a spouse has.

Pegnoir? I had to look up what a pegnoir even is! No, the Christian marital embrace is not built around demands. The husband owes his body to his wife and vice versa, but it is not the kind of debt that the secular world presumes when it talks about debt. I cannot count the number of red letter verses that get very stern about how a Christian is to treat those who owe him or her a debt. Suffice it to say that we must treat debtors within the knowledge that we ourselves are debtors. I cannot think of any exceptions. Marriage certainly is not one of them.

 

[LightBound]

agreed,the catholic church says wives are to submit to there husband’s.
Rebellious women will not listen since they were not brought up properly.

You mean brought up to have an education and think for themselves without having a husband micromanage them? Well then, color me rebellious!

 

[PolarGuy]

The problem swolf, is that you’ve already said that submission IS related to inequality and unfairness IN MARRIAGE: you said that men who wanted “egalitarian” marriages, i.e., fair marriages; equal marriages, were “cowards.”

So the more you write, the deeper the hole you’re digging gets…

 

[pianistclare]

agreed,the catholic church says wives are to submit to there husband’s.
Rebellious women will not listen since they were not brought up properly.

oh dear. This speaks volumes.
May I ask, how old are you?
I am guilty of frequent typos, but the misspellings in your recent threads suggests that you are quite young.
Perhaps more study and less “quoting” is in order.
Peace.