Women/Wives

[pensmama87]

Here’s a fun fact that might be helpful.

In ancient times, it was not universally known that the brain was an organ of cognition. You’ll notice that the heart, rather than the brain is thought of as the seat of decision-making in the Old Testament. Aristotle thought of the brain as being a cooling mechanism, although Galen did realize the connection between the brain and thought.

So when St. Paul talks about the man being the head, he is not necessarily thinking of a head as we would, in terms of brains or decision-making.

That is very interesting. I’d heard that about the heart being the decision center but never put those together before. Storing that one away.

 

[Xantippe]

To the first part: Isn’t that why there are hundress of protestant churches?

To the second part: Shouldn’t he have proven himself before you marry him?

The blogger at iprefercaptain is mostly talking about the “strong” view of submission that is mostly found among Protestant. But, as these discussions demonstrate, that “strong” view also seems to percolate over to Catholics. You’ll occasionally see confused Catholics asserting that a wife is to sin if her husband tells her to…

(Spoiler alert: she shouldn’t do that.)

With regard to your second question, I don’t think that’s practical. A man who is courting a woman generally acts quite differently than a comfortably married man of 5+ years. Plus, having children changes things a lot, as does the wife quitting her job to be a SAHM. Every change changes the relationship a little.

Also, I’ve been married to my husband nearly 18 years and I can honestly say that I knew only about 50% of what there was to know about him when we got married. It has worked out OK, but I was very lucky! I suppose one thing I had going for me is that my husband very much wants to do the right thing. It can be VERY difficult to persuade him that something is the right thing to do, but once he is convinced, he is completely relentless in doing whatever it is. (Of course, he’s equally relentless when on the wrong track…)

 

[LethalMouse]

The blogger at iprefercaptain is mostly talking about the “strong” view of submission that is mostly found among Protestant. But, as these discussions demonstrate, that “strong” view also seems to percolate over to Catholics. You’ll occasionally see confused Catholics asserting that a wife is to sin if her husband tells her to…

(Spoiler alert: she shouldn’t do that.)

With regard to your second question, I don’t think that’s practical. A man who is courting a woman generally acts quite differently than a comfortably married man of 5+ years. Plus, having children changes things a lot, as does the wife quitting her job to be a SAHM. Every change changes the relationship a little.

Also, I’ve been married to my husband nearly 18 years and I can honestly say that I knew only about 50% of what there was to know about him when we got married. It has worked out OK, but I was very lucky! I suppose one thing I had going for me is that my husband very much wants to do the right thing. It can be VERY difficult to persuade him that something is the right thing to do, but once he is convinced, he is completely relentless in doing whatever it is. (Of course, he’s equally relentless when on the wrong track…)

To the “wife should sin” I haven’t heard that insanity before. I am sorry you encouter such people. I would say (I forget the verse) but there in the bible is a bit about being given the grace of your spouse. That in a simplified version if you are destined for hell but your spouse has enough heaven points for the both of you… I would say under this alone she absolutely should not sin if she has submitted to her husband. For when he orders her to sin, she is all that can save him.

Please dont pick apart how heaven/hell works, simplified for point making here.

 

[Xantippe]

None of that has anything to do with St. Paul or the cathechism. If I start murdering people does that mean the catholic church, and even God approve of random murder now?

Sarcelle is simply pointing out that globally and historically speaking, women are not coddled or privileged. In fact, in large sectors of the world, newborn baby girls are regarded as being literally garbage.

I have read a lot of a Protestant Indian mission doctor’s blog (it’s jeevankuruvilla.blogspot.com), and one of the issues he deals with is that in rural India, girls and women are often viewed as being basically worthless. Hence, a woman pregnant with a baby girl will be deprived of appropriate medical care by her family (for instance laboring for days at home even at the risk of her life), while a woman pregnant with a baby boy will be given the best possible medical care, at great expense.

jeevankuruvilla.blogspot.com/2012/01/boy-longed-for-and-unwanted-girls.html

jeevankuruvilla.blogspot.in/2012/02/unwanted-girl-babies-and-sought-after.html

 

[Burt_Macklin]

Here’s a fun fact that might be helpful.

In ancient times, it was not universally known that the brain was an organ of cognition. You’ll notice that the heart, rather than the brain is thought of as the seat of decision-making in the Old Testament. Aristotle thought of the brain as being a cooling mechanism, although Galen did realize the connection between the brain and thought.

So when St. Paul talks about the man being the head, he is not necessarily thinking of a head as we would, in terms of brains or decision-making.

Well… not exactly.

The use of head to mean “leader” is a pretty well established metaphor in the Bible. There is really no other possible translation for either rosh, Hebrew or kephale, Greek.

 

[jmjZelie]

What are your feelings about v-neck t-shirts on men?

I know you aren’t asking me, but…
I love them on my husband! Other men, I just never pay attention enough to have an opinion.

I don’t like skinny jeans on men, but I love slim fit jeans paired with boots. I cannot get my husband to wear those, though, but my son is too cute in them.

 

[LethalMouse]

Sarcelle is simply pointing out that globally and historically speaking, women are not coddled or privileged. In fact, in large sectors of the world, newborn baby girls are regarded as being literally garbage.

I have read a lot of a Protestant Indian mission doctor’s blog (it’s jeevankuruvilla.blogspot.com), and one of the issues he deals with is that in rural India, girls and women are often viewed as being basically worthless. Hence, a woman pregnant with a baby girl will be deprived of appropriate medical care by her family (for instance laboring for days at home even at the risk of her life), while a woman pregnant with a baby boy will be given the best possible medical care, at great expense.

jeevankuruvilla.blogspot.com/2012/01/boy-longed-for-and-unwanted-girls.html

jeevankuruvilla.blogspot.in/2012/02/unwanted-girl-babies-and-sought-after.html

But the theme is how wives work in our religion when people follow it.

An example that includes how wives workout in islamic extremism hardly qualifies as what St. Paul’s passage or any other bible or catechism passage says.

The issue here is I am saying how things were meant to work.

You are saying how things work when people are horrible.

Ask me if we should lock people in a cage.

My answer is no.

Now change it to should we put people in jail who steal, rape, and murder.

My answer is yes. But for the core theology, if we are all doing what we should, then no one needs be in cell.

 

[SilverLight]

Hmm…

For one the Catholic Church doesn’t believe in Wife Submission. Not even for wrestling matches.

Two the Bible was written thousands of years ago, just 100-200 years ago women were treated like property of the male no matter what religion they were. Society has obviously changed.

It is wonderful that it has.

 

[Xantippe]

Well… not exactly.

The use of head to mean “leader” is a pretty well established metaphor in the Bible. There is really no other possible translation for either rosh, Hebrew or kephale, Greek.

But for the ancients, the metaphor of head as leader doesn’t include the idea of brain-power, because (by and large) the ancients would not have considered the brain as a thinking organ.

 

[LethalMouse]

But for the ancients, the metaphor of head as leader doesn’t include the idea of brain-power, because (by and large) the ancients would not have considered the brain as a thinking organ.

I don’t know the answer, but rememberthe words we use here are translations, the picking apart certain words “meanings” is sometimes inaccurate.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

But for the ancients, the metaphor of head as leader doesn’t include the idea of brain-power, because (by and large) the ancients would not have considered the brain as a thinking organ.

If you don’t consider the head a thinking/deciding organ it seems rather strange to pick it as a metaphor for someone who makes decisions.

 

[Xantippe]

But the theme is how wives work in our religion when people follow it.

An example that includes how wives workout in islamic extremism hardly qualifies as what St. Paul’s passage or any other bible or catechism passage says.

The issue here is I am saying how things were meant to work.

You are saying how things work when people are horrible.

Ask me if we should lock people in a cage.

My answer is no.

Now change it to should we put people in jail who steal, rape, and murder.

My answer is yes. But for the core theology, if we are all doing what we should, then no one needs be in cell.

No, not really. You said (and I quote): “The general theory was the woman was led in a sense by the person who got the most suck, the man was a shield to absorb all the suck for the woman.”

We’re just pointing out all the many ways in which there’s lots and lots of suck to go around.

See also Genesis 19. Lot, who is living in Sodom, is visited by two angels:

“4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9”

Or try Judges 19. A Levite is traveling with his concubine and while staying in a strange city, the following happens:

“22 As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, base fellows, beset the house round about, beating on the door; and they said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.” 23 And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brethren, do not act so wickedly; seeing that this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing. 24 Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing.” 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them; and they knew her, and abused her all night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. 26 And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, till it was light.”

She dies.

You don’t really get the vibe that the men in these stories are super eager to serve as a shield to “absorb all the suck.” In fact, it kind of looks like they feel pretty comfortable using women as shields.

 

[jmjZelie]

No, not really. You said (and I quote): “The general theory was the woman was led in a sense by the person who got the most suck, the man was a shield to absorb all the suck for the woman.”

We’re just pointing out all the many ways in which there’s lots and lots of suck to go around.

See also Genesis 19. Lot, who is living in Sodom, is visited by two angels:

“4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; 5 and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” 6 Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, 7 and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. 8 Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” 9”

Or try Judges 19. A Levite is traveling with his concubine and while staying in a strange city, the following happens:

“22 As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, base fellows, beset the house round about, beating on the door; and they said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.” 23 And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brethren, do not act so wickedly; seeing that this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing. 24 Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing.” 25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine, and put her out to them; and they knew her, and abused her all night until the morning. And as the dawn began to break, they let her go. 26 And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, till it was light.”

She dies.

You don’t really get the vibe that the men in these stories are super eager to serve as a shield to “absorb all the suck.” In fact, it kind of looks like they feel pretty comfortable using women as shields.

Neither of those horrifying examples of cowardice and misogyny should be used as models for how wives in our religion should be treated, though. Those episodes are not proscriptive, but are warnings of just how base actions men are capable of. They should properly horrify any reader, especially men, because it is totally contrary to true masculinity to use females as human shields.

Edited to add: neither of those men were Catholic. It was hundreds or even thousands of years prior to the Incarnation and to St. Paul’s epistles.

 

[Xantippe]

But the theme is how wives work in our religion when people follow it.

Come to think of it, that’s a no-true-Scotsman statement, because when things obviously aren’t going well, it’s always possible to say, “They’re not doing it right.”

 

[LethalMouse]

No, not really. You said (and I quote): “The general theory was the woman was led in a sense by the person who got the most suck, the man was a shield to absorb all the suck for the woman.”

The New Testament is nothing without the Old Testament, sometimes Jesus specifically referenced the OT, sometimes he just spoke. All were within the context of the OT and the speaking was nothing without it.

Some of my posts reference eachother/others, all posts are related to the thread/theme and are nothing without them.

Context!! Without context everything means anything and nothing all at once.

 

[jmjZelie]

Come to think of it, that’s a no-true-Scotsman statement, because when things obviously aren’t going well, it’s always possible to say, “They’re not doing it right.”

Things will never be properly ordered if Christ is rejected. We should not be surprised when they go very badly.

Islam rejects Christ and His Church. Using female oppression under ISIS for a reason to support abandoning the language of a teaching of the Church (submission) is another fallacy: a non sequitur.

Especially since the Muslims get the entire concept of submission totally wrong.

 

[LethalMouse]

Come to think of it, that’s a no-true-Scotsman statement, because when things obviously aren’t going well, it’s always possible to say, “They’re not doing it right.”

This point constantly ignores the often cited myriad of things including THE CATECHISM that says it is NOT allowed.

[Bangs head against the wall]

 

[pensmama87]

Things will never be properly ordered if Christ is rejected. We should not be surprised when they go very badly.

Islam rejects Christ and His Church. Using female oppression under ISIS for a reason to support abandoning the language of a teaching of the Church (submission) is another fallacy: a non sequitur.

Especially since the Muslims get the entire concept of submission totally wrong.

I don’t see that, just a rejection of some (unfortunately very common) misunderstandings of what it means.

 

[jmjZelie]

I don’t see that, just a rejection of some (unfortunately very common) misunderstandings of what it means.

Then let’s talk about what it means and how to properly understand it. Pulling in those OT examples and ISIS actions does not support proper understanding of Christian teachings. Those are commonly called up as talking points to reject the teaching altogether.

 

[jmjZelie]

Xantippe,

In your own words, without recourse to bloggers or copypaste magisterial documents, please explain your understanding of the Church’s teaching on the relationship between spouses. I would really like to know, because so much of what has passed for discourse in this thread seems like shadow boxing and knocking down straw men.

I have already described my understanding in my own words. I would appreciate knowing exactly where you stand, too.