Women/Wives

[phil19034]

I tried to edit the post above, but ran out of time. This is what I wanted to change my post to:

So the submission thing is basically wives allowing their husbands to do their duty (protecting the family)? Not day-to-day arguments/disagreements?

Correct. The Church teaches (and always has) that husband and wife are equal.

As a matter of fact, during the first Crusade, the Pope required all men who joined the Crusade to receive permission from the wife. This was because the Church knew that the husband’s responsibilities would fall onto the wife/mother. (A few Crusades later, this was changed because many men started to make up excuses that their wives wouldn’t let them, even though they never asked their wives).

The Church has always taught that in marriage, we become one flesh. We must not argue.

HOWEVER, sometimes we don’t agree. In those instances, one must compromise. There are some topics where the husband/father has more experience/knowledge and the wife should default to him. And there are other instances where the mother has more experience/knowledge and the husband should default to here. We all know these in our own marriages, and in each marriage it’s different.

However, when it comes to protecting the family, that is typically the husband’s role. Protecting the family isn’t always against threat of death either. Sometimes it’s financial harm, sometimes it moral harm, etc. Again, this submission is about submitting to his protection, not becoming his servant. But the husband/father doesn’t perform his duties faithfully as God would want, then it falls to the mother, who already has lots on her plate.

A true man honors his wife, respects her, cares for her, loves her, and is willing to die for her. This is what we mean when we submit to one another in marriage.

In my home, when my daughter, and wife, get scared due to bad weather (usually lightning & thunder, but sometime hurricanes) who do they want to hold them tight to keep them safe? Daddy/Hubby. Same with bad dreams. Now sometimes the kids do want mommy, but that’s when mommy needs Daddy to keep her feeling safe too.

But when I’m sacred, I need to turn to Jesus, my priest and/or a good Catholic Therapist

 

[ToeInTheWater]

However, when it comes to protecting the family, that is typically the husband’s role. Again, this submission is about submitting to his protection, not becoming his servant.

A true man honors his wife, respects her, cares for her, loves her, and is willing to die for her. This is what we mean when we submit to one another in marriage.

So, let’s say a woman has a gun and who knows how to shoot, and saves her husband by shooting down an attacker before the husband can get to his gun. And this certainly could happen, if the husband’s been knocked unconscious or injured in a way that he cannot defend himself.

Is that woman therefore breaking some rule about “submitting to his protection”? Let’s say the husband is afraid for his wife’s safety and tells her to just flee, but she “disobeys”, engages the attacker, and neutralizes the threat.

Has this hypothetical wife, now committed a sin she needs to confess? Even if it was to save the husband’s life? After all, per Catholic teaching, an immoral act isn’t excused by good ends.

 

[phil19034]

So, let’s say a woman has a gun and who knows how to shoot, and saves her husband by shooting down an attacker before the husband can get to his gun. And this certainly could happen, if the husband’s been knocked unconscious or injured in a way that he cannot defend himself.

Is that woman therefore breaking some rule about “submitting to his protection”? Let’s say the husband is afraid for his wife’s safety and tells her to just flee, but she “disobeys”, engages the attacker, and neutralizes the threat.

Has this hypothetical wife, now committed a sin she needs to confess? Even if it was to save the husband’s life? After all, per Catholic teaching, an immoral act isn’t excused by good ends.

I’m not sure if you are serious or being sarcastic (I’m going to assume you are serious).

No, the woman has NOT sinned. Being “disobedient” is not sinful in itself. There are times when “disobedient” behavior is actually the moral thing to do. For example, being disobedient to illegal or immoral orders from a military officer.

The motives & situation determines whether a “disobedient” action is sinful or not.

Disrespecting, dishonoring, cheating, purposefully humiliating, demeaning, purposefully hurting, etc your spouse is sinful. The examples you describe are none of those things.

This is why I said protecting the family is ***typically ***the husband’s role.

I also said that a good husband is willing to die to protect his family, not that he MUST do it. There can be exceptions. If the wife is a Navy Seal while the husband is an elementary school teacher, then I wouldn’t be shocked if the protection of the family is going to be handled by the wife. This doesn’t mean that the husband wasn’t willing to lay down his life, but that (due to circumstances – aka the wife’s combat training) the best thing for the family was to reverse roles.

The Church knows there are exceptions and that each individual family is different and has it’s own unique facets.

The main point of the extended text in the Bible is that husbands and wives must love and respect one another, and that men have a responsibility to lay their life down for their bride & protect their family, but that doesn’t mean that wife is prohibited from doing the same thing for her husband.

I pray I’m making sense.

God Bless

 

[Lea101]

With regard to the marriage debt, my understanding is that it relates to the right of spouses to conjugal relations, because the promise to forsake all others means that the only moral context for sexual relations and begetting of children is with one’s spouse. The marriage debt does not apply to a right to sexual satisfaction at any cost, nor does it apply to contracepted relations or onanism or other degrading practices. It applies only to requesting natural relations with one’s spouse. And since the purpose of marriage is the procreation and education of children, and natural relations is what makes that possible, it makes sense that a spouse has a right to request that in marriage, and that to refuse a reasonable request without serious reason would be sinful, because it would be a sort of betrayal of one’s spouse. Also, marriage helps quiet concupiscence, which basically means that spouses help each other to remain chaste with holy conjugal relations, and to support each other with prayer and compassion when abstinence is necessary .

I understand that if for example, a wife decided to not have sex with her husband forever, that would be unfair and sinful. But is it wrong for her to just say no because she isn’t in the mood? It’s not a serious reason but it’s not like she will never sleep with him, it could be for a week or so till she is more willing to do so? I mean it’s not that serious isn’t it? She still loves her husband, she would rather just cuddle or even have some personal space for a while?

 

[Lea101]

He does mean that a wife must listen and to a certain extent, obey the husband. However, what he says to the husbands is to love their wives as Christ loves His Church. Christ loves the Church so much he was tortured and died on the cross for Her. The emphasis in this passage is not on wives being submissive to their husbands but on husbands being willing to sacrifice everything for their wives.

But we submit to Christ because he is God, he is better than us, he created us etc. But why do we submit to husbands? I’m aware that they cannot control us and we aren’t slaves but why is there such a role? I don’t know if I am making sense! Like why is it the female that has to listen to the male, and why is it the male that has to be the one willing to die? I mean, I understand that wives have to love their husbands too but I just cannot grasp the gender roles. From my understanding of marriage, both should love each other deeply, both should be willing to die for each other, and if there is a discussion on something, the final word goes to the spouse with the appropriate skill. For example if we’re talking about financial matters, and my husband is good with money, then I’ll listen. But that would be because he knows more than me in this area, not because he is a male, if that makes sense. I know a lot of younger people feel this way too, so this teaching is rather confusing.

So what do you mean by obey, like is there some examples you can give me?

 

[AdamP88]

But we submit to Christ because he is God, he is better than us, he created us etc. But why do we submit to husbands? I’m aware that they cannot control us and we aren’t slaves but why is there such a role? I don’t know if I am making sense! Like why is it the female that has to listen to the male, and why is it the male that has to be the one willing to die? I mean, I understand that wives have to love their husbands too but I just cannot grasp the gender roles. From my understanding of marriage, both should love each other deeply, both should be willing to die for each other, and if there is a discussion on something, the final word goes to the spouse with the appropriate skill. For example if we’re talking about financial matters, and my husband is good with money, then I’ll listen. But that would be because he knows more than me in this area, not because he is a male, if that makes sense. I know a lot of younger people feel this way too, so this teaching is rather confusing.

So what do you mean by obey, like is there some examples you can give me?

Ok, I’ll try to answer as best I can.
I have studied theology, but I am not an expert in scripture so I am relying on the writings of scholars and the Popes for my interpretation of this passage.

First, I think that this passage should be understood in the context of the time it was written. Obviously, the understanding of the Church of the male-female relationship has moved on since the first century. I think that gender roles exist naturally, whether we like it or not. Men and women are not the same. They have different qualities and think differently. They compliment each other in marriage. That’s the beauty of it.

I don’t think that it’s just the female who has to listen to the male. St. Pope John Paul II writes in Familiaris Consortio:
“Authentic conjugal love presupposes and requires that a man have a profound respect for the equal dignity of his wife: You are not her master…but her husband; she was not given you to be your slave, but your wife…Reciprocate her attentiveness to you and be grateful to her for her love.”

I think that in putting the emphasis of obeying on the wives and the emphasis of love on the husbands was not to say that it shouldn’t go both ways, but more to show a sort of attitude that should be held by both spouses toward each other.
I would think that the reason that the more demanding command is directed to the man is because St Paul was aware of the rupture that Original Sin had caused between man and woman and that, historically, it was men that had oppressed women more often. So I guess this command was given in one sense to repair the division that was created with the fall of Adam and Eve.

 

[gardenswithkids]

She asked, “How are women different besides looks and qualities enforced on us as children?”

Biology isn’t merely about looks; it’s about function. Women were designed to grow and nourish new life within our bodies. We have wombs. We have fertility cycles. We sometimes get pregnant, and female breasts sometimes make milk.

At one time I bought into your friends perspective, then I became a mother. My older children are all boys. How confusing it was to be the only female in a house of males! The non-sexist child rearing techniques I attempted still produced boys who acted like stereotypical boys, and by son #3, I recognized they were inately different. My first daughter confirmed this.

Our cultural indoctrination today often attacks women’s fertility. We see women’s fertility attacked in the prevalence of hormonal contraception (and if/when that fails directly attacks her child through abortion.) There are subtle–and not so subtle-- pressures on women to not get pregnant or have a baby more than once or twice.

How ironic that the culture tries to tell us that the differences between men and women is mostly just how we’re raised when they try to raise us to ignore and suppress the obvious biological differences! The differences between men and women are most evident in reproduction–and denying those obvious differences takes a great deal of cultural indoctrination.

 

[Sarcelle]

She asked, “How are women different besides looks and qualities enforced on us as children?”

Biology isn’t merely about looks; it’s about function. Women were designed to grow and nourish new life within our bodies. We have wombs. We have fertility cycles. We sometimes get pregnant, and female breasts sometimes make milk.

At one time I bought into your friends perspective, then I became a mother. My older children are all boys. How confusing it was to be the only female in a house of males! The non-sexist child rearing techniques I attempted still produced boys who acted like stereotypical boys, and by son #3, I recognized they were inately different. My first daughter confirmed this.

Our cultural indoctrination today often attacks women’s fertility. We see women’s fertility attacked in the prevalence of hormonal contraception (and if/when that fails directly attacks her child through abortion.) There are subtle–and not so subtle-- pressures on women to not get pregnant or have a baby more than once or twice.

How ironic that the culture tries to tell us that the differences between men and women is mostly just how we’re raised when they try to raise us to ignore and suppress the obvious biological differences! The differences between men and women are most evident in reproduction–and denying those obvious differences takes a great deal of cultural indoctrination.

I don’t think anyone is denying the difference of the sexes even in the secular world. However I have seen the pendulum swing in the other direction, especially in the conservative Christian world, where women are primarily defined by their reproductive capacity as if women were nothing more than the wombs they possess.

I much prefer St. Pope John Paul II view on women as full human beings who have the ability to choose the noble vocation of marriage and motherhood, instead of the view of women as baby machines.

 

[jmjZelie]

I understand that if for example, a wife decided to not have sex with her husband forever, that would be unfair and sinful. But is it wrong for her to just say no because she isn’t in the mood? It’s not a serious reason but it’s not like she will never sleep with him, it could be for a week or so till she is more willing to do so? I mean it’s not that serious isn’t it? She still loves her husband, she would rather just cuddle or even have some personal space for a while?

Well there are many different ways that an actual couple could address that dilemma.

They may decide that either can always ask for a rain check.

They may decide to see if the more interested spouse can help the less interested spouse to “get interested” and see if that works so that they can proceed.

Those are just a couple examples of the many that an actual couple could choose from. I think most couples would have several different ways to deal with a temporary mismatch, and would choose the strategy that is most suited to the particular circumstances at that time.

Every couple has to come up with their own ground rules in this delicate area though. What works now in my marriage isn’t what always worked and it isn’t likely to be what works in another marriage. The main point is that each spouse remembers that they belong to the other and that they should love each other and meet each other’s needs, whether that need be sexual relations or sleep or time for prayer or discussion. When needs conflict, each spouse can find a way to sacrifice a little to meet in the middle.

But whatever an actual couple decides, the unilateral imposition of marital relations is NOT part of the marriage debt. If one spouse says no, even for sinful reasons, the other may not impose upon the unwilling spouse without sinning themselves.

 

[gardenswithkids]

I don’t think anyone is denying the difference of the sexes even in the secular world. However I have seen the pendulum swing in the other direction, especially in the conservative Christian world, where women are primarily defined by their reproductive capacity as if women were nothing more than the wombs they possess.

I much prefer St. Pope John Paul II view on women as full human beings who have the ability to choose the noble vocation of marriage and motherhood, instead of the view of women as baby machines.

“Baby machines”? Where did that come from?

Secular society most certainly is confused about the reproductive body part differences between men and women. Some see it as a negative thing that women can get pregnant. Some think of women’s breasts as merely decorations and fashion accessories. “Gender-theories” from many secular psychologist try to tell us that ‘gender" can be different from “biological sex that was obvious at birth.” Now somehow “thinking” one is a woman is enough for someone with XY chromosomes to claim to be a woman. I didn’t really want to get into "gender theories’ earlier, but one reason I pointed out the biological differences in our reproductive parts is because they are denied and downplayed today, while some of those same people and others see a woman’s ability to bare children as something negative.

That doesn’t mean I go to the other extreme, which you say some conservative Christians do. I did not feel the need to explain to someone asking the differences between men and women the similarities between men and women. That wasn’t the question, so I didn’t write a "compare and contrast’ essay. Is it really necessary for you and me to write that women are full human beings–as if that was somehow in dispute???

Pregnancy and motherhood is not what make us women, nor is it what makes women human being of value–but only women can bare children. That’s the biggest and most obvious difference between men and women, and it’s one that modern society wishes to downplay and often view as something negative. Since apparently you think some people make the opposite error, I will state the very obvious similarity for the record that both men and women are human beings of value and worth.

 

[jmjZelie]

Gardenswithkids makes some great points, but also I would like to add that far from being baby machines, it is a privilege to be able to cooperate with God and our husbands to bring new people into the world. Angels are undeniably higher in intellect and power than human beings, but there are two things that they cannot do. They cannot receive the Eucharist and they cannot procreate. A mother actually gets to bring into existence another person, whose nobility and preciousness will never be fully known in this life. So even for many of those faithful Christians who put a heavy emphasis upon childbearing as part of a mother’s duty (obviously, because how could a wife become a mother without childbearing?), very many of them focus upon the privilege aspect.

Oh and one more point on the childbearing aspect of being a wife: the sacrament is called Holy Matrimony. Matrimony has its roots in the same words as maternity and ceremony. It’s very name acknowledges that marriage is the context whereby a woman may become a mother (leaving aside for a moment the question of ways that unmarried woman become mothers).

Having been either pregnant or breastfeeding, or both, for almost 12 years, and knowing that I likely have at least a couple more years before I am out of this phase, I do try to have a sense of humor about the baby machine comments. I have gotten some of that. The “cranking out the babies” or “breeder” or “Catholic rabbits” and whatnot. The only time it ever stings is when a fellow Catholic uses the phrase to try to shame me and push me toward NFP to “stop having all those babies”. The rest of the time, I think, it is rather funny.

I find the gender theory ideology far more oppressive than a respectful acknowledgement that women (wombed men) have a special ability that sets them apart.

I hope that is not too far off topic for the thread. I think this is a great thread, btw, Lea. Lots of really great questions I have wrestled with myself, especially since I am a convert.

Edited to add: I am speaking in general principles in this post. In no way does this imply a devaluation of unmarried or childless women, when I address the value of maternity. I imagine the pain of childlessness is greater than the pain of any insult such as “baby machine” or other such attitudes that are intended to devalue maternity.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I’m not sure if you are serious or being sarcastic (I’m going to assume you are serious).

No, the woman has NOT sinned. Being “disobedient” is not sinful in itself. There are times when “disobedient” behavior is actually the moral thing to do. For example, being disobedient to illegal or immoral orders from a military officer.

The motives & situation determines whether a “disobedient” action is sinful or not.

Good to know you’re not advocating an extreme version of submission, in which a wife has no moral agency at all, and even if she does obey a sinful directive, the sin is only borne by the husband, not the wife. And I know the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that, either.

On the other hand, “save yourself and let me die” is not a sinful directive, either. Though I guess “save yourself, throw me overboard from this lifeboat” would be.

And, your prior posts on this seemed to imply that only the husband has a duty to protect the wife, not vice versa. So, a wife who didn’t protect the husband wouldn’t be breaching any duty, and not sinning. But if a husband commanded her NOT to protect him, then she would be sinning by disobeying him.

Thanks for clarifying yourself. Unfortunately many non-Catholic interpretations of “submission” can get extreme like that. (It reminds me how Xantippe brings up examples such as, if a husband is suffering from dementia and wants to wander the backyard naked during the winter, is the wife still obliged to submit to that. Or the “what if a husband is drunk and wants to drive” – though I think that would actually be a sin to go along with that, not just imprudent.)

The Church knows there are exceptions and that each individual family is different and has it’s own unique facets.

The main point of the extended text in the Bible is that husbands and wives must love and respect one another, and that men have a responsibility to lay their life down for their bride & protect their family, but that doesn’t mean that wife is prohibited from doing the same thing for her husband.

I pray I’m making sense.

God Bless

Yes, you are.

But whatever an actual couple decides, the unilateral imposition of marital relations is NOT part of the marriage debt. If one spouse says no, even for sinful reasons, the other may not impose upon the unwilling spouse without sinning themselves.

I think this is the important part. No, “marriage debt” is not a license for marital rape, and it seemed the OP feared this was the case, that husbands had the right to outright rape their wives, and wouldn’t be sinning by doing so, just obtaining what’s his by rights.

However, I’d like to take issue with your comment here:

I imagine the pain of childlessness is greater than the pain of any insult such as “baby machine” or other such attitudes that are intended to devalue maternity.

You imply here that all women who are childless, suffer from the “pain of childlessness”. Well, I am childless, and already approaching “advanced maternal age”. And while I haven’t given up on marriage, I accept that if I do marry, there is a chance I would be infertile. (Family history also makes me suspect this). This possibility really does NOT cause me pain and suffering. And I don’t accept that this means I’m not called to marriage, either.

Many women were “barren” before the advent of modern medicine (and I’m not even referring to IVF and other techniques considered immoral by the Church, just medicine in general). Were none of them called to marriage, I don’t think so. Especially since this isn’t something women usually are aware of prior to marriage, even now. (Other than cases of women losing their fertility to cancer, or being born with a congenital defect.)

 

[on_the_hill]

What we have is a Church with a controversial teaching that it doesn’t know what to do with, and after many, many interpretations, analyses, critiques, and enough wordsmithing to twist it out, back, and beyond recognition, it’s a Church that remains unsure.

First–I don’t fully understand what all the complicated interpretations mean, and that’s not a good thing. I’m very well educated and in my professional life I work in an environment that deals in complicated words and convoluted interpretations. I know prevaricating circumlocution when I see it. The more words he uses, the more complex the sentences, the less the writer understands what he’s trying to convey. (but this is what keeps philosophers and theologians off the dole, I suppose. )

If the common man can’t understand it, the Church needs to do a re-write.

Second–the bottom line about wifely submission is this: Wives are commanded to be submissive to their husbands…but not really.

So this leave the Church with one option: punt. Drop it from the rotation. We get this reading every year, and every year it does more harm than good because no one can figure out what it’s supposed to mean.

So just bypass it and forget about it. If it truly was Paul addressing a particular community within a particular context, then there’s a pretty good chance…like, say, 99.999% that we are not that particular community and not living in that particular context.

Just as an aside, we heard a homily on this years ago. The priest was adamant that any interpretation other than the literal meaning of “wives be submissive,” was a canard foisted on us by pop-psychology. My wife whispered to me that if he continued in that vein she was leaving. He continued. She got up and walked out. I followed her, naturally.

Her actions were a true blessing, because we subsequently found our true home parish three weeks later, and we’ve been there for the past 20 years.

 

[jmjZelie]

{Edited to address only the part directed toward me}

You imply here that all women who are childless, suffer from the “pain of childlessness”. Well, I am childless, and already approaching “advanced maternal age”. And while I haven’t given up on marriage, I accept that if I do marry, there is a chance I would be infertile. (Family history also makes me suspect this). This possibility really does NOT cause me pain and suffering. And I don’t accept that this means I’m not called to marriage, either.

Many women were “barren” before the advent of modern medicine (and I’m not even referring to IVF and other techniques considered immoral by the Church, just medicine in general). Were none of them called to marriage, I don’t think so. Especially since this isn’t something women usually are aware of prior to marriage, even now. (Other than cases of women losing their fertility to cancer, or being born with a congenital defect.)

No, I do not imply that and I do not see why you think it is certain that I do.

Look, I was addressing the value of maternity, and when I have done so before on this forum, I have been chastised for excluding women who are not mothers due to infertility. I have also tried to discuss the difficulties of being a mother and tried to find advice for how to deal with those difficulties and I have been told that my difficulty is nothing in comparison to the suffering of women who cannot have children. In an effort to be considerate of the feelings of those people, and to make it clear that I do not devalue them when I discuss the value of motherhood, I acknowledged the pain of childlessness. People who discuss that pain are usually people who have attempted to become parents and cannot, or people who had hoped to marry and start a family but never found a suitable spouse. . There is another active thread on this forum now where a woman has reached out about her pain associated with being unmarried and childless.

I also don’t know why you take issue with my post regarding the possibility that you might be infertile and that you don’t accept that doesn’t mean you are called to marriage. Where did I say anything about the infertile not being allowed to marry?? That is against Church teaching. Permanent impotence is an impediment to marriage, not infertility. But that doesn’t change things on the level of principles. If an infertile person were to marry, which many do, it would be through no fault of their own that they could not live out the primary purpose of holy matrimony, which is the procreation and education of children. They wouldn’t be actively excluding it, they simply wouldn’t be able to do it. God does not ask the impossible. It is He who opens and closes the womb, and He who endows a person with an immortal, spiritual soul.

We were discussing the underlying reasons for the marriage debt. After having studied Church teachings on this for many years, reading encyclicals and theological manuals that address the topic, the constant theme that I come across is that matrimony is primarily for the sake of family, the begetting of children, the joint efforts of the parents in raising the children, the mutual support of the spouses, relieving concupiscence, and getting each other to heaven. Marital relations support those ends of marriage, when used responsibly and lovingly. That is what the Church teaches at the level of principles. The fact that some people are never able to have children does not alter the underlying principles.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

No, I do not imply that and I do not see why you think it is certain that I do.

I wasn’t certain about it, which is why I brought it up. I appreciate your trying to be understanding of people who are both infertile AND in pain from it. But, I think there are many people who are infertile AND not in pain from it, but would still take pause at definitions of femininity that see motherhood as an inherent aspect of it. Regarding the topic of the unmarried childless woman, that seemed to be more about the pain of being treated as “less than” by her co-workers than the pain of childlessness itself.

I also don’t know why you take issue with my post regarding the possibility that you might be infertile and that you don’t accept that doesn’t mean you are called to marriage. Where did I say anything about the infertile not being allowed to marry?? That is against Church teaching. Permanent impotence is an impediment to marriage, not infertility. But that doesn’t change things on the level of principles. If an infertile person were to marry, which many do, it would be through no fault of their own that they could not live out the primary purpose of holy matrimony, which is the procreation and education of children. They wouldn’t be actively excluding it, they simply wouldn’t be able to do it. God does not ask the impossible. It is He who opens and closes the womb, and He who endows a person with an immortal, spiritual soul.

I actually thought that the primary purpose of holy matrimony is to get each other to heaven. Maybe I’m wrong, but that makes more sense to me than “the primary purpose of marriage is to make a family to raise kids in, BUT even if you can’t achieve this, you can still get married.” That’s like saying “the primary purpose of college is to learn, but even if you have mental retardation and can’t handle college academics, you can still get into college” since obviously people do other things at college than just learn academics, they socialize, learn life lessons, play sports, etc.

On the other hand, I guess you could argue that infertile people still being allowed to marry, is similar to how many athletes get into college, who would not qualify based on their academic ability alone. But you can make an argument college sports helps keeps the college economically sound, builds school spirit, etc.

We were discussing the underlying reasons for the marriage debt. After having studied Church teachings on this for many years, reading encyclicals and theological manuals that address the topic, the constant theme that I come across is that matrimony is primarily for the sake of family, the begetting of children, the joint efforts of the parents in raising the children, the mutual support of the spouses, relieving concupiscence, and getting each other to heaven. Marital relations support those ends of marriage, when used responsibly and lovingly. That is what the Church teaches at the level of principles. The fact that some people are never able to have children does not alter the underlying principles.

I know this is somewhat OT to the topic of the role of women and wives as they relate to their husbands, that would apply to infertile couples a well. But I must admit, I honestly can’t figure out the reasoning why the Church allows the infertile to marry at all, if children are the primary goal of marriage.

 

[gardenswithkids]

… but would still take pause at definitions of femininity that see motherhood as an inherent aspect of it. Regarding the topic of the unmarried childless woman, that seemed to be more about the pain of being treated as “less than” by her co-workers than the pain of childlessness itself…

I tried to be careful in my previous post to be respectful of women who are childless, regardless of the cause of it. Certainly not all women get pregnant; however, women over the age of puberty typically share a different experience unique to women that relates to their bodies preparing for the reception of a fertilized egg. Back to biology and sex education; women menstruate. At least healthy women who are not pregnant experience that approximately monthly from the time of menarche up until menopause. That is part of our reproductive cycle. The supplies we buy for that time are sometimes called ‘Feminine Hygiene Products’. Note the word used is “Feminine”-- because that experience is uniquely to the females of our species. So, while “motherhood” is not necessary to being female, a healthy adult human female body prepares for the potential of motherhood, regardless of if she ever actually becomes a mother or not.

Certainly not every woman is or will be a mother, but only women have the potential to be mothers. If a woman has a child, either through natural childbirth or perhaps adoption, she becomes a mother. If she marries a man who already has a child, she becomes a 'step-mother."

I could write something similar to men having bodies that are oriented towards being fathers, (whether they ever become fathers or not) but since the topic is women/wives, I won’t.

 

[Catholic_Lady]

Did she miss the part where it says husbands and wives should submit to each other??

 

[agapewolf]

JPII said that even women who don’t have biological children can experience the fullness of motherhood.

 

[phil19034]

What we have is a Church with a controversial teaching that it doesn’t know what to do with, and after many, many interpretations, analyses, critiques, and enough wordsmithing to twist it out, back, and beyond recognition, it’s a Church that remains unsure.

First–I don’t fully understand what all the complicated interpretations mean, and that’s not a good thing. I’m very well educated and in my professional life I work in an environment that deals in complicated words and convoluted interpretations. I know prevaricating circumlocution when I see it. The more words he uses, the more complex the sentences, the less the writer understands what he’s trying to convey. (but this is what keeps philosophers and theologians off the dole, I suppose. )

If the common man can’t understand it, the Church needs to do a re-write.

Second–the bottom line about wifely submission is this: Wives are commanded to be submissive to their husbands…but not really.

So this leave the Church with one option: punt. Drop it from the rotation. We get this reading every year, and every year it does more harm than good because no one can figure out what it’s supposed to mean.

So just bypass it and forget about it. If it truly was Paul addressing a particular community within a particular context, then there’s a pretty good chance…like, say, 99.999% that we are not that particular community and not living in that particular context.

Just as an aside, we heard a homily on this years ago. The priest was adamant that any interpretation other than the literal meaning of “wives be submissive,” was a canard foisted on us by pop-psychology. My wife whispered to me that if he continued in that vein she was leaving. He continued. She got up and walked out. I followed her, naturally.

Her actions were a true blessing, because we subsequently found our true home parish three weeks later, and we’ve been there for the past 20 years.

Most good priests, deacons and bishops always address this when the reading comes up at Sunday Mass.

 

[hydin]

Father John Riccardo did his thesis on this exact topic. Here is a link to it.

olgcparish.net/resources/Files/frjohn/articles/themutualsubordinationofhusbandandwife.pdf

It brings all of the small pieces of the teaching together in unity.

If you want the quick version it would be an instruction for both husbands and wives to love like Christ loves… That is a high bar. Starts with not thinking of self for both sides. Giving what ever is needed at the time to the other. When in marriage we start thinking of ourselves things never go well.

The folks on this board and I can’t tell you what submit means. We also can’t tell you the words do not mean what they say. If we do we are determining we have the authority to know what God meant when He inspired the writer.We often forget that God is all knowing and outside of time. He knew the issues of today when ink him parchment. When you check history the same sins are happening at the time of Jesus as today. It is why you find the earliest reference after Jesus to abortion in the Didache, which was written around 50 AD but we act as if it is a new situation that “God could not understand.” The Roman and Greek empires were not prudish to any extent… they would make us blush with their accepted activities. We are temped (by who???) by questions like this (remember the garden… all questions, targeting pride rather than instructions) when we want to see a certain behavior. God even set us up when He drew up our “wiring”. most females want to feel close before being intimate… Men? the thing that sparks wanting to feel close is intimacy. Counselors have made billions on just that topic.

God made it pretty simple. Guys- make sure she loved like Christ loves His Church and be willing to die on the cross for her… Women - submit to your husband (remember He is to be Jesus… ) as the Church submits to Jesus and respect him. the word respect is in there… written 2000 years ago, not love. God knew. We are human and both men and women immediately look for loopholes when the words are clear. Physical stuff is so much the center but think about it … If you love a woman do you want her doing what she doesn’t want to do just for your pleasure? If you love a man do you want deny him the pleasure that he should only look to you for? Of course we can’t live up to those ideals. We should admit that rather than manufacture excuses not to try to be as christ like as we can. She "didn’t meet my needs so sure I look at porn… He didn’t listen to me so I started a relationship with a guy who got me… If Jesus were only human no way he would have gone to the Cross. Wait, you just denied me ? you don’t believe this is my Body… how many times do I need to say it…LISTEN… We certainly didn’t deserve the love he gave us. that is how we are called to love (verb, not a feeling. I love you but am not IN love with you is a selfish lie… I refuse to love you is what is says) Jesus commanded us to love our enemy… no one wants to do that. It is a choice. Here is a short homily for men on the subject by father john… Just make sure you listen to the talk for women too… hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/4/a/8/4a81c06b5800d5d2/WivesWantHusbandsKnow.m4a?c_id=1737175&expiration=1459808377&hwt=86f91834d668163b1b4784875138feef

The Christian Household

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. 24 Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, 27 so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. 28 In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, 30 because we are members of his body.** 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. 33 Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.**