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

[Xantippe]

You probably think I am a misogynist.
Yes this was what I was saying (you phrased it a lot better, I am not trying to take your post) husbands don’t have total and unconditional control over their wives, they are still the leaders and that doesn’t mean that it gives the right to be abusive. I don’t get why people assume submission means absolute and unconditional obedience in everything. It doesn’t. I have said many times that he can’t force her to sin and he does not even have near the amount of power over than he does to his children.
I don’t think absolute authority is ever okay…no one has authority to do evil, male or female. Definitely not in all aspects of authority.

Again, in your view, where does the duty to submission stop? Where does his power stop? Can he tell his wife to make meatloaf every night, 365 nights a year, because that’s his favorite?

We know from previous discussion upthread that Pius XI said that there are exceptions for cases where the orders are against right reason or violate the wife’s dignity. Those are both very broad categories. Throw in an exception for sin, and submission no longer looks at all like the Protestant fundamentalist view that seems to have been inspiring so many CAF posters. In fact, in practice, it starts looking a heck of a lot like a good, explicitly egalitarian marriage.

 

[Xantippe]

In general, who are naturally nurturers? More in touch with their emotions? Males or females?

My daughter is diagnosed as mildly autistic and I was very similar as a child.

I would have to say that I’m naturally neither much of a nurturer nor very in touch with my feelings, but I’ve worked hard on fixing that.

 

[Xantippe]

Hah! First I was accused of misogyny!!!

Free time is an obviously good thing, Jesus took a whole bunch of time away from the Church so that he would have to time to pray to God. But his prayer to God was for the Church wasn’t it? I’m positive we should take a little more R&R than Jesus did, because we are weaker. Yes, it’s easy to fall into the trap of idolizing your wife just as it’s easy to go to the other extreme.

I feel you’ve rightly learned to lessen your expectations, as I have as well. It’s a safety net for the spirit. But I still have a fire in the soul for witnessing God on earth, and the family is sacramentally an “image” of the heavenly economy. Worthy of praise, and worthy of passion!!! Of course God is higher, and all pursuits should ultimately lead to him.

I didn’t caveat and nuance everything until it was merely gibberish, but it was close. C’mon, stop being so hard-hearted with me, I’m an alright guy I swear!

I think it’s really important to dot all the is and cross all the ts on this stuff because it’s important and people hurt themselves and many others when they make mistakes in marriage.

 

[Sarcelle]

My daughter is diagnosed as mildly autistic and I was very similar as a child.

I would have to say that I’m naturally neither much of a nurturer nor very in touch with my feelings, but I’ve worked hard on fixing that.

I think Cena was talking in generalities or averages.

I don’t think she was discussing outliers like you and me. (I was diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder as a child.)

 

[Xantippe]

I think Cena was talking in generalities or averages.

I don’t think she was discussing outliers like you and me. (I was diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder as a child.)

Then I guess we need to add an extra caveat: “Husbands are natural leaders and wives are natural nurturers, except in the case of autistic spectrum women.”

Heck of a lot of caveats we’ve got going.

 

[cena]

All all male persons are natural leaders?

Really?

Also, as has already been pointed out, it’s offensive to use “girls” as the counterpart to “men.”

Girls should not be getting married.

That was from my first post wasn’t it? The one that got called out?

I was looking at what the person was saying and I used those terms. They said men and girls/women and I thought I could just say girls and imply all females. From now on I’ll say male and female.

Are all individual males natural leaders? No. Are males in general natural leaders? Yes.
Are all individual females natural nurturers/in touch with their feelings more than every male? No. Are females in general natural nurturers/more in touch with their feelings than males in general?

 

[cena]

Again, in your view, where does the duty to submission stop? Where does his power stop? Can he tell his wife to make meatloaf every night, 365 nights a year, because that’s his favorite?

We know from previous discussion upthread that Pius XI said that there are exceptions for cases where the orders are against right reason or violate the wife’s dignity. Those are both very broad categories. Throw in an exception for sin, and submission no longer looks at all like the Protestant fundamentalist view that seems to have been inspiring so many CAF posters. In fact, in practice, it starts looking a heck of a lot like a good, explicitly egalitarian marriage.

I don’t know anyone who would eat the same thing every night and it would still be their favorite meal. Making meatloaf isn’t that big a deal so yeah he probably could.

I literally have said that he cannot force her to sin at least three times.

As I have said before, he cannot force his wife to sin, he can’t be abusive

She does not have to carry out orders that are sins.

 

[cena]

I think Cena was talking in generalities or averages.

I don’t think she was discussing outliers like you and me. (I was diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder as a child.)

I was talking about people in general.

 

[Xantippe]

I don’t know anyone who would eat the same thing every night and it would still be their favorite meal. Making meatloaf isn’t that big a deal so yeah he probably could.

I literally have said that he cannot force her to sin at least three times.

As I have said before, he cannot force his wife to sin, he can’t be abusive

She does not have to carry out orders that are sins.

You’re not seeing the point of disagreement–I am asserting that it’s not just sin that a wife is not required to cooperate in. Remember the quote from Pius XI about the wife not being required to submit to her husband’s wishes when they violate right reason or her dignity? That’s not necessarily a question of actual sin.

Here’s a big chunk of Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical on marriage (I’ll bold some sections):

"26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]

1. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
2. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact."

Bringing this back down to earth, I would argue that meatloaf every night is a) unreasonable and b) incompatible with wifely dignity (unless there’s some sort of medical reason that requires it).

Let’s not be more Catholic than the pope.

 

[pianistclare]

In general, who are naturally nurturers? More in touch with their emotions? Males or females?

Children of nurturers. Either male or female. It’s a life skill that is learned, I believe.
Some people just don’t learn it. Moms or dads that are selfless, raise selfless children. Notice I said “selfless” not “doormats”. People who spoil their kids do not raise nurturing people, IMHO.

 

[cena]

You’re not seeing the point of disagreement–I am asserting that it’s not just sin that a wife is not required to cooperate in. Remember the quote from Pius XI about the wife not being required to submit to her husband’s wishes when they violate right reason or her dignity? That’s not necessarily a question of actual sin.

Here’s a big chunk of Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical on marriage (I’ll bold some sections):

"26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]

1. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
2. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact."

Bringing this back down to earth, I would argue that meatloaf every night is a) unreasonable and b) incompatible with wifely dignity (unless there’s some sort of medical reason that requires it).

Let’s not be more Catholic than the pope.

This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]

This is the norm unless those exceptions take place

 

[pianistclare]

You’re not seeing the point of disagreement–I am asserting that it’s not just sin that a wife is not required to cooperate in. Remember the quote from Pius XI about the wife not being required to submit to her husband’s wishes when they violate right reason or her dignity? That’s not necessarily a question of actual sin.

Here’s a big chunk of Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI’s 1930 encyclical on marriage (I’ll bold some sections):

"26. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]

1. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.
2. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact."

Bringing this back down to earth, I would argue that meatloaf every night is a) unreasonable and b) incompatible with wifely dignity (unless there’s some sort of medical reason that requires it).

Let’s not be more Catholic than the pope.

Point 27 is absolutely at the heart of this thread.
My late husband was chronically unemployed. But as his wife, even though I was holding down 3 jobs, yeah three…he insisted that HE make all the decisions, and I had to beg to have 5 bucks in my pocket. Or else. I won’t get into what the “or else” meant.
Suffice it to say, that I committed no sin in taking care of my kids the way I saw fit. It’s a matter of survival. Not obedience.