U
- Status
J
jmjZelie
Guest
Okay. Again, I want to point out that I was here asking a question, not defending a position. I am reflecting on everything everyone contributes, and my previous posts responding to you were regarding my husband’s comments that I had shared.
To be honest, I had no idea what people would say when I asked this question. I was raised with some pretty damaging and wrong ideas about the purpose of a wife (or rather, the uses of a wife), and this is one of the reasons I love the Catholic Church, because of Her clear and beautiful teachings. But I still have many questions, despite my embracing the faith, and this is one of them.
Coming from a background where a wife was valued according to how well she could please her husband and how obedient she was to his preferences, you can probably understand why I gravitate toward those viewpoints that emphasize that wives are persons that have inherent dignity and that their value is not intrinsically tied to how well she performs her duties.
And I kept responding to you because I was seeking understanding and common ground. Also because it seemed the polite thing to do, since you addressed me directly. I specifically said that I did not want you to feel compelled to leave the conversation, merely explain your intention. I could not tell if you were telling me that I was wrong to agree that value is not bound to function, or if you were explaining nuance, if you were continuing a point or other possible motivations. I was just confused by that, because, as I said, I am trying to learn here.
D
Della
Guest
The reference to Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth was merely to point out that marital roles can sometimes be reversed. For example, there are stay-at-home dads just as there are stay-at-home moms, although the moms of this type generally far outnumber those dads.
What is important about either spouse is that they be faithful, supportive, helpful and a true companion in time of need, etc. not what role, what tasks are divided between them–at least I think that was what the poster intended to express.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
I appreciate this because I could work myself to death fulfilling the duties of my vocation and STILL feel like I haven’t done enough. Especially since the children go right behind me and make a mess of what I just cleaned.The reference to Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth was merely to point out that marital roles can sometimes be reversed. For example, there are stay-at-home dads just as there are stay-at-home moms, although the moms of this type generally far outnumber those dads.
What is important about either spouse is that they be faithful, supportive, helpful and a true companion in time of need, etc. not what role, what tasks are divided between them–at least I think that was what the poster intended to express.
But if my worth as a wife has more to do with my relationship with my husband and our children, and also with my spiritual work to cultivate virtue, and less to do with my outward success at perfection in my duties, then I can relax and enjoy my family and my life a bit more. I think that is important.
U
underacloud
Guest
Thanks for explaining this background. I think I understand you better now.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
You are welcome. I thought it might be relevant. Thank you for your thoughts.
U
underacloud
Guest
If you read my earlier posts, you’ll see I already agree with this anyway, with regard to exact roles of each spouse, eg I am the primary cook in our household.The reference to Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth was merely to point out that marital roles can sometimes be reversed. For example, there are stay-at-home dads just as there are stay-at-home moms, although the moms of this type generally far outnumber those dads.
What is important about either spouse is that they be faithful, supportive, helpful and a true companion in time of need, etc. not what role, what tasks are divided between them–at least I think that was what the poster intended to express.
I am just saying that things like being supportive, helpful, etc can be thought of as directly including the specific duties that are being discussed. Cooking dinner for my family - especially when I’ve had a long day at work and am very tired - is to love and support them. When my family is hungry, my value as a parent is directly related to my duty to cook for them. It’s not my only value, or my main value, but it is important nonetheless.
As for rich people, their “duties” may be even more onerous than we imagine, given what Christ had to say about wealth, riches, and camels and needles.
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I actually asked the question because they are a couple who have proscribed duties with regards to the rest of the world that are largely out of their control. My point is that the relationship between spouses can operate in many different contexts. I wanted to recognize that without some argument about what couples “should” choose. That is different from what I’m getting at. When you look at that broad range that couples either choose or have chosen for them, sometimes you can find a unifying theme that will tell you what the essentials are in your world view.
As a Republican, maybe a better example would have been Denis and Maggie Thatcher? Not quite, though, since it is so much more obvious that the Queen did not have so much of a hand in choosing her destiny as Mrs. Thatcher did. Thatcher once said, "If I had my time again, I wouldn’t go into politics because of what it does to your family.” True enough, but sometimes things happen that aren’t so much in our control. That situation would boil down our marriage relationship to the essentials.
What are those essentials? That’s what I want to ask, without arguing about how someone might be in that situation.
U
underacloud
Guest
Yes, fair enough, I see what you are getting at. At this point I think we could reflect on what our Church teaches about marriage, and from the Catechism there are a few essentials we could consider. Here is the Catechism section and some quotes I think relevant following:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm
Marriage is “by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring”. That’s fairly broad, but it already introduces the responsibilities of parenthood.
A wife is to “help” her husband (and vice-versa): “The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate””.
Help and mutual aid is a recurring theme: “After the fall, marriage helps to overcome self-absorption, egoism, pursuit of one’s own pleasure, and to open oneself to the other, to mutual aid and to self-giving.”
There is a general reference to “duties”: “in a Christian marriage the spouses are strengthened and, as it were, consecrated for the duties and the dignity of their state by a special sacrament.” It doesn’t elaborate on what those duties are, but I’m sure each of us can work through them for ourselves.
Help is again mentioned, here specifically with regard to holiness: “This grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the couple’s love and to strengthen their indissoluble unity. By this grace they “help one another to attain holiness in their married life and in welcoming and educating their children.””
Mutual self-giving is again mentioned: “They “are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving.””
And of course the importance of the spouses roles as parents, if they are so blessed: “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”
I think while there may be a lot of differences between marriages in terms of their stations in life and particular duties they have, there are a few common threads. A good wife - or a good husband - will:
Help their spouse in their day-to-day living of their vocation.
Help their spouse in growing in holiness.
Give of themself to their spouse and family.
Raise and educate any children they are blesed with.
While it does not say specifically, I would take it as implicit that this “help” includes emotional, physical, and spiritual help.
T
TheFraggle
Guest
They give you children.
J
jlc2k2
Guest
Surely you see more value in a wife than that. Not all families will have children for a variety of reasons. Do you believe that those wives have no value?
K
Kelfa28
Guest
No…that isn’t universally true.
Gotta dig deeper then that.
You can easily be a wife and not a mother.
Seriously, what is it with you and continuously dishing out seriously uncharitable comments?
How about the numerous women on this thread who cannot bear children? They are open to life but can’t have a child?
Are they not worth anything as a wife?
Plus…is that all I’m worth as a woman?
A baby-making machine?
Hardly.
Just please stop. You’re coming onto an already Catholic site filled with women who are already wives and/or mothers and are struggling everyday with living a life worthy of our Lord and making comments like this and the ones I’ve seen on other threads are not just uncharitable but trigger-inducing for a lot of us.
How would you feel if you were a wife who could never bear children…despite trying throughout your marriage and suffering because of it…only to read a comment like yours on a thread like this?
C
chevalier
Guest
That is a difficult question to which there is no simple answer. Last time I checked the average was two to five camels, but a lot depends on the woman’s family and the man’s too. In some cases it can be just one camel or even a hundred.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
There is also a saying in Proverbs 31 about a wife being valued more than rubies.
X
Xantippe
Guest
That’s the* virtuous* wife.
- Status