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

[Sarcelle]

You took my generalizations and ran away with them again. Surely you don’t think I believe all women roll their eyes every time a man says submit. I even started that with “to continue the generalization”, so don’t even try blaming me for misreading that! I was trying to show how offensive something Xantippe had said was to me personally, how absurd it was.

Instead of going down a comparison of how you speak vs how I speak. I’ll restate my original opinion.

Women should submit to the death, just as a man is expected to.

I think I’ve clarified (I could be wrong) how I feel this is far too high a bar for either a man or a woman to obtain, as we are fallible humans. I’ve stayed away from talking about how a husband should submit to the wife, because to you women, I feel, this will just come off sounding like I’m trying to defend my own integrity. I feel my integrity in this discussion is irrelevant, and so that’s why this seems so one sided. I think it can be safely one sided, because a woman’s submission is distinct from the mans. It isn’t dependent on it, its not a you trust me first kind of situation.

My point though is that in a perfect marriage, a woman submits with her whole being, in its entirety. It is total. She can safely do this because she does so to the perfect man who’s always got her well-being in his eye. The marriage is more beautiful this way, than when there is mistrust in a relationship. Even if the mistrust is necessary with us fallible humans.

When we understand what a perfect marriage is, we can better strive for it. We can be more prepared when we contemplate marriage with another individual.

An American bank teller, when they are starting out, is trained to recognize fake 100 dollar bills. The means by which they are trained is not to recognize the millions of ways that someone can create a fake. They study the authentic 100 dollar bill. This is exactly what I wish we did more with marriage.

I’m sorry I come off so annoying, I’m sorry I’ve agitated you all to no end. I’m not only passionate about a wife’s submission, I’m equally passionate about the husbands submission, and my faith as a whole. I chimed onto this thread at the start merely because I was bored, but I am now invested enough to see this conversation to fruition.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head about the authentic $100.00 bill. I think the problem is not a lot of us have had the privilege of seeing a beautiful Christian marriage up close and personal. A lot of us have seen the toxic destructive kind.

 

[Xantippe]

You took my generalizations and ran away with them again. Surely you don’t think I believe all women roll their eyes every time a man says submit. I even started that with “to continue the generalization”, so don’t even try blaming me for misreading that! I was trying to show how offensive something Xantippe had said was to me personally, how absurd it was.

**I said “people” and I meant people, not men.

Often the worst offenders in pushing submission-at-all-costs are women. It somehow hasn’t gone that way this thread, but it does happen.

calvinistjaneway.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/the-advice-an-abused-woman-received-at-my-church/**

calvinistjaneway.wordpress.com/2014/08/18/the-advice-my-church-gave-to-an-abused-woman-part-2/

Pushing submission too hard is a problem, no matter who is doing it.

My point though is that in a perfect marriage, a woman submits with her whole being, in its entirety. It is total. She can safely do this because she does so to the perfect man who’s always got her well-being in his eye. The marriage is more beautiful this way, than when there is mistrust in a relationship. Even if the mistrust is necessary with us fallible humans.

**I think that good, reasonable people don’t routinely ask huge amounts of trust from each other.

If somebody is asking for that level of trust, it is often a sign that the person asking is not trustworthy. **

When we understand what a perfect marriage is, we can better strive for it. We can be more prepared when we contemplate marriage with another individual.

How about just having a good marriage and loving and respecting each other? We can always be just a little more loving and a little more respectful.

An American bank teller, when they are starting out, is trained to recognize fake 100 dollar bills. The means by which they are trained is not to recognize the millions of ways that someone can create a fake. They study the authentic 100 dollar bill. This is exactly what I wish we did more with marriage.

**I’ve been privileged to be around a number of very good and happy marriages in my family, including my grandparents, who have been married 68 years. The funny thing is, people like that do not go on and on about wifely submission. It just isn’t part of their vocabulary.
**

I’m sorry I come off so annoying, I’m sorry I’ve agitated you all to no end. I’m not only passionate about a wife’s submission, I’m equally passionate about the husbands submission, and my faith as a whole. I chimed onto this thread at the start merely because I was bored, but I am now invested enough to see this conversation to fruition.

 

[Xantippe]

My point though is that in a perfect marriage, a woman submits with her whole being, in its entirety. It is total. She can safely do this because she does so to the perfect man who’s always got her well-being in his eye. The marriage is more beautiful this way, than when there is mistrust in a relationship. Even if the mistrust is necessary with us fallible humans.

When we understand what a perfect marriage is, we can better strive for it. We can be more prepared when we contemplate marriage with another individual.

An American bank teller, when they are starting out, is trained to recognize fake 100 dollar bills. The means by which they are trained is not to recognize the millions of ways that someone can create a fake. They study the authentic 100 dollar bill. This is exactly what I wish we did more with marriage.

Again, I feel that aiming for a “perfect marriage” is not a good idea, especially as none of us have ever seen one. I think aiming for a perfect marriage may, in fact, lead to worse results than just aiming at incremental improvement: being more loving, being more respectful, making more of an effort, being more patient, being just plain nicer.

Come to think of it, my grandpa (married to the same woman since 1946) did have some advice for my husband when we were newlyweds. Grandpa said, “Don’t break her spirit.” I’m not sure exactly what he meant, but grandma was for many years very energetic, hard-working, and passionate about everything (she’s now 89 and has slowed down a bit), so presumably grandpa meant something like, be gentle with your wife and accept her as she is, rather than trying to utterly transform her into something she’s not.

 

[Xantippe]

Anecdotally, I think the urge to pursue a high-submission marriage may be more common among people who have experienced abuse and/or weird family situations and simply don’t have a picture in their heads of what a normal marriage looks like.

 

[LongingSoul]

Anecdotally, I think the urge to pursue a high-submission marriage may be more common among people who have experienced abuse and/or weird family situations and simply don’t have a picture in their heads of what a normal marriage looks like.

It’s unfortunate that you keep trying to perpetrate this strawman of an argument in order to ‘win’ your ‘battle’. What on earth does ‘high submission’ marriage mean? The very phrase implies sharia law values or the strict literalism of the Puritans version of the bible.

One of the things that I have deep gratitude for and pray for others to have, is the experience of an unbroken family. Parents married for 53 years. Two brothers and sister and I married for between 27 and 20 years. There were no awkward absences at Christmas or family gatherings due to having to share custody or divide time and often even the respective in laws are with us at big family events having got to know each other over the 20 odd years of marriage connections. As well as that, all of our spouses siblings are divorce free too (excepting one).

Our parents deserve much credit for demonstrating the biblical model of marriage for us. It doesn’t look like sharia law or puritanical domination at all. It is just an affirmation of the sacramentality of a Catholic marriage which respects that males and females bring to the conjugal union, different but complimentary roles. These roles we fully believe are illuminated for us by sacramental grace and are not diminished or altered in nature by modern secular concepts that impose individual ‘rights’ above the sacramentality of the conjugal union. The union is not just the sum of man and woman… but is a new creation of one flesh. That new creation depends on each esteeming the other over him or herself rather than retaining the attitude of ‘my rights’ in relation to others.

When a man and woman submit to the marriage they have made they must together cultivate a new attitude of selflessness that was not previously prescribed.

Even if one of the spouses is slower in that goal than the other, we believe that by the grace of the sacrament, our own faithfulness to the marriage can heal divisions and shortfalls eventually. It takes time and practice to value the reality of your marital communion and to put it higher in your priorities than pure self interest. But it is only when the true meaning of a sacramental marriage is understood that the true meaning of mutual submission and sacrifice is understood. That certainly doesn’t manifest in demanding spousal rights for ourselves… it manifests in respecting the roles of our spouse.

 

[AnnArbor]

How sad that a man who talks about TOB and quotes JPII and scripture isn’t suitable.

Not at all. The idea of wifely submission has caused a lot of damage to many women. And like slavery, eating of shellfish, or mixing of linen and wool, it’s an idea that does not necessarily stand the test of time.

 

[Xantippe]

It’s unfortunate that you keep trying to perpetrate this strawman of an argument in order to ‘win’ your ‘battle’. What on earth does ‘high submission’ marriage mean? The very phrase implies sharia law values or the strict literalism of the Puritans version of the bible.

**Well, look at some of the links I’ve posted. That should give you an idea of what I’m talking about. **

Our parents deserve much credit for demonstrating the biblical model of marriage for us. It doesn’t look like sharia law or puritanical domination at all. It is just an affirmation of the sacramentality of a Catholic marriage which respects that males and females bring to the conjugal union, different but complimentary roles. These roles we fully believe are illuminated for us by sacramental grace and are not diminished or altered in nature by modern secular concepts that impose individual ‘rights’ above the sacramentality of the conjugal union. The union is not just the sum of man and woman… but is a new creation of one flesh. That new creation depends on each esteeming the other over him or herself rather than retaining the attitude of ‘my rights’ in relation to others.

**And yet people do retain normal human rights within marriage. A woman does not lose her basic human rights just because she is married. **

That certainly doesn’t manifest in demanding spousal rights for ourselves… it manifests in respecting the roles of our spouse.

Under certain circumstances, the most wholesome and proper thing to do is to insist on our basic human rights.

Sorry for the repost, but here’s an example of a woman standing up for herself and saving her marriage.

calvinistjaneway.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/15/

Allowing a spouse to wallow in selfishness without saying a word about it is not going to get them to heaven.

 

[cena]

Genesis 3

16 - To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.
17 - And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life.

A wife does not have to do something immoral if her husband tells her to. Also, this submissiveness is not any where near the submission of a child to their parent. It is not absolute submission in everything unconditionally.

 

[cena]

Under certain circumstances, the most wholesome and proper thing to do is to insist on our basic human rights.

Sorry for the repost, but here’s an example of a woman standing up for herself and saving her marriage.

calvinistjaneway.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/15/

Allowing a spouse to wallow in selfishness without saying a word about it is not going to get them to heaven.

I don’t think a wife would be forced to submit to something evil. ‘Submission’ does not mean that the husband controls everything about her life.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
It’s unfortunate that you keep trying to perpetrate this strawman of an argument in order to ‘win’ your ‘battle’. What on earth does ‘high submission’ marriage mean? The very phrase implies sharia law values or the strict literalism of the Puritans version of the bible.

Lets focus on what I said. I’m a Catholic and have given you a Catholic interpretation and experience of the biblical model. Do you think it sounds like we are from ‘weird or abused’ situations? I don’t really understand why you are referring to Protestant interpretations of the passage to dismiss it? We are Catholics we don’t interpret the scriptures in the way the Protestants do.

So do you think my Catholic account seems to reflect ‘weird or abusive’ family experiences?

 

[Xantippe]

Not at all. The idea of wifely submission has caused a lot of damage to many women. And like slavery, eating of shellfish, or mixing of linen and wool, it’s an idea that does not necessarily stand the test of time.

I even wonder if the developed view of “submission” as discussed on this forum isn’t mostly a product of American fundamentalist Protestant culture. Obviously, the world of the Old and the New Testament was a very patriarchal one, but at the same time, the 1st and 2nd century Church wasn’t populated by 21st century Anglo-Saxon Protestant fundamentalists, and I think there’s some danger of investing the word “submit” in the New Testament with a meaning it did not have within the Christian community of the time. The reference to mutual submission is a strong clue that this may well be the case, as mutual submission obviously does not refer to mutual obedience. There’s also the issue of word choice–“submit” rather than “obey.” If the New Testament authors had wanted to say “obey your husband unquestioningly” they could have said, “obey your husband unquestioningly.” (Presumably, the New Testament authors had a lot of female converts whose husbands were less than pleased by their new faith.)

I feel like Catholics have traditionally had a much livelier sense than our fundamentalist cousins do of the need of a wife’s need to protect her own conscience, and it would be a very sad thing for Catholics to abandon that more nuanced view in favor of some sort of half-baked fundamentalist approach. There’s also the issue that in the fundamentalist world, there’s a view of the family as being a sort of tiny, isolated kingdom ruled by the father, with the father answering to absolutely nobody (because he’s picking and choosing which if any church they attend). That’s quite alien to the Catholic approach, where there’s a richer sense of involvement with the Christian community, and mediating institutions (such as confession), and a much clearer understanding that a father and husband does not have total authority over his wife and children.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t think a wife would be forced to submit to something evil. ‘Submission’ does not mean that the husband controls everything about her life.

Then that needs to be spelled out precisely.

It needs to be very clear how far submission goes and where it has to stop.

You will occasionally encounter people (even regular posters on this forum) who will tell you that a wife ought to submit even to sin, and that only her husband bears responsibility if she sins while obeying him.

By the way, the Genesis curse is descriptive, not proscriptive. It doesn’t, for instance, mean that agricultural mechanization is immoral.

 

[cena]

Then that needs to be spelled out precisely.

It needs to be very clear how far submission goes and where it has to stop.

You will occasionally encounter people (even regular posters on this forum) who will tell you that a wife ought to submit even to sin, and that only her husband bears responsibility if she sins while obeying him.

By the way, the Genesis curse is descriptive, not proscriptive. It doesn’t, for instance, mean that agricultural mechanization is immoral.

A parent can not compel their child to sin. If a parent gives an order to their child to sin the child does not have to obey. Children have to more submissive to their parents than a wife does to her husband. The wife has committed a sin, she bears the sin and so does he for making her.

So how would you interpret the Genesis curse?

 

[Xantippe]

Lets focus on what I said. I’m a Catholic and have given you a Catholic interpretation and experience of the biblical model. Do you think it sounds like we are from ‘weird or abused’ situations? I don’t really understand why you are referring to Protestant interpretations of the passage to dismiss it? We are Catholics we don’t interpret the scriptures in the way the Protestants do.

So do you think my Catholic account seems to reflect ‘weird or abusive’ family experiences?

I didn’t say that everybody who believes in submission is from abusive or weird family situations, but as I said, anecdotally, high-submission marriage is especially attractive to people from dysfunctional or abusive families of origin because it looks like an easy shortcut to having the sort of perfect, ideal family that they’ve always dreamed of. You see this pattern over and over again in personal stories from women who eventually turn against the high-submission marriage ideal.

And I think I do have to talk about the Protestants, because I think there is a certain amount of cross-pollination with Protestantism. It’s not like we’re all living in sealed boxes–we do affect each other.

 

[Xantippe]

A parent can not compel their child to sin. If a parent gives an order to their child to sin the child does not have to obey. Children have to more submissive to their parents than a wife does to her husband. The wife has committed a sin, she bears the sin and so does he for making her.

So how would you interpret the Genesis curse?

That it’s descriptive (namely, it talks about what has happened) rather than proscriptive (saying what ought to happen).

Do you think that the Genesis curse means that women shouldn’t get pain relief for labor or that male farmers shouldn’t be able to have air conditioned tractors?

 

[cena]

That it’s descriptive (namely, it talks about what has happened) rather than proscriptive (saying what ought to happen).

Do you think that the Genesis curse means that women shouldn’t get pain relief for labor or that male farmers shouldn’t be able to have air conditioned tractors?

First of all isn’t a farmer in an air conditioned tractor still technically working the land?

I thought the fact that women are in pain during labor is that punishment and the fact so many men throughout history had to do hard manual labor is punishment.

What I am trying to say is if original sin had not happened labor would not be painful (or it would be much less painful) and men would not have to work the land.

If Eve did not do that women would not be subordinate to men. Jesus was submissive to His Heavenly Father, but they are both equal in dignity.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

That it’s descriptive (namely, it talks about what has happened) rather than proscriptive (saying what ought to happen).

Do you think that the Genesis curse means that women shouldn’t get pain relief for labor or that male farmers shouldn’t be able to have air conditioned tractors?

I was just going to make this point, though I know it has been made before, that the Genesis 3 passage in some translations also refers to men earning their keep by the “sweat of their brow”, yet other than perhaps some sects such as the Mennonite and Amish, few would state that all men in contemporary modern society must perform manual labor to earn their keep. Meaning that men who are, say, computer engineers, stockbrokers, pretty much anyone who works a desk job is sinning.

Although regarding pain relief in labor, I have wondered myself if this idea that God decreed women should give birth in pain, is behind the tendency for many more conservative Christians (and this includes both Christians and Catholics) to denigrate “medicalized labor” and insinuate that a woman who labors naturally somehow is more spiritually or even morally superior to those who supposedly take the “easy way out” or are coerced by greedy doctors to succumb to anesthesia (there’s that weak woman stereotype again)!

Anyway, it seems to me one majorly “Protestant” flavor to those who obsess over wifely submission is the use of proof-texting, focusing on the one or two Bible verses to prove your point instead of looking at other parts of the Bible. (And yes, I know Catholics aren’t even Sola Scriptura). But proof texting can often lead to really unbiblical conclusions, such as those who use the “the poor you will always have with you” verse to excuse not doing anything to help the poor, because “LOOK Jesus said there will always be poor people around”! Totally neglecting the parts of the Bible were Jesus tells people that if they don’t help the poor, they’ll be condemned.

 

[cena]

I was just going to make this point, though I know it has been made before, that the Genesis 3 passage in some translations also refers to men earning their keep by the “sweat of their brow”, yet other than perhaps some sects such as the Mennonite and Amish, few would state that all men in contemporary modern society must perform manual labor to earn their keep. Meaning that men who are, say, computer engineers, stockbrokers, pretty much anyone who works a desk job is sinning.

Although regarding pain relief in labor, I have wondered myself if this idea that God decreed women should give birth in pain, is behind the tendency for many more conservative Christians (and this includes both Christians and Catholics) to denigrate “medicalized labor” and insinuate that a woman who labors naturally somehow is more spiritually or even morally superior to those who supposedly take the “easy way out” or are coerced by greedy doctors to succumb to anesthesia (there’s that weak woman stereotype again)!

Anyway, it seems to me one majorly “Protestant” flavor to those who obsess over wifely submission is the use of proof-texting, focusing on the one or two Bible verses to prove your point instead of looking at other parts of the Bible. (And yes, I know Catholics aren’t even Sola Scriptura). But proof texting can often lead to really unbiblical conclusions, such as those who use the “the poor you will always have with you” verse to excuse not doing anything to help the poor, because “LOOK Jesus said there will always be poor people around”! Totally neglecting the parts of the Bible were Jesus tells people that if they don’t help the poor, they’ll be condemned.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1200

 

[Walking_Home]

Genesis 3

16 - To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.
17 - And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life.

A wife does not have to do something immoral if her husband tells her to. Also, this submissiveness is not any where near the submission of a child to their parent. It is not absolute submission in everything unconditionally.

---

Below is from the homily by Fr. Cantalamessa – the preacher of the Pontifical Household. The “rule over you” – is ** not** an authorization from God-- for the man to rule over women (husband over wife) – but a bitter forcast – of what “pride” was going to lead to.

VATICAN CITY, APRIL 2, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Here is the homily delivered today by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher of the Pontifical Household, at the celebration of the Lord’s passion in St. Peter’s Basilica. The liturgy was presided over by Benedict XVI.

There are families where the man still believes himself authorized to raise his voice and hands on the women of the house. Wife and children at times live under the constant threat of “Daddy’s anger.” To such as these it is necessary to say courteously: dear men colleagues, by creating you male, God did not intend to give you the right to be angry and to bang your fist on the table for the least thing. The word addressed to Eve after the fault: “He (the man) shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16), was a bitter forecast, not an authorization.

John Paul II inaugurated the practice of the request for forgiveness for collective wrongs. One of these, among the most just and necessary, is the forgiveness that half of humanity must ask of the other half, men to women. It must not be generic or abstract. It must lead, especially in one who professes himself a Christian, to concrete gestures of conversion, to words of apology and reconciliation within families and in society.

 

[on_the_hill]

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

Well, I hope the Kool-Aid is tasty.

Especially if you’re married to Jim Jones, because he’s going to “lead” to you drink it.