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

[Dan_Daly]

I realize this wasn’t specifically addressed to me, but I will give you my quick take on this anyway.

I am, in particular, unsure of these two criteria.

The first because I do not know what is necessary to make it “sufficiently evident” that he is teaching with the fullness of his authority.

The second because I am not sure whether the document is binding under pain of spiritual shipwreck.

Understanding the subtleties of these distinctions requires much more study than I have put into them and I am not going to assume that they are met simply because some guy on the internet told me that, in his opinion, they are met. So for now I will not assume either way as to whether or not they are ex cathedra. I will still hold them as Church teaching, and do my utmost to understand, accept, and follow such teachings, but I will neither accept nor claim that these are in fact ex cathedra statements without a much more in depth study of this issue and I would advise everyone to do the same.

Thank you for the honest, fair, and reasonable response. I find the “fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact” to be the clear indication that Pope Pius XI was teaching wit his full authority and binding the faithful to it. He’s not establishing anything, he’s talking about what has already been established by God. That’s a pretty high authority (understatement alert). “Must always and everywhere remain intact” is again rather clearly binding.

Thank you also for making the point that the teaching does demand assent whether or not is is infallible (which I believe it clearly is). From Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis:

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

So, the idea that a husband is the head of his family is somehow “Protestant” and not Catholic teaching, which has been espoused by several posters in this thread is clearly not correct.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

---

Actually you did. You are the one that “pronounced”/made the claim – that it was ex cathera.

I’ve endeavored to support my characterization of the source (Pope Pius XI) which I have cited. You have refused to comment any further on the sources you have cited. You have also refused to answer any other questions. Based on that, I don’t see that there is much possiblity at the present moment for the two of us to discuss this question much further.

Pax Christi

 

[thewanderer]

Thank you for the honest, fair, and reasonable response. I find the “fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact” to be the clear indication that Pope Pius XI was teaching wit his full authority and binding the faithful to it. He’s not establishing anything, he’s talking about what has already been established by God. That’s a pretty high authority (understatement alert). “Must always and everywhere remain intact” is again rather clearly binding.

Thank you also for making the point that the teaching does demand assent whether or not is is infallible (which I believe it clearly is). From Pope Pius XII’s Humani Generis:

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

So, the idea that a husband is the head of his family is somehow “Protestant” and not Catholic teaching, which has been espoused by several posters in this thread is clearly not correct.

Pax Christi

Yes, I realize that you are satisfied that these are sufficient for it to be an ex cathedra statement, however, like I said, I think it is not good to accept something as true simply because someone on the internet said so. I do not know how the Church wants us to interpret these criteria, so I shall refrain from making proclamations one way or the other about ex cathedra statements apart from the ones that the Church has clearly shown and explained to actually ex cathedra.

Also, yes, it is important to submit to the idea of a head and a heart in the family. The place where there is room for discussion is what exactly this means. There are some interpretations of this which are truly protestant in mindset. There is also a way to understand this distinction which even those with a knee-jerk reaction to the work submission or head wouldn’t have a problem with. The reason they have a knee-jerk reaction to it is because they assume that that phrase implies a false protestant understanding of what is required. Which is why this debate will continue ad infinitum. Though it is refreshiing to have someone who is willing to talk about it with who does not necessarily turn it into a men vs women contest.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I think it is not good to accept something as true simply because someone on the internet said so

I don’t think you’re speaking infallibly, but you’re certainly speaking the truth right there. I wholeheartedly agree.

Pax

 

[lily20]

It’s because people are bitter from failed relationships. And from our parents, who “trained” us to hate/hold grudges against their former spouse/lover(s). Just a suggestion. We forgot how to respect each other. We don’t know how.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=681920 - where did the anti family vibe come from

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=683478 - men/women different responses to chastity.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=683873 - advice on marriage

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=683525 - men’s rights and catholicism

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=682916 - male’s in traditional marriage

There were a couple others this past month that got deleted.

But anyway, if you read through all these you’ll see an astounding amount of anti women attitude from quite a few members (mostly male members). I’ve never seen this type of attitude be sooo prevalent on CAF before. Where is this all coming from??

 

[Walking_Home]

I’ve endeavored to support my characterization of the source (Pope Pius XI) which I have cited. You have refused to comment any further on the sources you have cited. You have also refused to answer any other questions. Based on that, I don’t see that there is much possiblity at the present moment for the two of us to discuss this question much further.

Pax Christi

---

What you “cite” as ex cathera – is not supported by Rev. John Trigilio Jr., PhD, ThD and Rev. Kenneth Brighenti, PhD. So based on that – I agree – on no further discussion.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Also, yes, it is important to submit to the idea of a head and a heart in the family. The place where there is room for discussion is what exactly this means. There are some interpretations of this which are truly protestant in mindset. There is also a way to understand this distinction which even those with a knee-jerk reaction to the work submission or head wouldn’t have a problem with. The reason they have a knee-jerk reaction to it is because they assume that that phrase implies a false protestant understanding of what is required. Which is why this debate will continue ad infinitum. Though it is refreshiing to have someone who is willing to talk about it with who does not necessarily turn it into a men vs women contest.

I agree with all of this as well.

The discussion of how exactly the head/heart relationship between husband and wife works is a vitally important one to have. Particulary between husbands and wives.

The problem that enters the CAF discussions is that many do no accept the initial premise that the husband is the head of the family and the wife is the heart. Many believe the roles of the two spouses are exactly the same. In this case, there is a different discussion in which one can attempt to convince them to accept the premise, but until that premise is accepted, it’s impossible to have the more in depth discussion of how the head/heart relationship plays out in particular circumstances.

It like the 2nd Vatican Council. It’s quite difficult to have a discussion about what the Council documents mean with someone who doesn’t think there was a Council at all.

Likewise, it’s quite difficult to have a discussion about what a wife’s duty of obedience to her husband or the husband’s duty to direct the family mean if someone doesn’t think either duty exists.

Pax Christi

 

[thewanderer]

Yes and no…

Yes you must help them accept the head/heart dynamic. But, to be honest, I don’t see that happening without a discussion of what that really means. When people reject talk about head/heart it is because they believe they already know what it means and believe it entails values that are incompatible with the Catholic faith. In order to get people to be willing to use the language of head and heart, then, you have to figure out what theythink it means and help show them that that isn’t actually what it means.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Indeed. It is difficult though when any mention of differences between spouses is attacked as alleging superiority of one or the other. As you say, the two go hand in hand though. I think the best form of convincing others is living out a head/heart with relationship your own spouse. I imagine some on here think the wives of Portrait, myself and others must be horribly oppressed. Meeting and talking with them would most likely go a much longer ways towards convincing some of the head/heart dynamic than anything I can say on a message board.

The question of how to convince is an interesting one as it relates to the topic though, because I think in general women are more convinced by personal experience and men are more convinced by abstract argument.

Pax Christi

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by Nimzovik
Oh let us not play obtuse eh? Your broad sweeping statement about what men’s sense of Humor is, is indeed rather derogatory, now isn’t it?

He’s quite obviously trolling.

We shouldn’t have fed him so close to midnight

Other than being rather transparent trolling (due to all the random comments, attempts to change the subject, and questions that he asks and then immediately answers himself) this is a somewhat mild example for CAF.

Wellllllllllllll… if you say so…

Yes I do.

 

[The_Bucket]

I hate to point out an error of fact AA, but it’s gremlins you don’t feed after midnight, not trolls. Sorry. You’re just dead wrong on that.

 

[LightBound]

Indeed. It is difficult though when any mention of differences between spouses is attacked as alleging superiority of one or the other. As you say, the two go hand in hand though. I think the best form of convincing others is living out a head/heart with relationship your own spouse. I imagine some on here think the wives of Portrait, myself and others must be horribly oppressed. Meeting and talking with them would most likely go a much longer ways towards convincing some of the head/heart dynamic than anything I can say on a message board.

The question of how to convince is an interesting one as it relates to the topic though, because I think in general women are more convinced by personal experience and men are more convinced by abstract argument.

Pax Christi

While I may not agree with you on all topics, you are sincere, polite, and have refrained from being condescending in your approach to presenting both information and opinion. Sadly enough, old chap, I cannot say the same for some of the other jolly good blokes that post on here; ranting their disdain with any woman that works more than one hour a month outside the home, or (gasp ) may actually have more education or higher intelligence than they do.

 

[Serap]

Respect? If I may Parody.

You can’t trust a man, any man. Respect is for fools, because the enemy (men) is always trying to take advantage of women. The solution? Power. Power to force men to do whatever we ask.

Had I not seen and heard the Women’s Libbers on TV myself during the 1970s then I would have less to say. So, What, exactly, did they want to be liberated from?

We need:

Self-respect.
Respect for our neighbor.
Respect for the opposite sex.
Respect for parents.

But no, now we’re living through too much radical individualism that has only one goal in mind: “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

Pure 100% selfishness means getting all the “fun” without needing to really respect anybody. Men and women just use each other for an evening, and relieve themselves like going to the bathroom. Disgusting.

And we’re having the rotten fruit shoved into our faces all day, every day.

Respect means loving God, your neighbor and yourself, in that order.

Peace,
Ed

You’re way of base as to what a true feminist is. I don’t think you quite understand.

 

[The_Bucket]

As to Dan’s overnight comments, look I think he’s charitably trying get a point across about how men and women are different but he’s still wrong about something. There is no doctrinal basis for saying that a husband has the “final say” about anything, no matter how inconsequential. Period.

Now in my house is this the case? I’d say probably yes, but that is because I am encouraged by my wife to take on that leadership role. She’s quite the independent woman when it comes to her own affairs but when it comes to leading the family she wants me to embrace that role. So I do. Trust me it’s not something I terribly enjoy as it is an awesome responsibility. It’s not a privilege and it’s certainly not something I’d abuse.

But that’s my personal marriage. It is what my wife and I have worked out and what she prefers. And I only take on that role because I am submitting to her wishes that I have this leadership capacity. Your mileage may vary. My point about women generally being more naturally submissive and men generally being more proactive is indeed SCIENCE, at least when it comes to the science of attraction. There is no two ways about it. Study after study shows that women (especially during ovulation) are attracted to alpha-male type men and would prefer that they be the father of their children then more beta-male types. There is nothing wrong with this. It’s the complementary nature of the sexes. It’s also not a proof of one sex being better than the other, nor is it a hard and fast rule that is applicable to everyone.

God wants us to love one another perfectly and to lay down our lives for each other. Power in relationships is indeed a dirty word as ed alluded to. Marriage and even friendship should not be a power struggle. The relationship between men and women should not and is not a power struggle. That is where the radical feminists of the 1970s are so totally dead wrong and the Susan B. Anthony-type feminists are right. Women are indeed equal in all ways to men, but they are also different from men. Civic society should reflect that equality and difference, and the Church’s teachings do reflect that.

 

[Serap]

I said radical feminism, not feminism in general. Feminism has done a lot of of good in the world and I agree with you. But, radical feminism had taken over now. It had turned mainstream feminism into another party in the mess that is identity politics. Hence, what I said about radical feminism not solving anything but whining and complaining.

I agree with you.

 

[Portrait]

It is not Catholic doctrine that the wife should submit to her husband. It does not say so in the CCC as explained by its Compendium. JPII spoke of mutual submission.

Yes Paul said that but in what context. We do not have to follow what Paul said literally or always. How could any human being be like Christ at all. We should all, men and women try to be Christ like and if we do, there should be submission to God, mutual respect and the love of Christ in a marriage. That would not mean the submission of one and the domination by the other.

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

The Church, dear sister, has always and consistently taught that the wife was subject to the authority of her husband and must obey him as the Church obeys Christ, assuming, of course, that the husbands demands are just and moral (see Arcanum by Leo XIII and Casti Connubii by Pius XI). Moreover, this teaching has not been officially abrogated or declared invalid on account of its age and is therefore still authoritative for Catholics today.

In his encyclical Arcanum, on Christian marriage, Leo XIII forcefully and clearly restated the traditional teaching:

"The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honour nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and her who obeys, a heaven born love guiding both in their resepective duties. For “the husband is head of the wife; as Christ is head of the Church…Therefore, *as the Church is subject to *Christ, so also let wives be to their own husbands in all things”.

Please observe first, dear sister, that in Mulieris Dignitatem, frequently appealed to nowadays in equality debates, H.H.JPII presents his teaching as a personal “meditation” (“And it seems that the best thing is to give this the style and character of a meditation”, his own emphasis). Now the level and binding nature of this “meditation” is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive teaching which no man can question.

Pope Leo XIII emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - which is to say, God Himself - teaches, that subjection is required not “only on the part of the Church” to Christ, as H.H.JPII asserts, but also on the part of the wife to her husband, because in the order of familial authority the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, as Pope Leo taught explicity in the above cited passage. You will note, dear sister, that H.H.JPII quotes only from the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians - "For the husband is the head of the wife, omitting the conclusion: “as Christ is head of the Church”.

Indeed, I fail to see how any authority could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were a “mutual subjection” and no ruler-subject relationship between the spouses. This whole “mutual subjection” notion, so much spoken of nowadays, is surely a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject, and neither the Church nor the family can have two heads.

H.H.JPII suggests that St. Paul’s teaching is but “a way of speaking” arising from “the customs and religious tradition of the time”. By way of reply, it must be said that the “religious tradition” of the time was Christianity. Moreover, dear sister, does not St. Paul mean exactly what his words signify, and what both Pope Leo XIII and Pope XI both affirmed they signify, that is to say that the wife is subject to the husband as the Church is subject to Christ? Sorry, but that seems as clear as the sun at noonday, even though it may not sit comfortably with the secular world view of today, informed by a radical and profane feminist ideology. Are the Catholic faithful to conclude, then, that God dictated His revelation of the divinely ordained constitution of the family in language that was culturally determined and required ‘unpacking’ by historical-critical exegesis, and that Pope Leo and Pope Pius and all of their predecessors at the Vatican misinterpreted the Epistle to the Ephesians by reading it too literally? One sincerely hopes not, for that is the sort of thing that one associates with liberal Protestantism - I know this from sad experience as a former member of the Church of England. Once you adopt this approach, you run into all kinds of problems. For example, what of St. Paul’s teaching on homosexual deviant acts and, for that matter, all the other ‘hard sayings’ of the N.T.? Were these similarly ways of speaking that should be now understood in some different sense? That, I am quite certain, is not what H.H.JPII intended and neither should we intend such, but it is imperative, dear sister, that we take the entire sweep of Catholic Tradition (the old and the new) to arrive at an authentically balanced perspective of Catholic doctrine.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[LightBound]

While I may not agree with you on all topics, you are sincere, polite, and have refrained from being condescending in your approach to presenting both information and opinion. Sadly enough, old chap, I cannot say the same for some of the other jolly good blokes that post on here; ranting their disdain with any woman that works more than one hour a month outside the home, or (gasp ) may actually have more education or higher intelligence than they do.

 

[The_Bucket]

Indeed, I fail to see how any authority could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were a “mutual subjection” and no ruler-subject relationship between the spouses. This whole “mutual subjection” notion, so much spoken of nowadays, is surely a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject, and neither the Church nor the family can have two heads.

So you’re going to essentially blast a modern-day saint? I cannot and will not disparage His Holiness Leo XIII as he was a great man for promoting the great spiritual weapon of the rosary as he did, but come on man.

How can this be a “conundrum” to you? I see you’re a fan of writing in a circumlocutory fashion to sound more formal, but I think it is only to disguise your lack of understanding of a basic element of the faith. Christ is the head of the Church, but he is also its greatest servant. As the vicar of Christ, one of the Holy Father’s titles is “servant of the servants of God.” So if the husband is to relate to his wife as Christ and His vicars is to the Church, then the husband should be her servant in all things and be willing to lay down his life, his ego and his pride before her. A wife should likewise be willing to lay herself down to her husband. Perfect mutual submission does not lead to chaos. It is perfect love.

 

[Serap]

Indeed. Men in those commercials are portrayed as stooges while the women are portrayed as cool.

Well I think stooges are cute and handsome

 

[LightBound]

Dear severus68,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

The Church, dear sister, has always and consistently taught that the wife was subject to the authority of her husband and must obey him as the Church obeys Christ, assuming, of course, that the husbands demands are just and moral (see Arcanum by Leo XIII and Casti Connubii by Pius XI). Moreover, this teaching has not been officially abrogated or declared invalid on account of its age and is therefore still authoritative for Catholics today.

In his encyclical Arcanum, on Christian marriage, Leo XIII forcefully and clearly restated the traditional teaching:

"The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honour nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and her who obeys, a heaven born love guiding both in their resepective duties. For “the husband is head of the wife; as Christ is head of the Church…Therefore, *as the Church is subject to *Christ, so also let wives be to their own husbands in all things”.

Please observe first, dear sister, that in Mulieris Dignitatem, frequently appealed to nowadays in equality debates, H.H.JPII presents his teaching as a personal “meditation” (“And it seems that the best thing is to give this the style and character of a meditation”, his own emphasis). Now the level and binding nature of this “meditation” is far from apparent and can hardly be said to portray definitive teaching which no man can question.

Pope Leo XIII emphasized precisely the point that Ephesians 5: 22-23 - which is to say, God Himself - teaches, that subjection is required not “only on the part of the Church” to Christ, as H.H.JPII asserts, but also on the part of the wife to her husband, because in the order of familial authority the husband represents Christ and the wife represents the Church, as Pope Leo taught explicity in the above cited passage. You will note, dear sister, that H.H.JPII quotes only from the beginning of the key sentence from Ephesians - "For the husband is the head of the wife, omitting the conclusion: “as Christ is head of the Church”.

Indeed, I fail to see how any authority could exist any more in the family than in Holy Mother Church if there were a “mutual subjection” and no ruler-subject relationship between the spouses. This whole “mutual subjection” notion, so much spoken of nowadays, is surely a conundrum, since you cannot have a subject without a ruler, nor a ruler without a subject, and neither the Church nor the family can have two heads.

H.H.JPII suggests that St. Paul’s teaching is but “a way of speaking” arising from “the customs and religious tradition of the time”. By way of reply, it must be said that the “religious tradition” of the time was Christianity. Moreover, dear sister, does not St. Paul mean exactly what his words signify, and what both Pope Leo XIII and Pope XI both affirmed they signify, that is to say that the wife is subject to the husband as the Church is subject to Christ? Sorry, but that seems as clear as the sun at noonday, even though it may not sit comfortably with the secular world view of today, informed by a radical and profane feminist ideology. Are the Catholic faithful to conclude, then, that God dictated His revelation of the divinely ordained constitution of the family in language that was culturally determined and required ‘unpacking’ by historical-critical exegesis, and that Pope Leo and Pope Pius and all of their predecessors at the Vatican misinterpreted the Epistle to the Ephesians by reading it too literally? One sincerely hopes not, for that is the sort of thing that one associates with liberal Protestantism - I know this from sad experience as a former member of the Church of England. Once you adopt this approach, you run into all kinds of problems. For example, what of St. Paul’s teaching on homosexual deviant acts and, for that matter, all the other ‘hard sayings’ of the N.T.? Were these similarly ways of speaking that should be now understood in some different sense? That, I am quite certain, is not what H.H.JPII intended and neither should we intend such, but it is imperative, dear sister, that we take the entire sweep of Catholic Tradition (the old and the new) to arrive at an authentically balanced perspective of Catholic doctrine.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

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).