Wives Needing Permission to Leave the Home?

  • Thread starter Thread starter _AnnoDomini
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill_B_NY said:
But I think you understand the point. It’s not a big problem. “Honey, is it ok if I go … wherever, tomorrow morning?” That is respectful. It builds trust. It shows honor to one’s husband. It’s a two-way street - he takes closer responsibility. He is involved.
Click to expand...
But it’s one thing to ask permission and another to check on the other though.

Like some posts have said, it’s normal to check in with your spouse so that you won’t mess up any plans they might have (e.g. If you’re both staying in at home, and one of you wants to hang out with friends, it’s respectful to check if the other is okay with it). You’re implying it’s only the woman’s duty to do so, but i would insist it’s something husbands have to do to, in your own words, build trust.

But if we’re talking about a spouse wanting to buy something or go for a run or whatever, and it doesn’t affect the other in a way (e.g. They’re at work), it makes no sense to seek permission. Even as a teenager, I didn’t have to ask permission to go out to buy soda from a vending machine two blocks away lol.

My mom was the biggest doormat you could ever find in a wife, regarding her marriage, and even she didn’t ask permission to take me shopping, unless she was spending shared money!
 
Last edited:
A wife needing permission to leave the house is sickening and abusive. Period.
 
Last edited:
Bill_B_NY said:
Men who have lost their wife to cheating will see this topic in a different way. I know several good men who have suffered this. Unrestricted freedom, liberalism, feminism, sexualization of culture, female power, anti-family, anti-child - a lot of factors.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of women whose husbands went out to work with their unrestricted freedom and cheated on their wives. The difference was that, before feminism, the women involved were financially trapped with cheating men who were potentially carriers of sexually transmitted diseases.

“Female power” is no different than “male power.” It’s just basic equality—being the man does not mean being in charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
LumineDiei said:
I believe that is the concern people are having here with the quote from Trent; “Permission” being seen as though the wife is a child, instead of it being common courtesy to check with husband in case other plans had been made.
Click to expand...
Also, the common courtesy goes two ways. Plans, large expenditures—these are things where each spouse should be checking in with the other.
 
Adamek said:
But being a woman certainly means being in charge - for a lot of women.
Click to expand...
Do you mean in marriage or in other areas? I’m in charge of a lot in my job—but certainly not because I’m a woman.

In marriage, not so much. My husband and I are equal partners.
 
An obedient wife will ask permission for such things. She honors her husband that way. She is obedient to him, as the Holy Scripture teaches. That’s a virtue. Modesty, humility, diligence - not obsessed with her own self and power. An obedient wife will have no problem asking permission – and if permission not granted, she accepts with obedience.
That’s virtue. It is harder, in many ways, for men to practice obedience because often they do not have someone telling them. Although that is the greatness of monastic life - where the monk must ask permission for everything and has the chance to practice obedience all the time, since he does what the abbot commands.
In family life it is similar. The good wife shows respect to her husband. She doesn’t run out and wander around, as so many do.
The husband is humiliated. “Where’s your wife”? “I have no idea”.
She renders him a loser - destroys his manhood. She is chasing her own ego-pleasures and very often her own lust. "Oh, no " she says, “I would never do that”.
It is unpleasant to hear it, but yes - you do.
I work in a big corporation. I encounter married women who flirt with men daily.
Let’s not talk about “fashion”.
Modesty, humility, obedience, fidelity - it all goes together.
Rage, rebellion, power, liberation, hostility, ridicule of God’s will and Catholic tradition, lust … it’s the same on the other side.
 
Bill_B_NY said:
An obedient wife will ask permission for such things.
Click to expand...
Fortunately, my husband and I are equal in authority, so no need for permission. Common courtesy—of course.
Bill_B_NY said:
She renders him a loser - destroys his manhood.
Click to expand...
If my husband’s “manhood” is dependent on giving me permission to get a cup of coffee with a friend, or go for a bike ride, he’d need some serious psychological help.
 
The relationship between the husband and the wife is analogous to the bishop and the Church. The office of the bishop is a position of love and sacrifice but also authority. This is analogy is apparent in the liturgy, most clearly in giving the ring to the bishop and exhorting him to “protect the bride of God”.
 
Last edited:
Bill_B_NY said:
The husband is humiliated. “Where’s your wife”? “I have no idea”.
She renders him a loser - destroys his manhood. She is chasing her own ego-pleasures and very often her own lust. "Oh, no " she says, “I would never do that”.
It is unpleasant to hear it, but yes - you do.
Click to expand...
All because a wife decided to grab some kombucha? 🤣
 
Putting this here because this is another question about the role of members of the family, and I felt like it would be kind of unnecessary to start a new thread 😅

Would it be permissible for not only wives, but also sons and daughters (who are old enough of course) to correct the husband/father when he is doing something wrong? My obvious instinct is, duh, of course it’s okay. But I’ve heard some pretty strict interpretations of marriage teaching, so I was just wondering.
 
_AnnoDomini said:
Would it be permissible for not only wives, but also sons and daughters (who are old enough of course) to correct the husband/father when he is doing something wrong?
Click to expand...
Depends on the context. I think it’s polite to correct someone in private instead of embarrassing them. If it has to be corrected in public immediately (e.g. He is saying something extremely absurd), I think there’s a way to go about it without being cold or mean.

If he’s doing something that hurts another, I think you should be free to immediately cut in and even be harsh if necessary (e.g. Your drunk dad harassing his niece).
 
Bernoulli said:
This is analogy is apparent in the liturgy, most clearly in giving the ring to the bishop and exhorting him to “protect the bride of God”.
Click to expand...
Good insight and a great analogy - Jesus Himself gives the analogy. It’s about obedience - the bride to her husband. Women’s religious orders do a lot with that in their spirituality. Total commitment to Jesus. The wife obeys her husband, as the husband obeys God. St. Paul made it pretty clear.
 
This was written at a time when husband and wife were generally together working at home. There were no phones, no texting, no 911 to call no weather forecasting of impending storms, etc. I imagine it would be quite worrisome if either one of them just walked or rode off the property without letting the other one know they were leaving and when they would return. Leaving home then, was a much more serious undertaking than it is now. Why would a wife need to ask permission? Because her husband was ultimately responsible for her protection and provision. It’s not because of any deficit in her (other than physical strength) but because the Church teaches that the husband is to love his wife like his own body and to love her like Christ loved the Church. It’s only just on her part to get his consent because of the responsibility given to the Catholic husband. She does it in justice out of love to him in return. Because of his responsibility, he is also restrained from just being free to wander to roam when and where he pleases without informing her and without making sure she has everything she needs in his absence.

Today, the situation is very, very different. We are usually able to be in constant communication and depending on where you live it might be generally safe with strong police presence. Husbands still have the responsibility for loving their wives, loving them like their own bodies, and have concern for their welfare and safety. But most reasonable husbands know their wife most likely isn’t in immediate, grave danger when she leaves the house so they don’t require their wife to get permission. It’s generally not reasonable because we have the means to communicate easily across miles.

Most reasonable husbands would like their wives to give them the courtesy of letting them know when they go out if it’s going to have some immediate effect on his plans but the same is also true of the wife, a husband is being loving by checking with his wife if his plans deviate greatly from the general whereabouts of where she would expect him to be.

The husband is the head of the wife and is required to love her as he loves himself. She in justice submits to this love. That’s the spiritual principle we are to live by in marriage. But the paradox is that when this is lived out it looks egalitarian in action. She submits to him in love due to the responsibility he’s been given for her. The love he is called to have for her restrains him in the same way that any restraint her submission might restrain her. It ends up being quite mutual in the end despite all the language of husband as head and wife as body.

The only time to get all up in arms about it is when one or both are not living up to their obligation to love the other by taking liberty beyond the dutiful restraints that they consent to when they marry. When that happens, then the one body union is not functioning as it should.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
1ke said:
That’s a translation. In some translations it is translated “go abroad”
Click to expand...
That’s true–but when were those translations made? Nowadays “abroad” means to across go oversea, or at a minimum implies a lengthy distance, but in the past it could simply mean “outside the home.” In which case it is simply the same meaning.

The bigger point for me is the fact we’re talking about a brief and offhand comment in a single catechism from centuries ago. This means there’s cultural context for it that we miss in today’s world (as others have pointed out), but more importantly the fact it’s a brief comment in a subsection indicates it’s not considered a particularly major thing. It certainly doesn’t seem to be repeated in other major catechisms, such as the Baltimore Catechism.

So I don’t think people should get overly hung up by a brief comment in a subsection of a single catechism that was from a good while ago.
 
Bill_B_NY said:
You’re asking me because you don’t know?
Click to expand...
No, I both know where my wife is and that I’m not an emasculated loser if she goes to Starbucks without getting a permission slip from me.

I just wanted to clarify if that’s truly what you meant because it’s bananas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top