"Wives submit to your husbands" and Catechism?

[Cristiano]

I think this is more an issue in the US with its protestant/puritan heritage than in historically catholic countries. That’s my experience. It seems much more a protestant mentality in the day-to-day life of a marriage. Like many of those protestant cultural norms in the US, most of us Catholics have been affected by them to some extent.

Maybe I am wrong, but that is my impression.

I think that you are partially right about it. I also think that when this country was build the familiar nucleus was often the only social nucleus and obedience to the leader was expected. Such obedience was not only out of religious justification but also out of practical convenience, and with time I think that the two got mixed together. In older countries you can observe similar mixing between the ecclesiastical power and the political power, such a mix is somehow still in place even when the religious institutions lost their secular power.

 

[Em_in_FL]

As I see it, there is only one role that is exclusve to a woman - being a mother. The world has changed. Women are now as highly educated as men and many have financial security, Being Christian/Catholic does not require that a person must conform to an inflexible, uncompromising structure of a marriage. Many married women work outside the home and help with the finances, often equally, at times earning more. What are these different roles that husbands and wives have in a marriage exactly? Its a great thing that fathers also spend much time with their children and bond with them If a couple decide that the husband will stay at home while the wife works, what is wrong with that?

In law there are partnerships where all the partners have equal interests/shares, equal voting rights. Then there are partnerships with one partner with the majority interest/share and thus the majority vote. Yes claire, you say a Christian marriage is a partnership but not an equal partnership.

I have posted here about verses in another of Paul’s letters and I have in other similar threads also referred to Pope John Paul II and what he wrote about marriage and the mutual submission of husband and wife. Why refer to what Popes said in the 19th and early 20th centuries and even earlier? As someone posted, we are not Muslims or fundamentalists.

Children are expected to obey and defer to their parents. How is a wife submitting to and defering to her husband so very different please?

I don’t understand???
What does “working” have to do with not submitting to your husband?
Are you assuming that all women who work are doing so in defiance to their husbands?
I guess I’m just confused about what you’re trying to say?..

Really, working has nothing to do with this conversation… working wives and mothers can just as easily be submitting to their husbands.

 

[severus68]

Because newer isn’t always better. If St. Paul’s 2000 year old words are still relevant, you can bet a 19th century pope still has some relevancy.

Acting as if women and men are equal except in the fact that one can give birth treats the only difference as one in genitalia. This completely ignores that men and women have different tendencies and aptitudes, and thus different strengths, weaknesses, faults and advantages. It is obvious why it is better for a woman to stay home with her children than the father, if both cant — because she’s the woman! Women have a biologically different relationship with their children, and no amount of social “progress” can negate this fact.

Well, if you won’t accept the words of St. Paul, why should you accept that children should obey their parents? Maybe that is also old fashioned, since it was written in the desert several thousand years ago. Maybe the husband also shouldn’t have to love his wife as Christ loved the Church.

Well a Pope supported the Inquisition, some Popes were more political than anything else, so older is not necessarily better.
I asked to read what else St Paul said.

 

[severus68]

Well a Pope supported the Inquisition, some Popes were more political than anything else, so older is not necessarily better.
I asked to read what else St Paul said.

My further response.

Its sad that some believe that it is somewhat wrong for a father to love, care and bond with his children as much as the mother,just because he is a man.

 

[severus68]

I don’t understand???
What does “working” have to do with not submitting to your husband?
Are you assuming that all women who work are doing so in defiance to their husbands?
I guess I’m just confused about what you’re trying to say?..

Really, working has nothing to do with this conversation… working wives and mothers can just as easily be submitting to their husbands.

I was responding to a particular post about different roles.

 

[ChiRho]

My further response.

Its sad that some believe that it is somewhat wrong for a father to love, care and bond with his children as much as the mother,just because he is a man.

where did I say or at all imply that I believe this? I simply said that the mother-child relationship is different from the father-child relationship. This is fact, not a made up belief. Men and women are different, and they show their love in sometimes similar, sometimes different ways. Ignoring this, and pretending like physical differences are the only ways the genders differ proves to be problematic in the long run.

 

[Serap]

uh oh…this thread is quickly going SOUTH!!!

 

[rdscheirer]

Let me inject a little levity- in the south(US) there’s a saying “If Momma ain’t happy ain’t nobody happy”.

 

[severus68]

where did I say or at all imply that I believe this? I simply said that the mother-child relationship is different from the father-child relationship. This is fact, not a made up belief. Men and women are different, and they show their love in sometimes similar, sometimes different ways. Ignoring this, and pretending like physical differences are the only ways the genders differ proves to be problematic in the long run.

Each person is different and unique. However love is love. Telling men they love differently makes it easy for some men to leave their kids. Some women may want husbands who do not show their emotions, do not show their love for their children differently but to me that perpetuates stereotyping and make some men and women force themselves to act and behave in a certain way.

 

[ChiRho]

Each person is different and unique. However love is love. Telling men they love differently makes it easy for some men to leave their kids. Some women may want husbands who do not show their emotions, do not show their love for their children differently but to me that perpetuates stereotyping and make some men and women force themselves to act and behave in a certain way.

I don’t think my stating an essentially biological fact is causing fathers to leave their families and let the woman fend for themselves, no. And perpetuating stereotypes is not always a bad thing. Why not take the more optimistic approach and say that telling a father that because he loves his child, he must be willing to do things for his child that his wife is unable or unlikely to do?

 

[severus68]

I don’t think my stating an essentially biological fact is causing fathers to leave their families and let the woman fend for themselves, no. And perpetuating stereotypes is not always a bad thing. Why not take the more optimistic approach and say that telling a father that because he loves his child, he must be willing to do things for his child that his wife is unable or unlikely to do?

Actually I was referring to your statement about differences other than physiological/biological.

Sorry but I do not understand your last sentence. Mothers I know would die for their children, so would most fathers I know. I know I would. Why must fathers be told that and what would a mother be unable or unwilling to do.

 

[Serap]

Actually I was referring to your statement about differences other than physiological/biological.

Sorry but I do not understand your last sentence. Mothers I know would die for their children, so would most fathers I know. I know I would. Why must fathers be told that and what would a mother be unable or unwilling to do.

ditto this. I’m confused as well.

 

[ac_claire]

Because newer isn’t always better. If St. Paul’s 2000 year old words are still relevant, you can bet a 19th century pope still has some relevancy.

Acting as if women and men are equal except in the fact that one can give birth treats the only difference as one in genitalia. This completely ignores that men and women have different tendencies and aptitudes, and thus different strengths, weaknesses, faults and advantages. It is obvious why it is better for a woman to stay home with her children than the father, if both cant — because she’s the woman! Women have a biologically different relationship with their children, and no amount of social “progress” can negate this fact.

Good point, exactly what I was going to say about the papal writings. JPII’s writings don’t cancel out everything else that’s been written about husbands and wives in the history of the Church.

And *nowhere *in JPII’s letter to women does he even hint that we need to look at Ephesians 5 in a “new” way because times have changed, women’s roles have changed, etc. He only used the letter to focus on the dignity of the woman and although he made mention about how women in popular society has changed, he didn’t say that we are to alter our concept of *marriage *because of it. He said that if women worked, they should get equal pay, etc. Nothing about the intrinsic dynamic of marriage being different. I don’t know where yall are getting that from. We don’t toss aside any of the papal writings new or old.

 

[ac_claire]

Hello claire, yes I remember too.
As I see it, there is only one role that is exclusve to a woman - being a mother. The world has changed. Women are now as highly educated as men and many have financial security, Being Christian/Catholic does not require that a person must conform to an inflexible, uncompromising structure of a marriage. Many married women work outside the home and help with the finances, often equally, at times earning more. What are these different roles that husbands and wives have in a marriage exactly? Its a great thing that fathers also spend much time with their children and bond with them If a couple decide that the husband will stay at home while the wife works, what is wrong with that?

In law there are partnerships where all the partners have equal interests/shares, equal voting rights. Then there are partnerships with one partner with the majority interest/share and thus the majority vote. Yes claire, you say a Christian marriage is a partnership but not an equal partnership.

I have posted here about verses in another of Paul’s letters and I have in other similar threads also referred to Pope John Paul II and what he wrote about marriage and the mutual submission of husband and wife. Why refer to what Popes said in the 19th and early 20th centuries and even earlier? As someone posted, we are not Muslims or fundamentalists.

Children are expected to obey and defer to their parents. How is a wife submitting to and defering to her husband so very different please?

Why NOT refer to what Popes said in the 19th century? As well as what JPII has said? And what our current HF has said (if he’s said anything on the subject-- I’m not sure if he has). That’s why the Church has preserved those past writings. They have value. JPII didn’t contradict them. If you think he did, I’d like to understand more what you mean (examples of when he did this, or an example of where he said that his intention was to **change **the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage.)

There is nothing in the Bible or in any of the previous teachings fo the church about “mutual submission”. The Catholic Church does hold that the Sacred Scriptions are without error. So JPII used mutual submission as a way to interpret and explain how the dynamic of Ephesians 5 can work. And (IMO) he did this because so many people had started to get up in arms about the concept of wives submitting. (Just like in this thread! lol) The Holy Father just emphasized the partnership of marriage and pointed out that by the wife submitting to her husband, and the husband in turn giving up his life for the wife, then they are both mutually submitting (and sacrificing) themselves to eachother out of love.

I believe St. Paul also writes, just after the “controversial” part, that husband and wives should submit to eachother out of love. That’s all JPII was saying. It’s all part of the same teaching, the same idea. Some of y’all are trying to pull it out IMO and say that as a stand-alone idea it cancels out the first part of Ephesians 5.

Let me inject a little levity- in the south(US) there’s a saying “If Momma ain’t happy ain’t nobody happy”.

Thanks lol. This is a saying in our family, too. So true.

 

[ac_claire]

Let me inject a little levity- in the south(US) there’s a saying “If Momma ain’t happy ain’t nobody happy”.

Thanks lol. This is a saying in our family, too. So true.

 

[Serap]

If momma ain’t happy…she’s one dang B__CH!!!

When I was sleep deprived and looking after a high needs baby and a toddler, I was definitely not a good wife to my husband. I was so stressed and unhappy.

 

[JaneGrey]

If momma ain’t happy…she’s one dang B__CH!!!

When I was sleep deprived and looking after a high needs baby and a toddler, I was definitely not a good wife to my husband. I was so stressed and unhappy.

:grouphug:

Hope you’re not too stressed anymore. I also dont understand how fathers love differently than mothers.

 

[Serap]

:grouphug:

Hope you’re not too stressed anymore. I also dont understand how fathers love differently than mothers.

Thanks.

Much easier now, but DS can still be very high maintenance b/c he’s still a baby and a baby that can walk, talk and demand things by pointing

 

[Katie966]

The Holy Father just emphasized the partnership of marriage and pointed out that by the wife submitting to her husband, and the husband in turn giving up his life for the wife, then they are both mutually submitting (and sacrificing) themselves to eachother out of love.

I’m wondering if someone can explain what this means in practical terms. What does it mean for a husband to be willing to give up his life for his wife, and in what circumstances in this day and age would he find himself in such a situation?

I’m not asking because I am in opposition to it, I just really do want to understand.

 

[JaneGrey]

Thanks.

Much easier now, but DS can still be very high maintenance b/c he’s still a baby and a baby that can walk, talk and demand things by pointing

I’ve heard that little boys are a handful. That is one gender difference I can understand

Anyway, people here say that wives should submit, because the husband is meant to give up his life for his family. However do wives especially mothers not do this for their family as a whole anyway? Through pregnancy and possibly early childhood mothers seem to have an unequal share as it is. I m not complaining of anything in particular, but for people to say that women have it easier because it is the men who are called to sacrifice, just does not hold water with me. Most wives would probably give up their lives for their husbands if necessary out of love anyway, and I think it is needless to say they would do it for the children.