M
- Status
D
Debora123
Guest
Iām just following your logic and asking you a rhetorical question so that you see the flaw in your reasoning.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Iām just going to follow on this by filling it out as I see it. Now, since the couple should obviously be trying to follow Godās will the husband in this scenario should give in to the wife and the wife should work on helping her husband to see what Godās will is for them at that point in time. In other words, whichever spouse is right about what God wants is the one who should āget their wayā as people put it (which is a little misleading as its not about either spouse getting what they want but rather about both spouses following Godās Will).
So, the question that is left is how does a couple tell which one of them wants what God wants? And the answer is that there is no easy answer, no easy universal which will allow you to generalize that one should always give in to the other. The spouses have to work together to discern together what God wants of them. Turning it into a universal one-sided submission inevitably leads to the couple failing to follow Godās will for their family.
Another interesting scenario to think about is the scenario where a husband begins to feel entitled to his wifes submission and begins to lead in a non-Christlike fashion (even if he is not telling his wife to sin). In such a case what is the wife to do? Is she to docilely submit to her husband and allow him to become habituated to his false and incorrect view of the marital relationship which will inevitably lead to further marital distress and dischord? Or does she speak up and warn him about what he is doing? And refuse to enable him to treat her poorly for the sake of the future well-being of their marriage? This seems to me a clear case where the wife, using her own right reason ought to stand-up both for herself and for the good of the marriage, yet for those couples who like to think that the husband always gets his way there would be a temptation for the husband whose wife āacts upā like this to, instead of listening to her advice, to just assume that she is being insubordinate and disrespectful. This is a definite danger of the thinking that the husband ought always to get the last say, most especially if it is the husband who thinks this way. If a husband begins to feel entitled to have his way then he is headed down a very dangerous path.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
If you donāt want to wind up like me, submit to an intervention!Woot, woot!
Do I get a prize?! A medal or something?
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Pushed to put it in a nutshell, Iād say this:
The couple made a vow, in keeping with the fundamental nature of sacramental nature, to be open to children. In the absence of a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, that is ought to be the default attitude. I donāt mean that the couple is charting and trying to get pregnant, but that they are not consciously trying to avoid it, either.
Having said that, it is not right to pressure anyone, not even oneās spouse, into pursuing pregnancy when one of the parents feels they are being compelled against their will and against their better judgment to do it. If one of the spouses contends that they discern a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, then while other spouse can lobby for them to see the familyās situation differently, it is not right to ever try to bully or coerce a spouse, whether it is the wife or the husband, into overriding their honest sense that the family is not ready for another child. It has to be admitted, after all, that sometimes the good desire for more children makes a person try to ignore legitimate reasons that this good desire should bow to the reality of how ready each parent is to bear the responsibility of more children. Sometimes it is the very parent who has already taken on so much that he or she is at the breaking point who wonāt see what the situation is. Both spouses ought to have the room to say, āno, this is what we can handleā.
P
Paul_Fekete
Guest
In this case the wife should go to the priest and share with him that her husband is leading harshly. As long as the husband submits to the priest (which he is commanded to do) the wife should always have a way to protect herself from a hard and abusive husband. No husband should feel entitled in their role. They are to be servant leaders not dictators.
P
Paul_Fekete
Guest
Having kids is a calling from God. There is no universal rule how many kids to have which is why this question was raised in the first place. If you think that a stand off is the best course of action until God reveals His will to both the husband and the wife, then you have effectively put the decision in the hands of the wife since she could delay while waiting to hear from God until such a time where she could not physically have kids any more. Many decisions in marriage are time sensitive so if you allow the stand off then you allow one person to get ātheir wayā by just delaying the decision. I feel I have said all I can hereā¦I am going to sign off for now.
Those that are outside the church would say that God was cruel and āmanipulativeā in asking His son to die on the Cross, but through that act of submission to the will of the Father we are saved by the atoning death of Jesus. Through a similar act of submission a wife can bring salvation and peace to the family by trusting Godās plan for marriage roles.
T
thewanderer
Guest
The wife has to go to her priest in order to get her husband to stop treating her harshly? And what if the priest doesnāt agree with her, is she then supposed to just give in and put up with this harsh treatment?
Again, I advise you to pay attention to the part of Casti Connubii where it makes it clear that the degree and form of the husbands authority over the wife will vary depending on the people, time and place. It is wrong to present the above solution as the only acceptable solution. Casti Connubii makes this perfectly clear.
P
Paul_Fekete
Guest
Why would a priest who represents Jesus on earth not try to protect her? Are you suggesting that wives can not trust priests to lead like Jesus with both love and justice? If there is abuse then no question they should call the police.
M
mommamaree
Guest
There have been many examples here at CAF of where a woman has appealed to a priest or deacon about how her husband is treating her harshly and the āman of the clothā instructed her to continue submitting. Priests and deacons are still men, not Christ himself.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Paul Fekete;11051991**:
If there is abuse then no question they should call the police.
You are kidding right. The Church is still suffering the aftermath of priests who represented Jesus on Earth ā abusing the young ā and you donāt think that there are priests out there ā who would send a wife back to hands of an abuser.
T
thewanderer
Guest
If he believes she is mistaken about the situation, such as if the husband has talked to him about his wife in a way that makes him believe that she is the one who is wrong notthe husband. Priests are not infallible and neither are husbands.
D
Debora123
Guest
:sad_yes:
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Just quoting myself, if anyone would be interested in reading the above.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
Tell me what class of human beings would not. Herself? No. Her mother? No. Her father? No. Priests are not perfect, but of those fourāthe wife herself, her parents, or her pastorāthe pastor is actually the least likely to tell her that enduring abuse from oneās spouse is part of marriage. More to the point, if her husband is trying to use religion to control her, a priest is the one whose authority is the most likely to be believed, both by the spouse who abuses and the spouse who is being abused.
As for how to deal with abuse, a husbandās sin will have to go far beyond what his pastor will correct him about before the police could ever get involved. There is no civil law against verbal abuse, as long as it doesnāt get so loud it upsets the neighbors. There is no civil law against treating your wife with contempt, no law against the silent treatment, no law against throwing past misdeeds in a spouseās face. I could go on, but I only mean to say this: Let us hope that no one waits until it is time to call the police before enlisting the aid of the Body of Christ in getting a spouse to repent from abusive behavior (which typically escalates from what civil law would consider unfortunate, and does not start in the realm of the literally criminal), whether that be asking a pastor or some other trusted fellow Catholics to speak to the wayward spouse about the slide in his (or her) behavior.
Having said that, my sense is that you didnāt mean to attack priests. Your objection, rather, is about whether or not a wife ought to feel she can represent herself to her husband when his behavior is not acceptable. Of course she can! She has that authority, and the Church tells her so. If her husband does not believe this is what the Church says, by all means their pastor is a good candidate to tell him the truth. If I had to guess, Iād think most of the pastors I had would have told me so much themselvesāthat is, that it is my place to correct my husband if he is violating virtue in how he treats me. Good marriages donāt have outside referees, and most priests want couples to learn to find their way without one. If I sent someone with this sort of a problem to a priest, I would fully expect that heād counsel her about how to deal with the problem herself in a firm but loving manner. After that, if the three of them met and got nowhere heād probably suggest they go to a Catholic counselor who would give them the kind of time theyād need to work this out.
Maybe this is a concept that has to be seen to be understood? I have not found that it is typical of Catholic husbands who believe themselves to be the heads of their households to have a dictatorial understanding of that idea. Their wives are not masochists, nor are they doormats; they know what Christian authority looks like and what Christian submission means. This is not some theory Iāve never seen work out. It is typical of the marriages I know that have lasted over 50 years. They believe the husband is the head of the home, but they do not understand it to be a āpowerā position, as the world does. They are not jealous of each other; they donāt wrangle over power. They are most interested in pleasing God, and after that they are most interested in pleasing each other and treating each other with honor. They know what Christian marriage means.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
I donāt know where you got the idea ā I was attacking priests . I was just pointing out ā that the priesthood ā is not immune to having some priests within ā that would send a woman back to an abuser.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
This thread is straying again. Most couples who are trying to decide whether or not they need to use NFP to avoid pregnancy are not in an abusive marriage. Theyāre just trying to decide whether their reasons for putting off a pregnancy are āseriousā or not.
Another somewhat-common problem is when one spouse insists on using ABC and the other wants to either use NFP or to be open to children. That can be very difficult, but the Church does not require the non-contracepting spouse to abstain because their spouse is using contraception. Certainly, then, the Church must not believe that āheadshipā means withholding sex in order to assert āauthorityā.
When one spouse wants to use NFP to avoid and the other doesnāt, well, that is also a difficult situation, since most couples using NFP believe the method presupposes a like mind between the spouses. That is the kind of question that you see coming up, in terms of questions posed to this board. That is a very difficult situation for both spouses; there are no solutions that can just be tossed in as the right way to navigate it. Certainly a bald-faced power play is not it, though.
Another somewhat-common problem is when one spouse insists on using ABC and the other wants to either use NFP or to be open to children. That can be very difficult, but the Church does not require the non-contracepting spouse to abstain because their spouse is using contraception. Certainly, then, the Church must not believe that āheadshipā means withholding sex in order to assert āauthorityā.
When one spouse wants to use NFP to avoid and the other doesnāt, well, that is also a difficult situation, since most couples using NFP believe the method presupposes a like mind between the spouses. That is the kind of question that you see coming up, in terms of questions posed to this board. That is a very difficult situation for both spouses; there are no solutions that can just be tossed in as the right way to navigate it. Certainly a bald-faced power play is not it, though.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
To write āyou are kidding rightā with your caution that priests have been known to be fallible in this area, not to mention throwing mention of the abuse scandals in, could be taken to imply that someone ought not be sent to a priest for counsel because the abuse scandals shows they cannot be trusted. I do not think you meant it that way, but it would be no surprise if someone took that as a blanket attack on priests. I did say that I do not think you meant it that way. My counter-point was that wives should also not be presumed to be able to stand up to abuse on their own. Their parents cannot be presumed to be more protective of them than āprotective of their marriagesā (as if those could be separate things). We should not say, āOh, this one person in your life will always steer you right.ā This is too important and abuse situations are too personal and dangerous to take that chance. We are spouting two bullet points from the same page on that!!
I think we are both saying this: Teach people that abuse within marriage is never tolerable and that the spiritual work of mercy of bearing wrongs patiently, while vital to a good marriage and family life, does not imply that abuse ought to be tolerated as if it is not abuse. To bear wrongs patiently, let alone real Christian submission to another, does not mean to quietly leave oneself out there as a near occasion of sin for someone who lacks the self-control necessary for their state in life, even if that someone is your husband or your wife. We donāt have to send anyone to a priest to hear that. If they wonāt believe it if anyone else says it, that is fine, the priests are happy to counsel the faithful on this, but we should never imply that abuse is to be tolerated until our pastor confirms that it is not tolerable. I do not know a priest who would want married couples to be told something like that!! It was worth saying, though. Libraries could be filled with things that the pastors would be happy to have all the faithful telling each other, instead of waiting to hear it only from the priests!!
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Now that you quoted yourself, I read it. I suspect the theologian/authorās response may have been different if the woman hadnāt spoken of deceiving her husband about her fertility. The deception part is highly troublesome. If she wants to ācut cornersā on how tightly she reads and follows NFP, then her husband should be made aware of it. Also, beyond the issue of more kids, there were clearly other problems in that marriage. The suggestion offered to work on one issue at a time seemed good. I donāt think everything the author wrote to that particular woman with her circumstance should be applied to every couple that cannot agree on children. So, I generally agree with his suggestions to her.Just quoting myself, if anyone would be interested in reading the above.
BUT, I donāt agree with some of his interpretations and ideas.
He took some leaps in logic that I think took him off course, saying that Vatican II āimpliedā something that it did not explicitly say, while ignoring what it actually did say. He wrote, āSecond, as Vatican II teaches, only the couple may decide about regulating births. This implies that the decision should be by the agreement of both spouses (see GS 50; LCL, 681ā84). Their consensus is necessary because the new person emerges from his or her parents insofar as they are one, so that the childās procreation presupposes the parentsā unity.ā He jumped from āthe couple should be on consensus in regulating births*ā to āYou, lady, should stop asking your husband for another baby and go volunteer at a daycare or something.ā (I paraphrased and shared how it sounded to me.
)Many of us grew up in an era of error when Catholic teachers and theologians frequently said Vatican II implied things that it didnāt actually, so I have become leery of it. And I know personally know some Catholic theologians who arenāt orthodox, soā¦I read through the Vatican II document he sighted, Gaudium et Spes section 50. I did not see it anywhere saying or even coming close to implying what he said it implies. Moreover, in the next section (51), the document seemed to forecast some of the very types of intimacy problems this woman mentions. I donāt know what document he meant by LCL so I couldnāt check that original source.
Anyway, I spent way too much time and energy looking at that article and the original sources. I agree with his recommendations that she work on the matter of having her husband help with NFP and work on intimacy and address these issues slowly and over time. And like the author, I am troubled by the idea of a woman deceiving her spouse on such a matter as this. But unlike the author, I think that woman was being terribly wronged by her husband
āand I especially didnāt like the patronizing attitude that a woman who wants another child when her husband doesnāt should basically drop the matter and go volunteer. 
P
Paul_Fekete
Guest
If priests had wives then you could approach them, but they donāt so I see the point hereā¦What about going to another priest? Could God in His mercy send someone to intervene on the wifeās behalf? I know that if there is physical abuse that a wife can go to the policeā¦at least that is true in America. I still think that one solution is for husbands and priests to become more like Jesus. I think men not being like Jesus is a big problem that the Church needs to address and men, with Godās help, need to stop giving women reasons not to trust them.
- Status