What's with all the anti women threads recently??

[severus68]

Portrait. Dear friend. Buddy. Bro.

The notion of love between to equals precludes one having power over another. Certainly a good relationship between God and man involves love going two ways but one is a perfect love and the other is imperfect by its very nature. So of course the Lord will have authority over us, though He does not exercise it by denying us our free will.

The love between a husband and wife is a love between two imperfect creatures and is therefore an equal (or should be equal) relationship. No one has the power to subjugate the other. Instead both are called to subjugate themselves and dedicate their lives to the happiness and holiness of the other. As I said in my marriage my wife is desirous that I take the leadership role when it comes to the family as a whole but is a fiercely independent woman when it comes to her own life, provided that her affairs do not interfere with the family’s goals.

Christ is the head of the Church but His submission to the Church and its people goes so far as to have his authority lightly rest on our shoulders. We are never denied our free will, we are never forced to “submit” to him. Is it good and proper that we do? Sure. But what you infer is that wives by virtue of being wives must do whatever their husbands say provided that the nature of their requests are not sinful. This is categorically false.

There is no “ruler and subject” in a marital relationship. Over the children certainly but husband and wife share authority much as they share their flesh. They are ONE FLESH. Therefore no one rules the other. Instead, each spouse gives up authority over himself and hands it over to the other.

Very well said.

 

[Nimzovik]

Which is ultimately the point here, is it not? Women are less intelligent, less capable, less effectual. In short, they are “less” in dignity.

I would like to understand why this is not the necessary conclusion to those premises.

Saying a husband should submit to his wife on decisions from time to time is like saying a police officer should, from time to time, submit to a random citizen on the street. You can say it all you like, but it’s kinda silly, because in the end, you’re only giving one of them a gun. I think we all know how that’s going to work out.

This is a non sequitur. There is no inferiority implied or overtly stated. An apple is not inferior to an orange.

Let us not forget that the very Creator of the Universe, Our Lord, set the Prime Example of **submiting **to His parents while on earth. We are to be servant to all and to love all. When there is true love present, the lines of demarcation between the wills of husband and wife become much less, I suspect.

Will not the greatest in heaven be the least (most humble) here on earth?

The Power struggle between Man and Woman should never be. This is a sign of pride methinks. Did not St. Joseph love His ‘Wife’? Did he not serve her? Did he not pay extreme close attention to her every need? Was this not his role?

If all men behaved like St. Joseph, there would be no Feminists. Would a feminist still Assert herself , her dogma, against St. Joseph in person? Methinks they would! That would no doubt, would be rather amusing. Methinks he would simply excuse himself from her presence and pray. However that is only speculation of course.

We men are to model this example of St. Joseph put before us by Our Lord. Women will not change until we do.

To waste breath arguing with Feminists is futile. Usually the said feminsts are **consecrated **to that philosophy. Perhaps we can speak with those that ask. Perhaps we can present our perspective in the Public Arena. To debate however, methinks is fraught with danger. Far too often debate means a winner and a loser. This is intolerable with those that are prideful. Far too often people end up debating for debates sake!

We should lead by example. We should model St. Joseph’s behavior.

I would throw one caution to the young men out there. After you have studied the ways of St. Joseph and internalized his behavior, I would heartily suggest one thing. Make sure of the one you marry. Discuss such prior to marriage.

Oh. And one more thing. If you, young man, go to her house and see a ‘Cosmo’ magazine on her end table- Flee!!!

 

[Nimzovik]

Seriously?

People is thinking of leaving the Church because retrograde or unchraitable things wrtitten here?

I have read/heard worse stuff by progressive theologians, priests, and Bishops and I’m not thinking in leaving because of that.

Please, reconsider what you are doing.

We are here not by people, we are here by God.

Blessings!

As has been said –

When the ‘Christmas Tree’ of the Church is shaken with** true** teachings, the ornaments will fall off.

 

[ShanaA1984]

Don’t worry. The only Catholic men I’ve ever known to think this way are the very few on this site.

I very much hope that you are right. But I really don’t see myself having any luck with a protestant either, because depending on the branch he follows, he could very well think along the same lines as those few posters on here.

 

[Walking_Home]

Portrait. Dear friend. Buddy. Bro.

The notion of love between to equals precludes one having power over another. Certainly a good relationship between God and man involves love going two ways but one is a perfect love and the other is imperfect by its very nature. So of course the Lord will have authority over us, though He does not exercise it by denying us our free will.

The love between a husband and wife is a love between two imperfect creatures and is therefore an equal (or should be equal) relationship. No one has the power to subjugate the other. Instead both are called to subjugate themselves and dedicate their lives to the happiness and holiness of the other. As I said in my marriage my wife is desirous that I take the leadership role when it comes to the family as a whole but is a fiercely independent woman when it comes to her own life, provided that her affairs do not interfere with the family’s goals.

Christ is the head of the Church but His submission to the Church and its people goes so far as to have his authority lightly rest on our shoulders. We are never denied our free will, we are never forced to “submit” to him. Is it good and proper that we do? Sure. But what you infer is that wives by virtue of being wives must do whatever their husbands say provided that the nature of their requests are not sinful. This is categorically false.

There is no “ruler and subject” in a marital relationship. Over the children certainly but husband and wife share authority much as they share their flesh. They are ONE FLESH. Therefore no one rules the other. Instead, each spouse gives up authority over himself and hands it over to the other.

---

 

[LightBound]

We surely must listen attentively to the popes of prior generations but also note that our understanding of God’s design for man has evolved over the centuries. The vicars of Christ over the generations spoke of both timeless truths and suggestions for living out those truths in the culture and time period they lived. The Church wrestled with the question of slavery both in Roman and colonial times. It fought with the idea of forcibly converting Jews during the Middle Ages. It pushed the boundaries of acceptable ways of converting “savages” during the colonial period. All was done with an eye on salvation for the world but the execution was, as we all are, imperfect and in some cases dead wrong.

Remember that while the doctrine of the Church has not changed, the Holy Mass has evolved, access to the Scripture has changed dramatically, the faith has reoriented towards personal relationships with Christ, much greater emphasis has been placed on receiving the Eucharist as often as possible and of course, we’ve rid ourselves of insanity like Inquisitions and Crusades and temporal papal authority.

Aside from all that, dude you’re virtual friends with Ron Conte who is seriously, seriously crazy. I hate to pull any kind of guilt by association card on you but I’d be curious to know why you’d want to be in contact with that kind of guy.

 

[Nimzovik]

So, how does one determine what is “just” (as in the “wife must obey him…assuming husband’s demands are just and moral”)?

What was considered a “just demand” a hundred years ago may not be considered a “just” demand today because woman are no longer viewed as property (at least in the Western world and in authentic Christianity).

A further explanation of that would be useful, considering most folks in a functional marriage tend to work out decisions together, discussing them as intelligent adults…even in a Traditional Catholic marriage, instead of having the husband “demand” anything… When things are worded like “must obey the husband’s demands”…is there any wonder why it upsets women (and men, too)? I’ve read even the most Trad Catholics on CAF post that they make decisions decisions together and only when something is at an impasse does the husband make the final decision (and sometimes that decision may be going with what the wife wanted in the first place).

Well. Let’s take it a step further. How does a single person or woman decide what is just today? Is it not by prayer and fasting and the scrptures and the Holy Church?

Also - I dare say the husbands ‘Demands’ as you put it, will be within the confines of the Church if he is acting in a Holy Manner -yes?

 

[LightBound]

As has been said –

When the ‘Christmas Tree’ of the Church is shaken with** true** teachings, the ornaments will fall off.

And sometimes mean people knock them off

 

[The_Bucket]

The only non sequitur around here are the points your raising. Not because they’re not ones to bring up in a discussion with a broader audience but because no Catholic woman here, even those applying the “feminist” label are arguing with you on anything. We’re all in agreement that men are different from women but both are equal in dignity as human beings and children of God. Unless of course you really are trying to say that women are less intelligent than men in which case I’d direct you to a plethora of studies that not only dispute that notion but also totally contradict American ideas that actually crept into our education system that boys are better at math and science and girls are better at reading and writing.

As I stated earlier, the influence of emotions on our way of thinking or approaching situations are certainly major factors that could make men and women as a general rule more suitable for certain roles in society or certain jobs but this is not always applicable. It’s just a generalization and there are always exceptions; as a society and certainly as a faith community we should never pigeonhole individuals based on some kind of general rule based on observations because we do not know when the exceptions come into play or don’t. Personally I think men’s tendency to be able compartmentalize their lives can be a great help in stressful situations but is also a serious drag on their ability to connect with people on personal levels and is a doorway to great sin. Women tend to have a more complete picture of the world and the individuals in them, but that can cloud their ability to zero in on very specific tasks and very specific situations.

But as I said these are generalizations and certainly not meant to say that all men or all women are like this because they are not. What it is proof positive of is that men and women are reflective of the nature of God in all ways but sin and the only way to be the best reflection of Him is to work and be together.

 

[Portrait]

So, how does one determine what is “just” (as in the “wife must obey him…assuming husband’s demands are just and moral”)?

What was considered a “just demand” a hundred years ago may not be considered a “just” demand today because woman are no longer viewed as property (at least in the Western world and in authentic Christianity).

A further explanation of that would be useful, considering most folks in a functional marriage tend to work out decisions together, discussing them as intelligent adults…even in a Traditional Catholic marriage, instead of having the husband “demand” anything… When things are worded like “must obey the husband’s demands”…is there any wonder why it upsets women (and men, too)? I’ve read even the most Trad Catholics on CAF post that they make decisions decisions together and only when something is at an impasse does the husband make the final decision (and sometimes that decision may be going with what the wife wanted in the first place).

Dear LightBound,

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

When St. Paul spoke of a woman being in subjection to her husband he meant by that in everything pertaining to the husbands legitimate authority and, of course, everything not contrary to the true Catholic Faith. Occasions could arise, hopefully seldom, if ever, within a pious family, when it will clearly be a woman’s duty to obey God rather than her own husband.

Of course, dear friend, a woman can have her own thoughts and there is nothing untoward with the give and take within marriage, but the teaching of the Church has consistently been that the husband is the head of the wife. Thus, in the event of a major disagreement, the husband must have the final say and, provided that his manner is not overbearing, most pious Catholic women would meekly accept this as rightful submission to one’s husband. The alternative is anarchy within the home, to say nothing of setting a very bad and rebellious example to any impressionable children. Minor issues can normally resolved by talking matters through and by the husband always striving to show love, gentleness, reasonableness, patience and fairness to his beloved wife. However, it is a modern error, inspired by false egalitarian ideology, that insists that families are little democracies. That is just arrant nonsense and those who profess the religion of Christ should give it no credence whatsoever.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[severus68]

Dear severus68,

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

On the contrary, dear sister, the encylicals of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI are valid Church doctrine and form part of the consistent teaching of the Magisterium, which require religious submission of the mind and will of pious Catholics throughout the world. So called dissent from papal teaching in encyclicals is not a part of the creed of a Catholic. The Catholic faithful willfully conform to papal teaching and do not dispute or write it off on account of its antiquity. Liberals may do this, but not pious Catholics. In any event the teaching of these Popes is based upon St. Paul’s timeless and authoritative teaching (otherwise they were mistaken in making their appeal to it) and thus their teaching cannot go bad and cease to be Church doctrine.

You have, dear sister, fallen into a very common error these days of supposing that all standing Church teaching is to be found only within the pages of the current Church Catechism. This is a very novel and narrow opinion, devoid of any proof whatsoever, for there is no official Church teaching that remotely makes such a strange aberrant claim. To hold to the view that the entire deposit of faith is to be found only in the contents of the CCC, just cannot be sustained because such a view severs the vital link with the whole sweep of Catholic Tradition throughout the ages. Moreover, it is also to adopt a sort of ‘sola - CCC’ which is as grave an error as its Protestant counterpart, sola scriptura.

Therefore we must needs, dear sister, listen attentively to ALL the Popes throughout the ages, since the unbroken succession from St. Peter to Benedict XVI is one of the central components of the apostolic nature of Holy Mother Church. Truth cannot contradict truth and truth does not cease to be truth with the passage of time.

The Church has never stated officially that the passage in St. Paul respecting women being subject to men has ceased to have perpetual validity.

Finally, if “the insistence of women’s subjection is the result of sin with the demand for domination”, is true, then that surely shows Pope Leo XIII and Pius XI in a very bad light indeed, since they upheld the biblical teaching of a woman’s subjection to her husband in their encyclicals.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

While God’s truth is eternal, the understanding of that Truth has developed and will continue to develop.

I will not presume to understand how a past Pope thought and can only conjecture. However, the last Pope was very clear about women not being subordinate and our present Pope did not then and does not now disagree. If the subjection of women is doctrine it would be in the CCC.

On the CCC:

. “On 11 October 1992, Pope John Paul II presented the Catechism of the Catholic Church to the faithful of the whole world, describing it as a “reference text”[1] for a catechesis renewed at the living sources of the faith. Thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the desire for a catechism of all Catholic doctrine on faith and morals, which had been voiced in 1985 by the extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, came to fulfilment.”

The above is in the Introduction to the Compendium to the CCC.
vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[thewanderer]

Dan, on rereading what you wrote I realized that I cannot agree completely with the following.

Let’s say that a husband and wife reach an impasse on a decision- finances, vacation, jobs, whatever. Neither the position the husband nor the wife has is sinful. The final decision rests with the husband. The right thing for the husband to do, may very well be for him to decide that the best thing would be to set aside his own idea and go with the wife’s idea. **It is still his decision to do that.
**

First, you claim that the only time it is allowable for a wife to do something against the will of her husband is if he tells her to do something morally wrong. This is not the teaching of Casti Conubii. Rather it says

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;

which means that even if the position of the husband is not in itself sinful, it is certainly allowable for the wife to disagree and and act against his wishes if right reason lies with her position instead of with his. Even if both positions are moral, right reason can show that one of them is the better action, in which case it is fine for the woman to comply with that which is better even if her husband disagrees, so long as it is actually better.

 

[The_Bucket]

As has been said –

When the ‘Christmas Tree’ of the Church is shaken with** true** teachings, the ornaments will fall off.

Where would the Christmas tree be without the Germanic pagans, huh?

 

[LightBound]

Well. Let’s take it a step further. How does a single person or woman decide what is just today? Is it not by prayer and fasting and the scrptures and the Holy Church?

Sigh…what I was getting at was some concrete examples of what “Portrait” feels are “just reasons”. Are we talking about what to make for dinner, what store to shop at, what outfit to wear, or are we talking about major matters such as deciding on what house to buy, where to send the kids to school, what parish to attend? While you might not realize it, there are some Catholic men who actually believe they should dictate every last thing to their wives…down to how many shakes of the pepper shaker she is “allowed” to put on “her” food. Don’t believe me? Go back and read some of the closed threads with the word “submission” in the title.

 

[The_Bucket]

However, it is a modern error, inspired by false egalitarian ideology, that insists that families are little democracies.

Families are not “little democracies.” They are monarchies with the mother and father at the top and the children at the bottom with basically no say whatsoever.

However a marriage, a good Catholic marriage, is a partnership between man, woman and Christ. Or the Holy Spirit if you will. Probably not the Father. But one of the Persons of God. The man and woman partner with God to create new life and pledge to bring up those new lives in accordance with His teachings.

The human creatures in the marriage subject themselves to one another and to the will of God at all times. By our very nature as imperfect people we will not always live up to this vocation but it is what we strive for constantly.

When God is involved in your marriage there is no other head other than Him. Whatever nonsensical temporal authority you want to bicker over is your own accord. The Lord is to be at the center of every marriage with the spouses dragging one another towards Him. Why didn’t I think of bringing this point up before? Oy. Could’ve saved us all a lot of trouble.

 

[LightBound]

Well. Let’s take it a step further. How does a single person or woman decide what is just today? Is it not by prayer and fasting and the scrptures and the Holy Church?

Also - I dare say the husbands ‘Demands’ as you put it, will be within the confines of the Church if he is acting in a Holy Manner -yes?

Hey, whatever floats your boat. This thread and the some of the interpretations displayed on are beyond ridiculous. I think I’ve had about all I can take of the “Lord and Master of the marriage and house”, dominate/submission, meek/piety thing that I can take for one lifetime! I’m outta here!

 

[The_Bucket]

Hey, whatever floats your boat. This thread and the some of the interpretations displayed on are beyond ridiculous. I think I’ve had about all I can take of the “Lord and Master of the marriage and house”, dominate/submission, meek/piety thing that I can take for one lifetime! I’m outta here!

Before you go can you make a request to close this conversation?

 

[thewanderer]

Dan, on rereading what you wrote I realized that I cannot agree completely with the following.

First, you claim that the only time it is allowable for a wife to do something against the will of her husband is if he tells her to do something morally wrong. This is not the teaching of Casti Conubii. Rather it says

which means that even if the position of the husband is not in itself sinful, it is certainly allowable for the wife to disagree and and act against his wishes if right reason lies with her position instead of with his. Even if both positions are moral, right reason can show that one of them is the better action, in which case it is fine for the woman to comply with that which is better even if her husband disagrees, so long as it is actually better.

And I might add that it is pretty obvvious that if the husband is correct the wife should follow along with him. I don’t think anyone is going to disagree with that.

The whole point is that this is about ensuring that no power play exists within the marriage. It is unequivocally wrong and sinful for a man to coerce his wife to obey him. Period. Not saying you think this is ok, but just pointing it out because this is an extremely important piece of the puzzle that is all too often left unsaid when discussing this text of St. Paul.

 

[ShanaA1984]

Hey, whatever floats your boat. This thread and the some of the interpretations displayed on are beyond ridiculous. I think I’ve had about all I can take of the “Lord and Master of the marriage and house”, dominate/submission, meek/piety thing that I can take for one lifetime! I’m outta here!

I am with you on this one. This discussion went over the top a long time ago.

 

[Crescentinus]

I am with you on this one. This discussion went over the top a long time ago.

Agreed.