Wife won't let husband be spritual leader of house?

[Xantippe]

To clarify, you should not have emotions as a primary cause for a decision, but have logic ruling the decision. This logic should value the emotional weight of the decision greatly, but not be dominated by it.

**There are lots of situations where we should feel quite free to make “emotional” decisions, and where it is (paradoxically) more logical to let emotions cast the deciding ballot.

For instance, let’s say that my husband and I are trying to figure out where to go for our 20th anniversary. All else being equal, it’s quite OK to say, “I feel like I’d like to go to Paris not London.” It’s not necessary to come up with a logical reason for a personal preference, all things being equal.

Likewise, if you’re being offered a choice between two different kinds of food, it’s quite OK to choose the thing that sounds better to you.

It can be very relationally damaging to try to shoehorn “logic” in where it doesn’t belong, or to dress trivial personal preferences up with pointy Vulcan ears.
**

What I’m saying is that God designed us as a communal species, and that when a woman is the decision-maker of the family, they are going outside Gods design.

**What about widows? Does this mean that if a woman’s husband dies, she doesn’t get to make any decisions and that she should get a new husband to make decisions for her as soon as she can?

Heck, what about military wives whose husbands are gone for a year at a time. Are they supposed to, in the limited time they have for phone or internet contact with their husbands, to bombard them with such questions as, “Should I make meatloaf for dinner tonight?” or “Should I buy generic paper towels or the kind that actually work?” or “Should we send cookies or cake to the bake sale?”
**

There are far more things being affected in the context of a community when these basic family principles are destroyed. This is one of those things that was important enough, that right from Genesis onward we see the story of how the family ought to live.

**If you take a good look at Proverbs 31, you’ll see a woman who has huge amounts of autonomy. **

How can man and woman be redeemed? What makes a good “I’m sorry”? Adam, remember to love your wife, even unto death. Eve, remember to follow your husband, even unto death.

There you go again with the “follow your husband, even unto death.”

Well, I hope the Kool-Aid is tasty.

 

[Bannan]

He didn’t say that men are more logical then women, though, which is your position. He totally did not say that. You can search the Bible pretty much from end to end and not find any verse that says that women are emotional while men are logical. And for good reason–the Bible is full of very emotional men.

I am not saying that men are more logical than women, but it’s hard to say that God designed us to lead the family unit, and gave us men the faculties to do so, without coming off that way. The fault is mine, I’m not doing a very good job of making that clear.

Eh, where is “follow him to death” in the Catholic marriage vows? This is starting to sound like some sort of suicide pact.

Wives, submit to your husbands. He is your husband until you die, for in heaven we are not given in marriage. Pretty much means follow him to death does it not?

Eh, what is a woman supposed to do if her husband is mentally ill or senile?

My sense of logic would indicate that the woman must steer, but certainly your not arguing that the woman in this circumstance is better than a woman with a sane husband?

Eh, no. Actually, I wasn’t. I was born with an almost complete lack of feminine wiles (thanks, autism spectrum!) and have had to painstakingly acquire them.

You wiley woman! Us men have no chance at all I tell you. If a man were to suffer the same fate, I bet he’s probably still single…

All human authority has limits. There is no human authority who can command total obedience, and it’s very much worthwhile to think hard about what the limits of human authority are in a variety of different situations.

I agree, but since God is commanding your submissiveness to your husband, your obliged to submit to him under the authority of God are you not?

 

[Bannan]

There you go again with the “follow your husband, even unto death.”

Well, I hope the Kool-Aid is tasty.

LOL, I don’t even know what you mean by that. The Kool-Aid is always tasty.

 

[Walking_Home]

I am not saying that men are more logical than women, but it’s hard to say that God designed us to lead the family unit, and gave us men the faculties to do so, without coming off that way. The fault is mine, I’m not doing a very good job of making that clear.

Wives, submit to your husbands. He is your husband until you die, for in heaven we are not given in marriage. Pretty much means follow him to death does it not?

My sense of logic would indicate that the woman must steer, but certainly your not arguing that the woman in this circumstance is better than a woman with a sane husband?

You wiley woman! Us men have no chance at all I tell you. If a man were to suffer the same fate, I bet he’s probably still single…

I agree, but since God is commanding your submissiveness to your husband, your obliged to submit to him under the authority of God are you not?

---

In the Catholic Church – It is not a one sided submission (wife to husband) – but mutual submission: the husband is subject (submits) to the wife – the wife to the husband.

From the CCC.

The grace of the sacrament of Matrimony

1641 "By reason of their state in life and of their order, [Christian spouses] have their own special gifts in the People of God."147 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."148

1642 Christ is the source of this grace. "Just as of old God encountered his people with a covenant of love and fidelity, so our Savior, the spouse of the Church, now encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of Matrimony."149 Christ dwells with them, gives them the strength to take up their crosses and so follow him, to rise again after they have fallen, to forgive one another, to bear one another’s burdens,** to “be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ,”**150 and to love one another with supernatural, tender, and fruitful love. In the joys of their love and family life he gives them here on earth a foretaste of the wedding feast of the Lamb:

 

[Bannan]

It can be very relationally damaging to try to shoehorn “logic” in where it doesn’t belong, or to dress trivial personal preferences up with pointy Vulcan ears.

Hey, you leave Star Trek out of this. That’s sacred ground mam, I wont stand for it and I’m certainly not going to take heresy like that sitting down! (Sorry for the damage)

I’ll concede to you then that perhaps logic is irrelevant in why God chose man to be the head of household. I still hold that God chose man to be head of household, and that being head of household means the person in charge, the authority, the decision maker. God did not give man the responsibility to do this without the means.

What about widows? Does this mean that if a woman’s husband dies, she doesn’t get to make any decisions and that she should get a new husband to make decisions for her as soon as she can?

All of these are extenuating circumstances that serve no purpose other than to distract from the topic at hand. Of course I’m not saying she should go out and get a new decision maker! Logic would indicate she must fill the role of authority, if she has children that need caring for. But those kids and wife are still lacking a father, she doesn’t fill that role, its still a void.

If you take a good look at Proverbs 31, you’ll see a woman who has huge amounts of autonomy.

The Queen! Her majesty!!! I would say the woman described here is always busy for the family, subservient to her husband. Where did you read in this chapter a woman who is in authority?

 

[AnnArbor]

If you were interpreting my position on the matter, then I feel you have interpreted this correctly. Both in perceiving my poor expression and the conclusion derived.

To clarify, you should not have emotions as a primary cause for a decision, but have logic ruling the decision. This logic should value the emotional weight of the decision greatly, but not be dominated by it.

You keep calling for the use of logic and rational thought – and yet expect the use of those precepts to lead to an illogical and irrational conclusion. It is neither logical nor rational to think that maleness gives any inherent authority, leadership or “headship.” Individuals have different gifts and charisms, and should use them. In a balanced marriage, both spouses will submit to the other in different arenas – which they work out, based on their mutual understanding of each other’s gifts and talents. There is no automatic veto power attached to gender.

 

[Bannan]

In the Catholic Church – It is not a one sided submission (wife to husband) – but mutual submission: the husband is subject (submits) to the wife – the wife to the husband.

From the CCC.

It’s in the Bible too. Thus far the discussion hasn’t revolved around mutual submission, but specifically whether a woman should submit to the man.

I would add that submitting to each other doesn’t look the same when the tables are turned around, the woman clearly is not the authority of the family in the same way the man is, the woman is the authority of the man in a unique way way though. She is his / he is hers.

 

[Book_Worm]

Xanthippe, I cannot begin to approach your eloquence and wisdom. I will just say that I agree with all of your points.

I would just like to add that modeling the functions of a modern family upon those that were workable two thousand years ago makes no more sense than commuting to work in Manhattan on a donkey today would. Society does not function the same. Our understanding of human nature is better. Physical strength is no longer a determinant of ability and power. Women are no longer chattels and their education, intelligence and abilities are equal to those of men. In some instances they are greater. In the successful marriages with which I am familiar, the union is a partnership with both parties acting as the leader in the areas in which their strengths lie. Differences are worked out by compromise; one does not have the power to kindly take the opinion of the other into consideration and follow it or not.

Our talents and proclivities are given to us by God. Not acknowledging this and using those abilities is throwing God’s gift back in his face.

And the idea that men are more logical and less emotional than women is an out-dated stereotype. Ask anyone who works for a Fortune 500 company with women in senior leadership roles if this is true and then wait for the derisive laughter to end.

 

[Xantippe]

Wives, submit to your husbands. He is your husband until you die, for in heaven we are not given in marriage. Pretty much means follow him to death does it not?

The problem is that that phrasing sounds like, "Follow him and do what he says, no matter how stupid. And do it even if it literally kills you."

My sense of logic would indicate that the woman must steer, but certainly your not arguing that the woman in this circumstance is better than a woman with a sane husband?

**No, but it does suggest that your rule of wifely submission requires A LOT of fine print. “Not valid in case of mental illness, severe brain damage, hallucination, drunkenness, drug addiction, etc.”

I would suggest that there’s a lot of value in coming up with a rule that covers those unfortunate cases, not just the ideal case where the husband is all-wise and all-virtuous.
**

I agree, but since God is commanding your submissiveness to your husband, your obliged to submit to him under the authority of God are you not?

I suggest that marriage is not some sort of unique instance of authority where the husband’s authority overrules all other known moral and prudential rules. A husband is no more to be mindlessly obeyed than is a parent, a police officer, a judge, a mayor, a governor, a president, an employer, or a military superior. There are always limits to earthly authority.

See Romans 13:

“1Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

That sounds very categorical, and yet we know that Christians got in trouble precisely for not being mindlessly obedient to civil authority. As we see in the Gospel, we are to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but render unto God what is God’s.

Total obedience to a husband verges on idolatry.

 

[Bannan]

There is no automatic veto power attached to gender.

Only males are priests. Only males are Popes. Obviously, there is an automatic veto power attached to gender.

 

[Bannan]

The problem is that that phrasing sounds like, “Follow him and do what he says, no matter how stupid. And do it even if it literally kills you.”

Yet another extreme example to try and prove your point. It only sounds that way to you because you are not humble, and you have issue with authority.

Total obedience to a husband verges on idolatry.

Your indicating I’ve asked for total obedience. I have not. I’ve said you must submit to the death, but if the husband expects something from you contrary to God, then give to God what is the Lords.

Your still using examples that go to the extreme to try and rationalize not having to be submissive to your husband.

 

[Bannan]

Xanthippe, I cannot begin to approach your eloquence and wisdom. I will just say that I agree with all of your points.

You were very eloquently stated in your post also, so don’t discount yourself.

And the idea that men are more logical and less emotional than women is an out-dated stereotype.

But yea, she won that argument.

 

[Walking_Home]

It’s in the Bible too. Thus far the discussion hasn’t revolved around mutual submission, but specifically whether a woman should submit to the man.

I would add that submitting to each other doesn’t look the same when the tables are turned around, the woman clearly is not the authority of the family in the same way the man is, the woman is the authority of the man in a unique way way though. She is his / he is hers.

---

In a Catholic marriage – a wife submits to the husband – just as the husband submits to the wife – and both have equal rights within the marriage.

 

[Bannan]

---

In a Catholic marriage – a wife submits to the husband – just as the husband submits to the wife – and both have equal rights within the marriage.

Nowhere will you find that the wife is the head of the family, just as nowhere will you find that the Man should “carry” children. This whole liberalized idea of “equal rights” is just rubbish. Equally loved, honored, valued, sure. But the man has gender exclusive rights, just at the woman has, and we are all the more beautiful for it.

 

[Walking_Home]

Nowhere will you find that the wife is the head of the family, just as nowhere will you find that the Man should “carry” children. ** This whole liberalized idea of “equal rights” is just rubbish**. Equally loved, honored, valued, sure. But the man has gender exclusive rights, just at the woman has, and we are all the more beautiful for it.

---

Rubbish you say— Not according to the Catholic Church.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY

THE FAMILY AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Article 2

Marriage cannot be contracted except by free and full consent duly expressed by the spouses.

a) With due respect for the traditional role of the families in certain cultures in guiding the decision of their children, all pressure which would impede the choice of a specific person as spouse is to be avoided.

b) The future spouses have the right to their religious liberty. Therefore to impose as a prior condition for marriage a denial of faith or a profession of faith which is contrary to conscience, constitutes a violation of this right.

c) The spouses, in the natural complementarity which exists between man and woman,** enjoy the same dignity and equal rights regarding the marriage.
**

Article 16

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

 

[Xantippe]

Xanthippe, I cannot begin to approach your eloquence and wisdom. I will just say that I agree with all of your points.

Awwww, shucks!

I would just like to add that modeling the functions of a modern family upon those that were workable two thousand years ago makes no more sense than commuting to work in Manhattan on a donkey today would.

**I would even argue, though, that the ideal wife of Proverbs 31 looks a heck of a lot like an upper middle class 21st century American woman (and maybe even an upper upper middle class 21st century American woman). She makes a lot of money, she has a lot of employees (consider how many laborers you would need to run an Old Testament vineyard), she makes investments and owns property, she has lots household help, her husband seems happy to spend his days shooting the breeze down at the Old Testament version of the VFW hall or country club with his friends rather than breathing down her neck and concerning himself with the minutiae of her business transactions, etc.

Being much more of a little woman myself, I almost want to ask the Proverbs 31 woman, hey, shouldn’t you be talking to your husband about this field purchase and vineyard deal you’re doing?

**

Our talents and proclivities are given to us by God. Not acknowledging this and using those abilities is throwing God’s gift back in his face.

**Yes. If we have particular gifts and we refuse to use them, it’s like the parable about burying the talents.
**

 

[Bannan]

Rubbish you say— Not according to the Catholic Church.

Yes rubbish, if your considering “head of household” or “child bearing” as a “right”.

Taking snippets from any text, sacred, dogmatic or otherwise, and pasting them out of context does injustice to the author.

Equal rights in the content you posted had nothing to do with being the head of the household. God himself said you women should submit to your husbands. He didn’t even caveat, he didn’t say, “When it’s easy.” Why do you caveat your own submission with equal rights, or “what if my husband is an idiot”? He said to submit to your husband. He said your husband is your husband for life, by God as your witness. Not just when he’s smart, or not just when your elevated to the same level of authority in the family. No caveats, no ifs, no butts.

Of course there’s a million reasons why you should think for yourself, evaluate your husbands behavior, make sure your always pleasing to God above being pleasing to your husband. But God still said, “submit.” Even with the pharisees, who were head of the Israelite household, who were hypocrites, God said, submit. Even when the burdens were heavy!

You hate submitting, its obvious. You feel like being a submitting is somehow less, sure. Who wouldn’t feel that way? It’s natural, because we as people have pride, but that is no excuse for not submitting to the will of God.

 

[Walking_Home]

Yes rubbish, if your considering “head of household” or “child bearing” as a “right”.

Taking snippets from any text, sacred, dogmatic or otherwise, and pasting them out of context does injustice to the author.

Equal rights in the content you posted had nothing to do with being the head of the household. God himself said you women should submit to your husbands. He didn’t even caveat, he didn’t say, “When it’s easy.” Why do you caveat your own submission with equal rights, or “what if my husband is an idiot”? He said to submit to your husband. He said your husband is your husband for life, by God as your witness. Not just when he’s smart, or not just when your elevated to the same level of authority in the family. No caveats, no ifs, no butts.

Of course there’s a million reasons why you should think for yourself, evaluate your husbands behavior, make sure your always pleasing to God above being pleasing to your husband. But God still said, “submit.” Even with the pharisees, who were head of the Israelite household, who were hypocrites, God said, submit. Even when the burdens were heavy!

You hate submitting, its obvious. You feel like being a submitting is somehow less, sure. Who wouldn’t feel that way? It’s natural, because we as people have pride, but that is no excuse for not submitting to the will of God.

---

You can use any/all types of machinations – which look to be along fundamentalist protestantism – but the one you are at odds with – is the teachings of the Catholic Church.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes rubbish, if your considering “head of household” or “child bearing” as a “right”.

Taking snippets from any text, sacred, dogmatic or otherwise, and pasting them out of context does injustice to the author.

Equal rights in the content you posted had nothing to do with being the head of the household. God himself said you women should submit to your husbands. He didn’t even caveat, he didn’t say, “When it’s easy.” Why do you caveat your own submission with equal rights, or “what if my husband is an idiot”? He said to submit to your husband. He said your husband is your husband for life, by God as your witness. Not just when he’s smart, or not just when your elevated to the same level of authority in the family. No caveats, no ifs, no butts.

Of course there’s a million reasons why you should think for yourself, evaluate your husbands behavior, make sure your always pleasing to God above being pleasing to your husband. But God still said, “submit.” Even with the pharisees, who were head of the Israelite household, who were hypocrites, God said, submit. Even when the burdens were heavy!

You hate submitting, its obvious. You feel like being a submitting is somehow less, sure. Who wouldn’t feel that way? It’s natural, because we as people have pride, but that is no excuse for not submitting to the will of God.

I worry about men who seem much too excited about getting their wives to submit to them.

It doesn’t seem like a very spiritually wholesome attitude for a Christian.

 

[Bannan]

You can use any/all types of machinations – which look to be along fundamentalist protestantism – but the one you are at odds with – is the teachings of the Catholic Church.

OK, lets take a look at the teaching then shall we?

Your post from Article 2. In context

Marriage cannot be contracted except by free and full consent duly expressed by the spouses.

This does not say that the spouses have equal rights in marriage. This says that the spouses have equal rights to marry, making special note of the complementary differences between the sexes. Why a caveat the differences here? I suspect its because in some cultures, they may have thought that its OK if the male were Catholic but not the woman.

How about your next catechism reference? Shall we look?

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family

Hey! This is still talking about a right to marry and remain married! Boy, that was tough to really get to the context there, all I had to do was read the first four sentences before what you posted.

This isn’t my protestantism showing, my protestantism died along years ago, along with the equal treatment for women rubbish. It is you who have been deceived as to the teachings of the Church, I am merely your hypocrite. Your resounding gong.