"Wives submit to your husbands" and Catechism?

[JaneGrey]

because obey and submit are not the same thing. I must submit to my husband, but I do not have to obey him as my children do. There is a difference:shrug:

Ok, what exactly is this difference? How does in manifest itself daily, and long-term if you dont mind my asking? Its alright if you dont want to answer, but my point in asking these questions is to show what I think is the problem most of us have with this - how is it not, or different from, mutual submission?

 

[valient_Lucy]

because obey and submit are not the same thing. I must submit to my husband, but I do not have to obey him as my children do. There is a difference:shrug:

1 Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves.** They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord.** You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

I Peter 3 1-6

I disagree that the Bible does not call wives to obey their husbands. Sarah, as St. Peter says, not only obeyed her husband, but called him her lord. In some translations, Sarah calls Abraham her master.

 

[valient_Lucy]

The Church’s position IS that Ephesians 5 is infallible and inerrant. Read the sources given. Countless popes and theologians have written and taught on the topic. If a lot of people you know don’t seem to follow/believe in/understand it…what does that really prove? A lot of Catholics use ABC, but the Church still has her position. A lot of Catholics believe in abortion on demand, but the Church still has her position, etc.

Why do you equate submission (or even to defer or to obey) as the Church defines it with abuse?

These verses are frequently used within Protestant churches to encourage women to put up with abusive husbands. This phenomena does not seem to exist within the Catholic Church, but many of us have witnessed this first hand, and seen the damage that is done when the only advice that a pastor gives to a wife with an abusive husband is “submit.”

 

[severus68]

defer - to yield with courtesy

obey - to carry out the orders of

There is a difference. Some don’t want to see it because they don’t want to “have” to defer to anyone.

And some adult women would prefer not to take responsibility for their own lives.

 

[TrueLight]

When I first married my husband (now deceased), I was taken up with the whole romance of the husband as head of the house theology.

I tried really hard to be submissive.

But then he started acting the fool and I had to take the reins.

 

[valient_Lucy]

The Church backs up what your verses says about all people (men and women) being equal in dignity and equal before Christ. Why does that contradict that a husband is the head of his wife and she is to submit to him as Christ did to the Church, and he is to die for her as Christ did for the Church? Why do you think those interpretations are mutually exclusive?

Wifely submission does not equal abuse or inequality. That seems to be the root issue/misunderstanding here.

I agree that submission does not equal abuse. However, American culture leads us to believe that inequality is a bad thing, or that inequality does not exist.

I strongly condemn people who use the Bible to condone that a woman has no human dignity of her own and must put up with abuse.

However, I do not believe that the relationship between husband and wife is an equal partnership, at least in every respect. This doesn’t follow from the Bible, and it doesn’t follow from science.

After all, the partnerships of parents is unequal. The mother is the star; the father is a supporting character.

 

[severus68]

The Church’s position IS that Ephesians 5 is infallible and inerrant. Read the sources given. Countless popes and theologians have written and taught on the topic. If a lot of people you know don’t seem to follow/believe in/understand it…what does that really prove? A lot of Catholics use ABC, but the Church still has her position. A lot of Catholics believe in abortion on demand, but the Church still has her position, etc.

Why do you equate submission (or even to defer or to obey) as the Church defines it with abuse?

A passage is infalliable? Really? I thought it was the infalliability of the Pope when he makes certain pronouncements but then you know better of course.

You may respond to me about what I say but I take great exception to you making comments about my family.

I did not equate submission with abuse. This passage can be used for some men to justify their abuse of their wives. Please read what your own bishops say.

Its really obvious that not only is it important to you to submit to your husband but it is of importance that all must agree with you. I have tried to be polite and charitable in this discussion but I really see no purpose in continuing it.

 

[JaneGrey]

I agree that submission does not equal abuse. However, American culture leads us to believe that inequality is a bad thing, or that inequality does not exist.

I strongly condemn people who use the Bible to condone that a woman has no human dignity of her own and must put up with abuse.

However, I do not believe that the relationship between husband and wife is an equal partnership, at least in every respect. This doesn’t follow from the Bible, and it doesn’t follow from science.

After all, the partnerships of parents is unequal. The mother is the star; the father is a supporting character.

With respect, this is purely a result of culture, not biology. Those fathers who find themselves a ‘supporting character’ really need to step up and play a bigger role in their children’s lives. Maybe you are referring to very early childhood or cases where the mother stays at home. However where both parents work outside the home, both parents by right should help out equally. This has nothing to do with submission between a married couple, folks.

Would you consider a stay at home dad to be the star in a child’s life?

 

[GraceDK]

I agree that submission does not equal abuse. However, American culture leads us to believe that inequality is a bad thing, or that inequality does not exist.

I strongly condemn people who use the Bible to condone that a woman has no human dignity of her own and must put up with abuse.

However, I do not believe that the relationship between husband and wife is an equal partnership, at least in every respect. This doesn’t follow from the Bible, and it doesn’t follow from science.

After all, the partnerships of parents is unequal. The mother is the star; the father is a supporting character.

Really, I think thats an insult to many modern dads in Europe.
Look, a father has to be 100 percent father, like a mother must be a 100 percent mother. They are both starring in one indispensable role, a part the other cannot take without really bad consequences.

As for the relationship between men and women we cannot talk about unequality, because there are two different roles, which are equal but different. Also it doesn’t make sense to talk about some abstract kind of equality.
Some men think they are above women in equality. My only hope is that these men stay away from marriage all together, just like I think women who look down on men in generel (like hard core feminists) should also not enter marriage.
It would be undignifying for a woman to live with a man who thought that he was superior in status just because of different hormones.
Married couples should be friends and partners with respect and love before anything else.

 

[valient_Lucy]

With respect, this is purely a result of culture, not biology.

Really? Women being pregnant for nine months is a result of culture? Women being the ones capable of breast feeding is a result of culture? Show me a culture (either existing or extinct) where men give birth or where men breast feed.

Humans are mammals, and in many mammal species, the father plays no part whastoever in the rearing of children. Human fathers play a role in child rearing, but it is a secondary role. This isn’t culture. This is biology at work.

Those fathers who find themselves a ‘supporting character’ really need to step up and play a bigger role in their children’s lives. Maybe you are referring to very early childhood or cases where the mother stays at home. However where both parents work outside the home, both parents by right should help out equally. This has nothing to do with submission between a married couple, folks.

Would you consider a stay at home dad to be the star in a child’s life?

I am largely referring to early childhood, but it is simply a fact that children are more strongly bonded to mothers than fathers. Children who are abandonded by their mothers are far more traumatized than children abandoned by their fathers. That’s why primary custody in divorce cases is usually given to the mother, and not the father.

If a man finds himself to be a supporting character in child rearing, he is doing exactly what God and nature intended him to do.

True, there are some cases where the man is the star in the child’s life, and the man is a stay at home God. There are always abberations from the norm. But that doesn’t mean that the abberation should become the norm, or that there is anything wrong with the norm.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Really, I think thats an insult to many modern dads in Europe.
Look, a father has to be 100 percent father, like a mother must be a 100 percent mother. They are both starring in one indispensable role, a part the other cannot take without really bad consequences.

As for the relationship between men and women we cannot talk about unequality, because there are two different roles, which are equal but different. Also it doesn’t make sense to talk about some abstract kind of equality.
Some men think they are above women in equality. My only hope is that these men stay away from marriage all together, just like I think women who look down on men in generel (like hard core feminists) should also not enter marriage.
It would be undignifying for a woman to live with a man who thought that he was superior in status just because of different hormones.
Married couples should be friends and partners with respect and love before anything else.

I never said that fathers weren’t important. They are essential. But they are far less essential than mothers. Think of it this way. A human being needs both food and water to survive. However, a human being can go weeks without food, where he can only go days without water. A father is food, a mother is water. Both are essential, but one is far more essential.

You’re right, that a father and mother have different roles. It is the mother’s role to be more involved with the child, while the father’s role is to be in the background. If a father begins to take an active role, he is abdicating his role as father, and starting to act like a mother. This is a bad thing for the children.

None of this stems from culture. It stems from biology. This is evolution at work.

As for inequality leading to abuse, that doesn’t follow. My boss and I have an unequal relationship. He is the boss, I am the employee. He is my superior, I am his inferior. That does not mean that there is abuse going on in our working relationship. * Abuse takes place when one person denies the human dignity of the other, not when two people are on unequal footing. *

The marriage relationship is supposed to reflect the relationhip between Christ and the Church. Now there’s an unequal relationship if ever there was one! One is God, the other is not. One is perfect, the other is not. One is the Creator, one is created.

If the relationship between a husband and wife is supposed to be an equal relationship, then it no longer reflects the relationship between Christ and the Church.

 

[severus68]

Really? Women being pregnant for nine months is a result of culture? Women being the ones capable of breast feeding is a result of culture? Show me a culture (either existing or extinct) where men give birth or where men breast feed.

Humans are mammals, and in many mammal species, the father plays no part whastoever in the rearing of children. Human fathers play a role in child rearing, but it is a secondary role. This isn’t culture. This is biology at work.

I am largely referring to early childhood, but it is simply a fact that children are more strongly bonded to mothers than fathers. Children who are abandonded by their mothers are far more traumatized than children abandoned by their fathers. That’s why primary custody in divorce cases is usually given to the mother, and not the father.

If a man finds himself to be a supporting character in child rearing, he is doing exactly what God and nature intended him to do.

True, there are some cases where the man is the star in the child’s life, and the man is a stay at home God. There are always abberations from the norm. But that doesn’t mean that the abberation should become the norm, or that there is anything wrong with the norm.

Biology is not a reason for a man not to be 100% in his child’s life and sharing fully in child rearing. It may have been in the past because of cultural attitudes , whatever but there is no reason today why a couple cannot be equal partners even in the caring of their children.
Women are usually given custody of young children essentially because of biology and the perception that women being more nurturing. Older children have some say as to which parent they wish to live with. If the father was as much in his children’s lives as the mother, I would think the children would be as traumatised if the father abandoned them.

I do not know about your experience but it is the norm in my family for the fathers to share equally in child rearing, waking up in the middle of the night, changing diapers tc.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Biology is not a reason for a man not to be 100% in his child’s life and sharing fully in child rearing. It may have been in the past because of cultural attitudes , whatever but there is no reason today why a couple cannot be equal partners even in the caring of their children.

I wasn’t aware that men are now capable of being pregnant and breast feeding a child.

A newborn baby will turn his head to the sound of his mother’s voice, since he has already become familiar with the sound of her voice in utero. A child bonds to a mother during breast feeding in a way that he does not bond with his father, and he never will bond to his father in that way.

When a woman gives birth, her body releases oxytocin, a hormone that facilitates the forming of an emotional bond. This hormone is also released during breast feeding. Men, who neither give birth nor breast feed, do not experience this hormonal bonding to the child.

 

[happymommy]

And some adult women would prefer not to take responsibility for their own lives.

I truly hope you don’t mean me! I also know men who don’t want to take responsibility for their own lives and want their wife to also act as their mother; so that goes both ways!

 

[ac_claire]

These verses are frequently used within Protestant churches to encourage women to put up with abusive husbands. This phenomena does not seem to exist within the Catholic Church, but many of us have witnessed this first hand, and seen the damage that is done when the only advice that a pastor gives to a wife with an abusive husband is “submit.”

I totally understand that. I’m a member/observer of a fundamentalist Baptist online community (looooong story-- don’t ask lol) so I have seen what you’re talking about. But the misapplication of the verse doesn’t shatter the integrity of the verse as a true teaching,

St Paul himself added the part about mutual submission…it’s what ties the whole mystery together. JPII did not come up with this concept of mutual submission. Mutual submission has never cancelled out the individual roles of the husband and wife in this mystery. Paul says that husbands and wives are to submit to eachother out of love, and then he goes on to explain how we can do that. There is no true sticking point with the wifely submission part of the whole thing except form individuals who can’t/won’t accept or understand it.

 

[JaneGrey]

Really? Women being pregnant for nine months is a result of culture? Women being the ones capable of breast feeding is a result of culture? Show me a culture (either existing or extinct) where men give birth or where men breast feed.

Humans are mammals, and in many mammal species, the father plays no part whastoever in the rearing of children. Human fathers play a role in child rearing, but it is a secondary role. This isn’t culture. This is biology at work.

I am largely referring to early childhood, but it is simply a fact that children are more strongly bonded to mothers than fathers. Children who are abandonded by their mothers are far more traumatized than children abandoned by their fathers. That’s why primary custody in divorce cases is usually given to the mother, and not the father.

If a man finds himself to be a supporting character in child rearing, he is doing exactly what God and nature intended him to do.

True, there are some cases where the man is the star in the child’s life, and the man is a stay at home God. There are always abberations from the norm. But that doesn’t mean that the abberation should become the norm, or that there is anything wrong with the norm.

Thanks for the clarification of what you meant. I still dont think that the bringing up of children and who does what should have any bearing on the submission debate, and thus dont want to get in an argument on it, however I will address some things I see as inaccuracies in this post.

**Really? Women being pregnant for nine months is a result of culture? Women being the ones capable of breast feeding is a result of culture? Show me a culture (either existing or extinct) where men give birth or where men breast feed. **

Here you have twisted what I responded to. I did not respond to this, because you did not say any of this in your earlier post. I responded to an assertion you made. By the way, not all mothers breastfeed.

Humans are mammals, and in many mammal species, the father plays no part whastoever in the rearing of children. Human fathers play a role in child rearing, but it is a secondary role. This isn’t culture. This is biology at work.

Eh, we’re talking about non-human animals now? Can I bring up how male seahorses carry their young? Somehow I dont think comparing ourselves to animals is going to help here.

Again I assert, a large part of it is culture. Human fathers, for a long time in many Western societies, have not generally played a large part in childrearing. That is correct. However I do not see this is as natural and the way things should be - rather it is a sad state of affairs. It is slowly changing now however. I think what Grace said about Europe is spot on. I cannot obviously speak for America, but I wonder is it an American experience that some people are projecting here? Not that non-Americans lack absent fathers, by any means.

I am largely referring to early childhood,

This makes sense.

Children who are abandonded by their mothers are far more traumatized than children abandoned by their fathers. That’s why primary custody in divorce cases is usually given to the mother, and not the father.

One could say that this is because in practice, mothers do take on the lion’s share of childrearing duties, rightly or wrongly. In some tribal cultures and Asian countries, the children tend to be raised by members of the extended family during the day while the mothers are out working. This is their norm. It is not biology here, but culture. The women in these cultures still give birth to their young etc. but they have their way of doing things.

If a man finds himself to be a supporting character in child rearing, he is doing exactly what God and nature intended him to do.

We are going to have to agree to disagree here. I m glad my father was more than just a ‘supporting character’ all the time. The times when he was, I did not benefit.

 

[JaneGrey]

I totally understand that. **I’m a member/observer of a fundamentalist Baptist online community **(looooong story-- don’t ask lol) so I have seen what you’re talking about. But the misapplication of the verse doesn’t shatter the integrity of the verse as a true teaching,

St Paul himself added the part about mutual submission…it’s what ties the whole mystery together. JPII did not come up with this concept of mutual submission. Mutual submission has never cancelled out the individual roles of the husband and wife in this mystery. Paul says that husbands and wives are to submit to eachother out of love, and then he goes on to explain how we can do that. There is no true sticking point with the wifely submission part of the whole thing except form individuals who can’t/won’t accept or understand it.

Lol what is that like? I have to say, after contributing to various secular forums it is nice that here on CAF, despite the presumptuousness at times, I dont get personal attacks or called four letter words. I probably do in people’s heads, but that doesnt hurt me.

Anyway I can get behind this mutual submission and spouses doing it to each other out of love, however I still dont understand why the wife ‘submitting’ is always being stressed. I m also surprised people dont get how people dont understand that those learning about the faith might be suspicious of this.

 

[severus68]

I truly hope you don’t mean me! I also know men who don’t want to take responsibility for their own lives and want their wife to also act as their mother; so that goes both ways!

I was not refering to any one person. Yes, I agree, absolutely. I have always said it works both ways.

 

[severus68]

I wasn’t aware that men are now capable of being pregnant and breast feeding a child.

A newborn baby will turn his head to the sound of his mother’s voice, since he has already become familiar with the sound of her voice in utero. A child bonds to a mother during breast feeding in a way that he does not bond with his father, and he never will bond to his father in that way.

When a woman gives birth, her body releases oxytocin, a hormone that facilitates the forming of an emotional bond. This hormone is also released during breast feeding. Men, who neither give birth nor breast feed, do not experience this hormonal bonding to the child.

Did anyone say a man can get pregnant or breast feed? Oh wait a minute it seems a man can breastfeed if given a certain drug. However that was not what I am talking about. Biology and physiological differences does not stop a man with bonding fully with his child. If he chooses not to, it is his loss and unfortunately his child’s too.

 

[LittleDeb]

I have read what JPII said at length and I have read quite a bit more on this issue. With respect to you and Claire,I have no desire to prolong what to me is a going no where discussion/debate. There have been a few threads on this and similar issues since I joined CAF and I know all the reasoning given.

Strangely I never realised that some Catholics still took this position today until I joined CAF. I recall a wedding my family and I attended at an Evangilical church where the pastor went on and on about the “obey” in the vows for the bride. He did it precisely because there were many Catholics in the church. After the service my extended Catholic family joked about it, my cousin telling one of my brothers “thank goodness our wives do not need to submit to us or where would we all be now.” My elderly Methodist was also smiling with amusement at the pastor’s words.

I have asked this question more than once but have got no answer from anyone who takes your position - Why does the Church not require a bride to vow to obey her husband if you are sure your position is the position of the Church please?

I had hoped that my previous post had answered this question. I am sorry that I have not been clearer in my explanation. I don’t disagree with you that Eph 5 is about mutual submission. It is totally and completely about mutual submission. But the major point that Blessed John Paul was making, was that the type and way that men and women submit to each other is completely different and are not interchangeable at all.

The submission for the man is of a dying to himself, and the submission of a woman is to accept that sacrifice. We can go through it line by line in the book “Man and Woman, He Created Them.” translated by Dr. Michael Waldstein. One of the major themes of Theology of the Body is that the roles of men and women are distinct and are not interchangeable. When a man is nurturing he does so only, as a man. He cannot, nor should he, attempt to nurture as a woman does. When a woman protects, she does so entirely in a feminine manner. She does not protect in the same manner that a man does.

In TOB, Blessed John Paul stresses the point that how we were, “before the Fall” is the goal of marriage and ultimately the goal of heaven. It is referred to “The Fall of Adam” because he did not fulfill his sacrificial role. Eve disobeyed our Lord first. Adam was supposed to offer himself in her place. He didn’t. He didn’t love his bride enough to die for her. The New Adam was necessary to actually be willing to die for His bride, the Church.

I tried to get to the nuts and bolts of how these roles play out in our daily lives, but you rejected the examples by claiming that “many women tower over their husbands,” and other such exceptions. Really Severus? You can look at the very basic surroundings worldwide and still deny that God made men physically stronger than women? The point of mutual submission is Eph 5 is in a large sense an explicit *prohibition *of abuse. By claiming those roles are interchangeable, you deny that truth. By saying that man needs to die to his own desires, and that woman must submit to that offer, I am bolstering the point of mutual submission.

In a nutshell: a wife’s submission to her husband is her willingness to let him die for her. As a wife, I can tell you that is not an easy submission to make! You will probably go into a big counter to that by saying, “oh, but my wife would die for me.” Of course we would. I would *want *to die for my husband, but that is *not *my role. The fact that our current culture has abandoned the idea of “women and children first” shows our lack of fidelity to those teachings of The Church (and is a direct result of radical feminism.)

Here is another nuts and bolts example you might again reject: In a crisis, my husband would see to it that his family is safe first, and then hold himself back to deal with the crisis. It would be his job, his role, as husband and protector of the family to send me away with the children. It would not make sense for him to go away with the children! He is an amazing father, yes. But his role as protector supersedes his role as a nurturer. That is the role of dying to himself that Eph 5 makes clear. His wishes to protect his own desires are placed in submission to the greater good of his wife. And she, in submission to his role as protector, has to let him! The submissions are equal, and they are equally difficult, but they are not interchangeable.