Wives, obey your husbands - please explain

[ac_claire]

GraceDK;5012867:

Cool… but tell me, isnt this ideal… I mean… sure you all may sit here and say your husband loves you like Christ. But in practical reality men are often selfish and immature, childish, unwise and simply odd… so there it is that the difficulty arises.
How to be obedient to a man who is not like Christ?

:clapping:

If the husband isn’t doing his part, that does not absolve the wife from doing her part. In fact the Church teaches the exact opposite of that.

Consider 1 Peter 3:1-2 –Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.

If the husband isn’t loving his wife as Christ loves the Church, the wife nevertheless still has the responsibility to submit to him as the Church submits to Christ. In doing so she is fulfilling her duty as a wife and the hope is that it will inspire the husband to rise up and do his own part, and be the husband/father/man that God inteneded him to be.

Of course the same is true in reverse as well. It works both ways.

 

[kage_ar]

What then did you disagree with?

I think the title, when posted as a link, has the possibility to mislead people that the document they find at the end of that link is a Masgesterial document. I see too many people get confused about what is and what is not “official Church teaching”, and titles like that are part of the problem.

 

[rayne89]

If the husband isn’t doing his part, that does not absolve the wife from doing her part. In fact the Church teaches the exact opposite of that.

Consider 1 Peter 3:1-2 –Likewise you wives, be submissive to your husbands, so that some, though they do not obey the word, may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, when they see your reverent and chaste behavior.

If the husband isn’t loving his wife as Christ loves the Church, the wife nevertheless still has the responsibility to submit to him as the Church submits to Christ. In doing so she is fulfilling her duty as a wife and the hope is that it will inspire the husband to rise up and do his own part, and be the husband/father/man that God inteneded him to be.

Of course the same is true in reverse as well. It works both ways.

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.

1. 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 .

So what are your thoughts on the part I bolded from the papal encyclical Casti Canubii?

 

[buffalo]

I think the title, when posted as a link, has the possibility to mislead people that the document they find at the end of that link is a Masgesterial document. I see too many people get confused about what is and what is not “official Church teaching”, and titles like that are part of the problem.

The title does not say it is a Magisterial article. It says “according to the Magisterium” which is fully supported by the Bibliography.

 

[ac_claire]

So what are your thoughts on the part I bolded from the papal encyclical Casti Canubii?

Well I would say that it’s pretty self-explanatory. The sentence in context is:

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 .

It doesn’t mean that if a man isn’t fulfilling his part that the woman is absolved from the responsibility of doing hers.

 

[samcarter14]

I take the line “be subject to your husbands” to mean that we are answerable to our husbands for our actions. That we can’t just go off and decide we’re going to do X without consulting our husbands, because that action can affect our family. For instance, if I decide I would like to buy a new appliance for the kitchen, I need to talk it over with my husband, not just bop off to the store and purchase it, because maybe we need the money for something else, and that decision can affect our family negatively.

Also, I can’t just decide off the top of my head that I’m going to switch around the day’s schedule, without discussing it with my husband. Maybe he has plans for the day, maybe changing things will affect his day negatively.

I see the line as meaning, “Remember you will have to answer for your actions”. I think too often, women think that the marriage is in their hands, that they are in control, and they can do whatever they want. I see this in stay at home moms and working moms as well.

For instance, we had a category 1 hurricane come through here last fall. Our yard had huge branches and trees down in it. My husband went out to get a generator, because the power was out and our first priority was keeping the fridge going. My neighbor came over with her kids and asked if they could help cut up and move the branches. I said, “I need to talk to [DH] about what we’re going to do.” She said, “Don’t you want those out of your yard?” I said, “They’re not hurting anything, and I really need to talk to [DH] and see what he wants to do about it.” We hadn’t talked about the branches, and I didn’t know if he wanted to cut them up himself, or leave them that day. I knew he wouldn’t want me acting on his behalf in the matter.

My neighbor clearly didn’t get it, she thought I should be “able” to just decide what to do about the branches. But it’s not just MY house, MY property. As it turned out, DH was perfectly happy to leave the dang branches while he figure out how to keep our food from spoiling and get water from our well without power. In his opinion, the branches were a very low priority! He was glad I hadn’t “decided” without his (name removed by moderator)ut.

Also, when people call and ask “can we get together on a particular date,” and I say, “I need to talk it over with my husband,” they act like I’m some submissive wife. Well, I don’t always know what he wants to do on that day! And if i just went ahead and made plans without talking it over, I know he wouldn’t like that. We’re a team, we’re answerable to each other.

 

[whatevergirl]

I take the line “be subject to your husbands” to mean that we are answerable to our husbands for our actions. That we can’t just go off and decide we’re going to do X without consulting our husbands, because that action can affect our family. For instance, if I decide I would like to buy a new appliance for the kitchen, I need to talk it over with my husband, not just bop off to the store and purchase it, because maybe we need the money for something else, and that decision can affect our family negatively.

Also, I can’t just decide off the top of my head that I’m going to switch around the day’s schedule, without discussing it with my husband. Maybe he has plans for the day, maybe changing things will affect his day negatively.

I see the line as meaning, “Remember you will have to answer for your actions”. I think too often, women think that the marriage is in their hands, that they are in control, and they can do whatever they want. I see this in stay at home moms and working moms as well.

For instance, we had a category 1 hurricane come through here last fall. Our yard had huge branches and trees down in it. My husband went out to get a generator, because the power was out and our first priority was keeping the fridge going. My neighbor came over with her kids and asked if they could help cut up and move the branches. I said, “I need to talk to [DH] about what we’re going to do.” She said, “Don’t you want those out of your yard?” I said, “They’re not hurting anything, and I really need to talk to [DH] and see what he wants to do about it.” We hadn’t talked about the branches, and I didn’t know if he wanted to cut them up himself, or leave them that day. I knew he wouldn’t want me acting on his behalf in the matter.

My neighbor clearly didn’t get it, she thought I should be “able” to just decide what to do about the branches. But it’s not just MY house, MY property. As it turned out, DH was perfectly happy to leave the dang branches while he figure out how to keep our food from spoiling and get water from our well without power. In his opinion, the branches were a very low priority! He was glad I hadn’t “decided” without his (name removed by moderator)ut.

Also, when people call and ask “can we get together on a particular date,” and I say, “I need to talk it over with my husband,” they act like I’m some submissive wife. Well, I don’t always know what he wants to do on that day! And if i just went ahead and made plans without talking it over, I know he wouldn’t like that. We’re a team, we’re answerable to each other.

This is a great way of looking at this…the ‘team’ concept.
I mean, would a quarterback on a football team, just run out, not call any plays, and throw the ball without consulting his coach and teammates? No. Everyone would be all over the place, and confusion and chaos would be the result.

There’d be less divorces if women and men stopped competing in marriages, I think. Good post, sam.

 

[savienu]

I always feel so blessed when threads like this come up. They help remind me of my role and duties in marriage, and show where I am failing and what I can do to improve. Thanks everyone.

 

[ac_claire]

Ephesians 5 says children are to *obey *their parents. It does not say wives are to *obey *their husbands. So, you are starting out from the wrong place. You are trying to understand how “obeying” fits into your marital relationship, but Scripture does not say this.

The passage says wives are to be subordinate to their husbands as the Church is to Christ. Christ is the head of the Church, and the husband is the head of the family.

This has been bugging me since the first few days of this thread. I knew there was another verse out there but I couldn’t remember what it was lol. If finally came to me!

Titus 2:3-5-- “The aged women, in like manner, in holy attire, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teaching well: That they may teach the young women to be wise, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, sober, having a care of the house, gentle, obedient to their husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

So yes, the word obedient is specifically used. This excerpt from the encyclical Casti Canubii seems to answer the question of what kind of obedience:

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.

So it is obedience, but it’s not the same kind of obedience that is due from children to their parents. It seems like submission is easier to understand than obedience, and many of the posts in this thread have helped shed some light on that for me. But I still would like to know, practically speaking, how the obedience due to a husband from his wife plays out in a marriage. I’m having a little trouble understanding this completely.