What does Women are Portrait in our Catholic Faith

[Xantippe]

Very modern to take out the last part.

I read somewhere that has become quite common in the world full of divorce.

It is funny because there are many a blog and foruns where women seek advice how much they need to figure out if they can drop that term from the vows… mentality ma’am mentality.

Goes both ways but wrong breeds cycle. When you dont trust me I dont trust you then we are two people protecting ourselves

And we all know the best defense is a good offense. We all destroy eachother

We had a discussion on this earlier on the forum and it turned out that “obey” is primarily an Anglican thing–which is why it sounds traditional to the American ear. (Ditto the “giving away” bit which is standard Protestant but not standard Catholic.)

catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/dont-give-away-the-bride

There are apparently some more questions in the standard Catholic rite.

“…have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?”

“Will you honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?”

“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

everafterguide.com/catholic-wedding-vows.html

I wasn’t able to find an authoritative Catholic source in the time I had–so I’m a little uncertain about the “man and wife” bit, but the “accept children lovingly from God” is definitely in the liturgy.

It would be a very serious thing to vow to “obey” without going deeply into the question of obey what and obey how far?

Fidelity, love and honor are a big deal–they shouldn’t be treated like chopped liver.

 

[SilverShadow22]

This is why I stipulated worthy leader, allegiance and not blind obedience, and only until conflict with a well-formed conscience.

A good leader accepts outside (name removed by moderator)ut and defers certain authority.

 

[LethalMouse]

We had a discussion on this earlier on the forum and it turned out that “obey” is primarily an Anglican thing–which is why it sounds traditional to the American ear. (Ditto the “giving away” bit which is standard Protestant but not standard Catholic.)

catholic.com/blog/michelle-arnold/dont-give-away-the-bride

There are apparently some more questions in the standard Catholic rite.

“…have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?”

“Will you honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?”

“Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”

everafterguide.com/catholic-wedding-vows.html

I wasn’t able to find an authoritative Catholic source in the time I had–so I’m a little uncertain about the “man and wife” bit, but the “accept children lovingly from God” is definitely in the liturgy.

It would be a very serious thing to vow to “obey” without going deeply into the question of obey what and obey how far?

Fidelity, love and honor are a big deal–they shouldn’t be treated like chopped liver.

Apologies, my wedding was not in CC lol.

But I would still obey my wife

 

[SilverShadow22]

I’ve been to about five weddings, all Catholic, and aside from being entwined in the Mass, it all seems pretty generic. Same readings… Same lame songs… The vows a bit longer than the movie version, but still lacking any real ‘oomph’ such as grand medieval vows possessed, and always replacing the dramatic ‘till death do you part’ with the very… Meh… ‘as long as you both shall live.’

No … Not as long as we live. ONLY death can separate. What God has joined together, let then no man put asunder.

Imperative language! Deadly serious vows! Let’s say it like we mean it!

 

[Xantippe]

Honor.

That means acknowledge his status as leader.

What I said also applies to military service. You don’t get to quibble with orders, you ONLY get to choose (if not drafted) whether or not to put yourself under that authority. And you only get to disobey orders when it CLEARLY violates natural law (the most basic form of conscience) because ‘I was just following orders’ did not excuse the Nazis for war crimes.

If he’s not worth following, he’s not worth marrying. And he’s not worth following if you think he’ll never listen to you. This is discernment… We don’t have to marry someone we don’t like or don’t trust.

Both husband and wife vow to love and honor. There is a Biblical source for the need for husband to honor wives, by the way–it’s 1 Peter 3:7: “Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing **honor **on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.”

Look, I’m the reasonably happily married lady in this conversation. I’ve had the same exact husband for the last 18 years. I have been (as the vow says), true to him in “good times and bad, in sickness and in health.” You haven’t done this stuff yet. I thought exactly the same way you did when I was a sweet young thing–just pick the right guy and follow–but I have lived to realize that I didn’t realize what I was talking about (and there was a lot about my husband that I didn’t understand yet). And, quite fortunately, pick-a-good-guy-and-follow isn’t Church teaching. See, for example Casti Connubii, where it talks about the wife not acting in ways contrary to right reason or to contrary to her dignity. So we’re not just talking about not obeying in the case of sin…But when I was a young bride, I had never looked at Casti Connubii, and I was coming out of a Protestant background, and I didn’t realize to what extent Protestant ideas were influencing me.

It’s hard enough to have a reasonably good marriage while sticking just to Church teaching. Let’s not make stuff up on top of that.

 

[Xantippe]

I’ve been to about five weddings, all Catholic, and aside from being entwined in the Mass, it all seems pretty generic. Same readings… Same lame songs… The vows a bit longer than the movie version, but still lacking any real ‘oomph’ such as grand medieval vows possessed, and always replacing the dramatic ‘till death do you part’ with the very… Meh… ‘as long as you both shall live.’

No … Not as long as we live. ONLY death can separate. What God has joined together, let then no man put asunder.

Imperative language! Deadly serious vows! Let’s say it like we mean it!

So, what are those “grand medieval vows”?

Pre-Trent, they would not have been all that grand.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Grand. As in, the language and presentation.

I want a revision to make it more impressive. Not change the meaning.

In fact, I want to look up some traditional ceremonies and such and see if I get some ideas. Throwing rice doesn’t do it for me.

 

[SilverShadow22]

… What you quoted of Casti Connubii is exactly what I said. Honor and respect JUST and rightly ordered leadership AND she has a right to his respect in equal measure…

HENCE we are allowed to choose a good person to tilt the odds in favor of success, because this is so important.

In contrast, you could join the military under a good general, then get a terrible general… But you don’t get excused from service because of that.

 

[LethalMouse]

Both husband and wife vow to love and honor. There is a Biblical source for the need for husband to honor wives, by the way–it’s 1 Peter 3:7: “Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing **honor **on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life, in order that your prayers may not be hindered.”

Look, I’m the reasonably happily married lady in this conversation. I’ve had the same exact husband for the last 18 years. I have been (as the vow says), true to him in “good times and bad, in sickness and in health.” You haven’t done this stuff yet. I thought exactly the same way you did when I was a sweet young thing–just pick the right guy and follow–but I have lived to realize that I didn’t realize what I was talking about (and there was a lot about my husband that I didn’t understand yet). And, quite fortunately, pick-a-good-guy-and-follow isn’t Church teaching. See, for example Casti Connubii, where it talks about the wife not acting in ways contrary to right reason or to contrary to her dignity. So we’re not just talking about not obeying in the case of sin…But when I was a young bride, I had never looked at Casti Connubii, and I was coming out of a Protestant background, and I didn’t realize to what extent Protestant ideas were influencing me.

It’s hard enough to have a reasonably good marriage while sticking just to Church teaching. Let’s not make stuff up on top of that.

The issue is that there is a confusion of agreements in practicality and wording and issues associated as well as what is taught.

I had a conversation on another thread with a Jewish lady. She accused all catholics of looking down on her faith in a certain way.

I said I did not and gave her faith much credit…

She said she was done with me.

Another catholic chimed in and belittled her faith and was rather hostile… she happily discussed with him.

I was highly confused by this, until a friend gave me a good explaination.

You see she COULD talk to the hostile man because he posed her world view NO risk. He posed her animosity no risk of being stopped. People like their animosity…

But if she engaged me I would bring something nice to her. Something that would make it hard for her to hate me, something dangerous to her worldview.

Likewise with this sort of issue you can note how you and I and others have argued before but where we agree is ignored mostly. To understand the other side is pushed away in favor of a black and white view.

Because to acknowledge our agreement is far more dangerous than to lash out and belittle. Yes to note possitives of one’s “enemy” is the most scary thing of all.

 

[Xantippe]

… What you quoted of Casti Connubii is exactly what I said. Honor and respect JUST and rightly ordered leadership AND she has a right to his respect in equal measure…

HENCE we are allowed to choose a good person to tilt the odds in favor of success, because this is so important.

In contrast, you could join the military under a good general, then get a terrible general… But you don’t get excused from service because of that.

I don’t think the military works very well as an analogy for the “hard” version of wifely submission. Here are some reasons:

–military service is not lifelong
–military personnel get to go on leave
–the general has superiors that he is directly responsible to
–there are court martials for generals
–generals can get fired
–theoretically, generals can suffer a reduction in rank
–you might theoretically rise to similar rank and no longer be a subordinate of the general
–the general might retire, so you wouldn’t have the same superior for your entire career

Etc.

Ditto for employment analogies–without committing any sins, you can quit the job, the boss can get fired, you get to go on vacation, you can transfer, you can moonlight at a different job, you can go to HR, etc.

 

[SilverShadow22]

I don’t think the military works very well as an analogy for the “hard” version of wifely submission. Here are some reasons:

–military service is not lifelong
–military personnel get to go on leave
–the general has superiors that he is directly responsible to
–there are court martials for generals
–generals can get fired
–theoretically, generals can suffer a reduction in rank
–you might theoretically rise to similar rank and no longer be a subordinate of the general
–the general might retire, so you wouldn’t have the same superior for your entire career

Etc.

Ditto for employment analogies–without committing any sins, you can quit the job, the boss can get fired, you get to go on vacation, you can transfer, you can moonlight at a different job, you can go to HR, etc.

I was not using it as an example but a CONTRAST hence the word ‘in contrast’ because some leaders we pick, and some we don’t.

Also what I was pointing out is that people willingly put themselves under much more severe submission than the kind we’re discussing, and for objectively lesser benefit.

 

[Xantippe]

I was not using it as an example but a CONTRAST hence the word ‘in contrast’ because some leaders we pick, and some we don’t.

Also what I was pointing out is that people willingly put themselves under much more severe submission than the kind we’re discussing, and for objectively lesser benefit.

Earlier you said:

"Honor.

"That means acknowledge his status as leader.

"What I said also applies to military service. You don’t get to quibble with orders, you ONLY get to choose (if not drafted) whether or not to put yourself under that authority. And you only get to disobey orders when it CLEARLY violates natural law (the most basic form of conscience) because ‘I was just following orders’ did not excuse the Nazis for war crimes.

“If he’s not worth following, he’s not worth marrying. And he’s not worth following if you think he’ll never listen to you. This is discernment… We don’t have to marry someone we don’t like or don’t trust.”

Have a look again at those quotes from Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubi again:

"26. 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]

1. 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. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
2. 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 ."

So, it is quite fair to say that the obedience-except-in-clear-sin model does not actually describe official Church teaching–there is a lot more fine print involved.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Yes… CONTRAST. Once you join the army, you’re stuck. Because you had no choice who you serve… Ok, then we can compare it to being drafted: then you REALLY have no choice.

What I’m trying to say is that the ONLY kind of leader who deserves what I term ‘full devotion’ is the kind who wouldn’t ask you something worthy of refusal. Obviously, humans aren’t perfect and we don’t always reach this mark… But if we’re trying as hard as we can… That’s the ideal, isn’t it?

I’m not missing the point… And I did, in my definition of ‘leader’ stipulate the Christ-like quality that the encyclical is talking about…

No one is born a great leader, but everyone leans either toward leader or tyrant. (Or follower, as the case may be.) Tyrants neither deserve nor gain respect… Leaders do.

If I have to break down the difference between a leader and a tyrant… Then I just give up.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes… CONTRAST. Once you join the army, you’re stuck. Because you had no choice who you serve… Ok, then we can compare it to being drafted: then you REALLY have no choice.

What I’m trying to say is that the ONLY kind of leader who deserves what I term ‘full devotion’ is the kind who wouldn’t ask you something worthy of refusal. Obviously, humans aren’t perfect and we don’t always reach this mark… But if we’re trying as hard as we can… That’s the ideal, isn’t it?

I’m not missing the point… And I did, in my definition of ‘leader’ stipulate the Christ-like quality that the encyclical is talking about…

No one is born a great leader, but everyone leans either toward leader or tyrant. (Or follower, as the case may be.) Tyrants neither deserve nor gain respect… Leaders do.

If I have to break down the difference between a leader and a tyrant… Then I just give up.

What I’m trying to tell you is that the Catholic Church does not expect the sort of obedience from wives that you think that wives owe husbands. To paraphrase the encyclical, wives are not children and should not be treated like children. We are not expected to do stuff that doesn’t make sense or do stuff that is humiliating. If a husband is failing to care for his family, it’s OK for a wife to step up and take charge.

Again, I understand where you are coming with–I had very similar views before I had any sort of substantial experience as a wife. When I was a kid, I was firmly convinced that the only thing wrong with my parents’ marriage was that my mom didn’t do exactly what my dad said. Now that I’m older and have a better sense of ways in which my dad made mistakes when I was a kid (my mom has really never complained, it’s just I notice more stuff now), I realize that that view was mistaken. There’s a lot more going on than that, and all of us (even really good guys) are stupid and selfish some of the time.

 

[SilverShadow22]

What I’m trying to tell you is that the Catholic Church does not expect the sort of obedience from wives that you think that wives owe husbands. To paraphrase the encyclical, wives are not children and should not be treated like children. We are not expected to do stuff that doesn’t make sense or do stuff that is humiliating. If a husband is failing to care for his family, it’s OK for a wife to step up and take charge.

Again, I understand where you are coming with–I had very similar views before I had any sort of substantial experience as a wife. When I was a kid, I was firmly convinced that the only thing wrong with my parents’ marriage was that my mom didn’t do exactly what my dad said. Now that I’m older and have a better sense of ways in which my dad made mistakes when I was a kid (my mom has really never complained, it’s just I notice more stuff now), I realize that that view was mistaken. There’s a lot more going on than that, and all of us (even really good guys) are stupid and selfish some of the time.

And I’m saying that what you seem to think I’m saying is not actually what I’m saying…

 

[LethalMouse]

Earlier you said:

"Honor.

"That means acknowledge his status as leader.

"What I said also applies to military service. You don’t get to quibble with orders, you ONLY get to choose (if not drafted) whether or not to put yourself under that authority. And you only get to disobey orders when it CLEARLY violates natural law (the most basic form of conscience) because ‘I was just following orders’ did not excuse the Nazis for war crimes.

“If he’s not worth following, he’s not worth marrying. And he’s not worth following if you think he’ll never listen to you. This is discernment… We don’t have to marry someone we don’t like or don’t trust.”

Have a look again at those quotes from Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubi again:

"26. 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]

1. 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. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
2. 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 ."

So, it is quite fair to say that the obedience-except-in-clear-sin model does not actually describe official Church teaching–there is a lot more fine print involved.

Doesnt this support exactly what we are saying?

Including the caveats you yourself bolded?

The problem is You read only the bold and completely ignore 26.

Some are reading BOTH

No one quoting 26 here is denying your bold at all, you are categorically denying 26 as a thing at all.

 

[SilverShadow22]

Doesnt this support exactly what we are saying?

Including the caveats you yourself bolded?

The problem is You read only the bold and completely ignore 26.

Some are reading BOTH

No one quoting 26 here is denying your bold at all, you are categorically denying 26 as a thing at all.

Yes! Thank you! And part of fulfilling 26 is making sure he understands the rest of it.

 

[Xantippe]

And I’m saying that what you seem to think I’m saying is not actually what I’m saying…

Well, so far I’ve only seen you accept clear actual sin as a reason for a wife not to obey her husband…

Got any other exceptions?

 

[Xantippe]

Doesnt this support exactly what we are saying?

Including the caveats you yourself bolded?

The problem is You read only the bold and completely ignore 26.

Some are reading BOTH

No one quoting 26 here is denying your bold at all, you are categorically denying 26 as a thing at all.

No I don’t.

But I do reject any theorizing on marriage based on best case scenarios–husband never has mental illness, never has a brain injury, never develops an addiction, never gets a brain tumor, never has a stroke, never has dementia, etc.

It seems to me that at least one of those items is eventually going to happen to any particular person, given enough time.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

sigh

Why don’t people do a thread search before posting popcorn topics that rile half the forum?