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

[Xantippe]

Let us say that coming to a meeting of the minds could be likened to getting a horse onto a horse trailer.

In a bad authoritarian marriage, if the horse won’t get on the trailer, the “authority” will shoot it and drag it on if necessary, but the horse WILL be in the trailer, of that there is no doubt. Problem “solved.”

In a bad egalitarian marriage, a horse not inclined to go anywhere never gets anywhere *near *the trailer, and “no harm done.”

In a good marriage, the horse gets on the trailer, looking forward to the ride, no one gets kicked, and you can do the whole thing all over again for the ride home. Yes, peaceful ends achieved by peaceful means do look a lot alike.

Very good! Very funny, too!

 

[agapewolf]

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.

Actually, its exactly what you said…TOB was delivered in the early 80s… that is the modern times. It HAS stood the test of time, and doesn’t damage women. It is upholding women’s dignity.

 

[Xantippe]

Actually, its exactly what you said…TOB was delivered in the early 80s… that is the modern times. It HAS stood the test of time, and doesn’t damage women. It is upholding women’s dignity.

Is TOB actually that big on wifely submission?

That’s an honest question–I don’t know the answer either way.

 

[cena]

Frankly, I’m embarrassed that Catholics believe that pain in childbirth is connected to The Sin Of Eve, which is borderline fable anyway.

Taken any red pills lately? I’m having a hard time being Christain by not excoriating some of these posts with a flaming flamethrower.

Threads like this one make me want to quit CAF because so many posters are tragically out of touch with Catholicism.

Then please tell your interpretation of that passage from the bible.
What part of Original Sin is a fable? There might not have been a fruit or a serpent, and Adam and Eve might not have been their names but there was one woman and one man who rebelled against God somehow.

 

[LongingSoul]

Is TOB actually that big on wifely submission?

That’s an honest question–I don’t know the answer either way.

I actually referred to TOB earlier in the thread with the link to the 17 consecutive weekly audiences specifically addressing Ephesians 5. Look at speech 87 to 103 here…

ewtn.com.au/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

Pope StJPII presented a full exegesis on the scripture in the framework of Catholic theology. I can’t think of a better description than to say it is so ‘catholic’. It warrants thorough examination and contemplation!

(Edit to correct link.)

 

[Bannan]

---

What the Pope is saying is that what has to be overcome – is the “ideology” of the one sided submission – and what must establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs – is the mutual subjection/submission of the spouses – in reverence to Christ.

True, but that doesn’t mean that it ends with merely coming to the conclusion that marriage isn’t one sided, he continued on to say a few more words on the subject. Of course the main theme is mutual submission, but its a deeper mutual submission that he’s pointing to.

 

[Bannan]

Let us say that coming to a meeting of the minds could be likened to getting a horse onto a horse trailer.

In a bad authoritarian marriage, if the horse won’t get on the trailer, the “authority” will shoot it and drag it on if necessary, but the horse WILL be in the trailer, of that there is no doubt. Problem “solved.”

In a bad egalitarian marriage, a horse not inclined to go anywhere never gets anywhere *near *the trailer, and “no harm done.”

In a good marriage, the horse gets on the trailer, looking forward to the ride, no one gets kicked, and you can do the whole thing all over again for the ride home. Yes, peaceful ends achieved by peaceful means do look a lot alike.

Good stuff this

 

[Bannan]

Frankly, I’m embarrassed that Catholics believe that pain in childbirth is connected to The Sin Of Eve, which is borderline fable anyway.

Taken any red pills lately? I’m having a hard time being Christain by not excoriating some of these posts with a flaming flamethrower.

Threads like this one make me want to quit CAF because so many posters are tragically out of touch with Catholicism.

You’ve made just such an example of a Catholic out of touch with Catholicism.

I too, will be quitting CAF soon for different reasons.

I get the impression all I’ve done is manage to sow confusion, anger, frustration. I hope for a silent someone who’s benefited spiritually by what I’ve shared, but that’s a long shot. I’ll come back if I figure out how to not repeat the same mistakes over and over, till then I’ll stick to sharing the faith in the real world.

 

[cena]

Here is where you generalized men Xantippe. I merely turned the tables and generalized women back to you. Just because you said people when you meant men doesn’t make it any less of a generalization.

To continue the generalization…

When christian men hear that they must love their wives as they love themselves, they agree this is correct, and likely feel guilty for having failed in this endeavor. When they hear they should sacrifice themselves for the family, no time is spent clarifying how or when.

When women hear they must submit to their husbands, they roll their eyes, cast judgement on the speaker, and insinuate an evil agenda is at play.

Yes, they both cooperate mutually and serve each other, the wife just submits more.

Again, this is not slavery or unconditional or anything it has to be within reason. No one, especially not a wife, is ever bound to carry out in order that is a direct sin.

 

[Xantippe]

Yes, they both cooperate mutually and serve each other, the wife just submits more.

Again, this is not slavery or unconditional or anything it has to be within reason. No one, especially not a wife, is ever bound to carry out in order that is a direct sin.

So, where is the line?

At what point does the demand for submission shade off into abuse? Because it not infrequently does.

 

[cena]

So, where is the line?

At what point does the demand for submission shade off into abuse? Because it not infrequently does.

If it goes off into abuse that is too far. They run the household together but he has the last say (unless it’s morally bad) stuff like that. It isn’t a tyranny or anything. She isn’t his slave.

If a child is commanded to do something sinful then they don’t have to follow it. Wives don’t even have to obey as far as children do, I do not know why a lot of people think wifely submission would give him the right to be abusive or command her to sin because it doesn’t.

 

[Bannan]

They run the household together but he has the last say (unless it’s morally bad) stuff like that.

This isn’t what I was talking about. I don’t think he ever should have the last say, and I think these guidelines is what Xantippe was so (rightly) worried about.

She has a route to have the last say in merely wanting something, because he should love her so much that if she really wants something then he has the responsibility to find a way to make that happen, God willing.

His route to have the last say looks differently than hers. She isn’t expected to just submit because he’s the ultimate boss, no matter the circumstances. She has desires, needs, and often unspoken, and it’s his job to know them and value them as he values himself, prior to voicing any authority whatsoever. Aka, when he voices something from authority, she should already want him to do that.

For example, when my kids are getting out of hand and she wants help, she doesn’t have to say “Hunny please help me.” I simply know she wants me to use some of my authority in the household and I provide a measured amount so we can get back to peaceful levels in the household.

The point I’ve been trying to make all along is to the depth at which she submits, and the depth at which he loves. There is authority only equal to the level of the love of the woman. If their marriage were looked at as a single individual, this person is only as good as the weakest link in the equation. It’s not a 50-50, it’s an all-all in a perfect marriage.

Obviously the second that either party violates this trust, it isn’t perfect anymore, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the goal or it couldn’t get better.

 

[Lookingforjoy]

Oh, honestly. Reading through this thread makes me grateful that I have a husband where we can both work as hard as we can for the good of our family without a lot of foot-stomping about who’s in charge.

I thought that selfless service, seeking to understand others, putting others’ needs before our own, and following God were Catholic values. Can’t we all just do that?

 

[Xantippe]

If it goes off into abuse that is too far. They run the household together but he has the last say (unless it’s morally bad) stuff like that. It isn’t a tyranny or anything. She isn’t his slave.

So, where does it stop? And where does it cross the line into abuse?

I think a lot of people would say that it crosses into abusive territory well before commanding to sin.

Again, read this Protestant woman’s story of the ill effect submission and complementarianism had on her marriage, and ask yourself, where did it cross over into “too much” territory?

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

Her husband was almost never asking her to sin (although I think he came pretty darn close in spots–like the time he wanted her to both work night shift and take care of their babies during the day), but their arrangement was nonetheless abusive and contrary to her human dignity, as well as being spiritually very bad for her husband.

So, where do you draw the line between submission and abuse? How do you know when you’ve crossed over?

Edited to add: Also, come to think of it, where does this “last say” come out of Church teaching? As was mentioned upthread, Pius XI talks about the wife’s submission not covering instances where the husband asks for something contrary to right reason or in violation of the wife’s dignity. He isn’t even talking about sin there–the wife’s obligation to submit stops well before actual sin.

 

[cena]

This isn’t what I was talking about. I don’t think he ever should have the last say, and I think these guidelines is what Xantippe was so (rightly) worried about.

She has a route to have the last say in merely wanting something, because he should love her so much that if she really wants something then he has the responsibility to find a way to make that happen, God willing.

His route to have the last say looks differently than hers. She isn’t expected to just submit because he’s the ultimate boss, no matter the circumstances. She has desires, needs, and often unspoken, and it’s his job to know them and value them as he values himself, prior to voicing any authority whatsoever. Aka, when he voices something from authority, she should already want him to do that.

For example, when my kids are getting out of hand and she wants help, she doesn’t have to say “Hunny please help me.” I simply know she wants me to use some of my authority in the household and I provide a measured amount so we can get back to peaceful levels in the household.

The point I’ve been trying to make all along is to the depth at which she submits, and the depth at which he loves. There is authority only equal to the level of the love of the woman. If their marriage were looked at as a single individual, this person is only as good as the weakest link in the equation. It’s not a 50-50, it’s an all-all in a perfect marriage.

Obviously the second that either party violates this trust, it isn’t perfect anymore, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t the goal or it couldn’t get better.

I didn’t mean to imply that he is the boss in all circumstances. Just because he can overrule her does not mean he should completely ignore her opinion and overrule her decision on everything. I am not encouraging an abusive relationship where he ultimately makes everything decision for her. He just has a little bit more authority than she does

 

[on_the_hill]

Then please tell your interpretation of that passage from the bible.

God doesn’t hand down temporal, Earthly punishment as a consequence of sin.

By whose sin was the blind man blinded, his father’s or his mother’s?

 

[cena]

God doesn’t hand down temporal, Earthly punishment as a consequence of sin.

By whose sin was the blind man blinded, his father’s or his mother’s?

Then why do we inherit Original Sin?

Edit: and concupiscence . I was asking how I should interpret that passage since I am doing incorrectly.

 

[Xantippe]

Oh, honestly. Reading through this thread makes me grateful that I have a husband where we can both work as hard as we can for the good of our family without a lot of foot-stomping about who’s in charge.

I thought that selfless service, seeking to understand others, putting others’ needs before our own, and following God were Catholic values. Can’t we all just do that?

If it were that easy, there’d never be any abuse, there’d never be any divorce, and there would never be any adult children who are so skeeved out by what they witnessed of their parents’ marriage that they don’t ever want anything to do with marriage, kids, or faith.

Bad marriages are a tremendous source of scandal, particularly bad Christian marriages.

Banaan,

Getting warmer!

 

[Lookingforjoy]

I didn’t mean to say that it was easy, I just meant that we should be preoccupied with helping and serving one another, not in worrying about who submits to who.

 

[cena]

If it were that easy, there’d never be any abuse, there’d never be any divorce, and there would never be any adult children who are so skeeved out by what they witnessed of their parents’ marriage that they don’t ever want anything to do with marriage, kids, or faith.

Bad marriages are a tremendous source of scandal, particularly bad Christian marriages.

Banaan,

Getting warmer!

The husband is supposed to serve the wife too. It’s not supposed to be one way.