W
Walking_Home
Guest
Catechism of the Catholic Church
- Status
C
Catholic_Lady
Guest
Great post, W_H.
L
Lea101
Guest
She knows, she just thinks it is odd that st paul would say that but then say “women submit to your husband” and didn’t add “husband submit to your wife”, if that makes sense?
T
TheAmazingGrace
Guest
I hate to sound dismissive, but I find the idea of submission to be, for lack of a better word, ridiculous. I’ve been studying the precepts of the Church since I could read, and never once did I come across this so-called “directive.” I first heard of it in college, when a “traditional”-minded friend asked me if I would obey my husband when I got married, and said that women should obey their husbands because the husbands act as a buffer between them and Satan. I told him that I already had a man who acted as my spiritual buffer, and His name is Jesus.
Marriage is not hierarchical. The mother/wife is just as much the head as the father/husband. They both need to love each other, and they need to defer to each other when appropriate. A man is not granted any special authority privileges by virtue of being male. Whatever authority he has should be contingent on his character. If my mother had deferred to my father as some posters have suggested, I can’t imagine the direction my life would have taken. My mother is the leader in my family, and I don’t believe God or St. Paul would have it any other way.
Marriage is not hierarchical. The mother/wife is just as much the head as the father/husband. They both need to love each other, and they need to defer to each other when appropriate. A man is not granted any special authority privileges by virtue of being male. Whatever authority he has should be contingent on his character. If my mother had deferred to my father as some posters have suggested, I can’t imagine the direction my life would have taken. My mother is the leader in my family, and I don’t believe God or St. Paul would have it any other way.
C
Catholic_Lady
Guest
I think people who focus on this are just looking for reasons to disvalidate Christianity. The first thing the passage says is for them to submit to each other. It then goes on to specifically say women need to submit to their husbands, and that husbands need to love their wives.
Does this mean then that women don’t need to love their husbands? No. Neither does it mean husbands don’t need to submit to their wives.
…It also tells husbands that they should be willing to DIE for their wives. If that’s not submission, I don’t know what is.
Obviously they both need to submit to each other and love each other. I don’t understand how anyone can read that passage and think otherwise just because the message to each is worded differently.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
Look at any marriage where a husband truly loves his wife. He tends to defer (submit) to her wishes, yes?
Look at any marriage where a wife respects her husband, she tends to submit herself to his vision of things, especially if he is the main provider, because his decisions tend toward bringing security to the family.
Notice I am speaking on general principles here. There are anomalies and outliers anecdotally.
Men tend to understand submission quite well. Notice the hierarchical nature of the military and men’s organization and fraternal societies. Women don’t have that tendency to the same extent.
Women tend to understand things of the heart very well. Notice how women’s groups tend to be about sharing experiences and making connections with others. All of that tends to mystify men just a bit.
St. Paul was highly intelligent and he was very wise. He saw the natural tendencies of men and women, and husbands and wives. He came up with a good, general plan, that played off the strengths of each sex and exhorted each sex to pay attention to those areas that they may be less naturally oriented (men: things of the heart, women: submission) and also resolved many of the conflicts left over from the Fall (namely, a male tendency to dominate women instead of cherishing them, and a female tendency to disrespect their husbands and step out from under their protection). It is a battle plan, to reform pagan marriages into solid Christian marriages, and it really works. It doesn’t work in every situation, such as if one has an abusive spouse or a lazy spouse or a manipulative spouse. But in general, it is a healthy give and take.
Further, St. Paul even tied the beauty of husband and wife to the mystery of Christ and His Church, picking up where Our Lord Himsef left off. Every day, on the altar, Jesus submits Himself to His Bride as He lays Himself down under the appearances of bread and wine. And everyday, His Bride, the Church, out of love for Her Divine Spouse, takes up the armor of God and does battle for souls.
I think it is safe to say that husbands and wives, in a happy Christian marriage, submit to each other, love each other, respect each other, and dies for each other. But the Apostle to the Gentiles gave us excellent marching orders, telling us to stand tall, defend our brother in arms, and never retreat. The particular emphases he gave only matter because of which strengths generally come easier to either sex.
Look at any marriage where a wife respects her husband, she tends to submit herself to his vision of things, especially if he is the main provider, because his decisions tend toward bringing security to the family.
Notice I am speaking on general principles here. There are anomalies and outliers anecdotally.
Men tend to understand submission quite well. Notice the hierarchical nature of the military and men’s organization and fraternal societies. Women don’t have that tendency to the same extent.
Women tend to understand things of the heart very well. Notice how women’s groups tend to be about sharing experiences and making connections with others. All of that tends to mystify men just a bit.
St. Paul was highly intelligent and he was very wise. He saw the natural tendencies of men and women, and husbands and wives. He came up with a good, general plan, that played off the strengths of each sex and exhorted each sex to pay attention to those areas that they may be less naturally oriented (men: things of the heart, women: submission) and also resolved many of the conflicts left over from the Fall (namely, a male tendency to dominate women instead of cherishing them, and a female tendency to disrespect their husbands and step out from under their protection). It is a battle plan, to reform pagan marriages into solid Christian marriages, and it really works. It doesn’t work in every situation, such as if one has an abusive spouse or a lazy spouse or a manipulative spouse. But in general, it is a healthy give and take.
Further, St. Paul even tied the beauty of husband and wife to the mystery of Christ and His Church, picking up where Our Lord Himsef left off. Every day, on the altar, Jesus submits Himself to His Bride as He lays Himself down under the appearances of bread and wine. And everyday, His Bride, the Church, out of love for Her Divine Spouse, takes up the armor of God and does battle for souls.
I think it is safe to say that husbands and wives, in a happy Christian marriage, submit to each other, love each other, respect each other, and dies for each other. But the Apostle to the Gentiles gave us excellent marching orders, telling us to stand tall, defend our brother in arms, and never retreat. The particular emphases he gave only matter because of which strengths generally come easier to either sex.
L
Lea101
Guest
C
Catholic_Lady
Guest
Yes, this. They both need to submit to each other and love each other equally, but St Paul focused more on what each sex generally needs to be told. Men generally have a tendency to be cold hearted and selfish, and women generally have a tendency to be bossy and patronizing.
T
TheAmazingGrace
Guest
There we go!
V
Vico
Guest
Charity and trust are the basis of the relationship between husband and wife, which is contrary to misogyny. A misogynist is a person who hates or doesn’t trust women. So we do not encounter any advice to be a misogynist in the New Testament.Ok first of all, please do not derail this thread and start arguing. I know this is a sensitive topic.
A friend of mine, who is rather anti-religion, brought up the whole famous “submit to your husband” and other verses from the bible that seems very misogynistic. And then she asked me to explain. I tried my best but then I started doubting myself.
I tried saying that women are equal but different. She asked me how are they different besides looks and qualities that seems to be enforced on us as children (for example, the whole “math geniuses in the past are usually men” thing is invalid because women in the past were not encouraged to go to school, etc.
I could not think of anything.
Then she asked about the whole “submission” thing, like why women are the ones to submit. I couldn’t give a proper answer besides “because of Adam and Eve”.
I tried explaining that women are not to “obey” their husband and husbands should love their wives etc etc. But then she asked more practical, modern day examples of a wife submitting to her husband. I couldn’t think of one
Then she asked me about the whole “It is wrong to deny sex to your spouse without a valid reason”. My gosh, I could not answer. I always felt like if for example, the wife simply isn’t in the mood, the husband should not pressure her. And if she gives into the pressure and just “lies there”, I mean…a lot of people would consider that rape! And I am not sure if Catholics agree with this or not. If they do, then what’s with the whole “marital debt”?! I’m sure we want our spouses to be willing, not because they feel like they are sinning if they said no?
Then she asked about modesty. About how it’s only emphasized on women. Now I could kind of explain it well-that women are sexualized and our bodies are seen as objects and she roughly got it. Although she brought up about how modesty could be used to oppress, but I told her it’s more of the people’s fault, not the Church.
Could you guys help me? I told her I would get back to her. Give me your answers for each of the points she brought up (I may try to refute you, but that’s because I want you to explain fully so I won’t be caught in the headlights if she says the same thing as me to you)
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
I agree with this, totally.
Ok, I’m glad we’re back on the same wavelength here, this is how I tend to interpret Paul’s exhortations. Because, if we simply interpret it as “men have to love, wives have to submit, that’s it” we’re not just stating that men don’t have to submit to their wives, we’re also stating that women don’t have to love their husbands, and I think that is an absurdity.
Of course, some will say “well, mutual love makes sense, but mutual submission doesn’t, you can’t have two bosses”. But then they’re ignoring the exhortations for all Christians to submit to each other.
I think the issue with much Protestant attempts to interpret the Bible, is that so many see it as more an exercise in “which Bible verses can I use to support my position” and wind up taking verses out of context. Catholics do it too sometimes. Especially the really militant ones who justify uncharitable actions by stating, “Well, even Jesus himself whipped those money changers and threw them out of the Temple!” Ignoring all the other times Jesus took a quite different approach to those who opposed Him. Including his Passion.
I think this kind of approach to Biblical interpretation, just plays into the hands of anti-Christians to play the same game, pull out verses that sound really bad out of context and proclaim “See, I could never follow a religion that teaches THIS!”
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Excellent point! Taking verses out of context by picking and choosing what verses to sight while ignoring how they fit within the context of the whole, is some times just done by people to support the positions they already hold. People do it, yes, but it’s a poor approach to Biblical interpretation. It may be how the op’s friend has be culturally indoctrinated to read the Bible, but it’s certainly not how the Catholic Church tells us to read the Bible!
The posters’ friend is picking and choosing which verses to sight which support her anti-religious position, so the op might try gently point out to her friend that her friend is doing is virtually doing what some misogynists do with that verse: using it in isolation to justify a position, apart from the rest of the Gospel message.
There are plenty of Bible verses that show that Christians are called treat our fellow human beings well. For example: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (Luke 6:31) Jesus tells us to do to others as we want done to us. That quote and many other verses about love and service can be found in abundance, and they help to put the verse her friend asked about into perspective.
H
hydin
Guest
WH, this is also in the same document you quoted from:
In our times the question of “women’s rights” has taken on new significance in the broad context of the rights of the human person. The biblical and evangelical message sheds light on this cause, which is the object of much attention today, by safeguarding the truth about the “unity” of the “two”, that is to say the truth about that dignity and vocation that result from the specific diversity and personal originality of man and woman. Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. In the biblical description, the words of the first man at the sight of the woman who had been created are words of admiration and enchantment, words which fill the whole history of man on earth.
The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity: they are merely different. Hence a woman, as well as a man, must understand her “fulfilment” as a person, her dignity and vocation, on the basis of these resources, according to the richness of the femininity which she received on the day of creation and which she inherits as an expression of the “image and likeness of God” that is specifically hers. The inheritance of sin suggested by the words of the Bible - “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” - can be conquered only by following this path. The overcoming of this evil inheritance is, generation after generation, the task of every human being, whether woman or man. For whenever man is responsible for offending a woman’s personal dignity and vocation, he acts contrary to his own personal dignity and his own vocation.
And these paragraphs are directly above your quote and add context… Not sure why they were not included. They speak clearly to the mutual submission while also highlighting the differences between men and women that should be valued, not discounted.
The Gospel “innovation”
In our times the question of “women’s rights” has taken on new significance in the broad context of the rights of the human person. The biblical and evangelical message sheds light on this cause, which is the object of much attention today, by safeguarding the truth about the “unity” of the “two”, that is to say the truth about that dignity and vocation that result from the specific diversity and personal originality of man and woman. Consequently, even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfilment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness. It is indeed an enormous richness. In the biblical description, the words of the first man at the sight of the woman who had been created are words of admiration and enchantment, words which fill the whole history of man on earth.
The personal resources of femininity are certainly no less than the resources of masculinity: they are merely different. Hence a woman, as well as a man, must understand her “fulfilment” as a person, her dignity and vocation, on the basis of these resources, according to the richness of the femininity which she received on the day of creation and which she inherits as an expression of the “image and likeness of God” that is specifically hers. The inheritance of sin suggested by the words of the Bible - “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” - can be conquered only by following this path. The overcoming of this evil inheritance is, generation after generation, the task of every human being, whether woman or man. For whenever man is responsible for offending a woman’s personal dignity and vocation, he acts contrary to his own personal dignity and his own vocation.
And these paragraphs are directly above your quote and add context… Not sure why they were not included. They speak clearly to the mutual submission while also highlighting the differences between men and women that should be valued, not discounted.
The Gospel “innovation”
- The text is addressed to the spouses as real women and men. It reminds them of the “ethos” of spousal love which goes back to the divine institution of marriage from the “beginning”. Corresponding to the truth of this institution is the exhortation: “Husbands, love your wives”, love them because of that special and unique bond whereby in marriage a man and a woman become “one flesh” (Gen 2:24; Eph 5:31). In this love there is a fundamental affirmation of the woman as a person. This affirmation makes it possible for the female personality to develop fully and be enriched. This is precisely the way Christ acts as the bridegroom of the Church; he desires that she be “in splendour, without spot or wrinkle” (Eph 5:27). One can say that this fully captures the whole “style” of Christ in dealing with women. Husbands should make their own the elements of this style in regard to their wives; analogously, all men should do the same in regard to women in every situation. In this way both men and women bring about “the sincere gift of self”.
W
Walking_Home
Guest
X
Xantippe
Guest
Right.
And one thing I have noticed is the tendency to believe that only verses that specifically mention women and marriage have anything to do with women and marriage. As if “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or “love your neighbor as yourself” does not apply to women…
L
Lea101
Guest
What masculine characteristics? What do you mean by a woman’s fulfilment, her richness, her personal resources etc? I get so confused because most of the time the answers are very broad generalisations, which of course, can be offensive
L
Lea101
Guest
To be quite frank, I never felt like the Church treats women with the same amount of respect as men. I mean I do know that they believe man and woman are equal to God and all and that women have helped greatly but I feel like there is still the “women is the weaker sex, hence we must treat them like they are fragile/etc” way of thinking in religion as well as society. I am not going to leave the Church of course, one day I’ll hopefully ask God why. It’s so depressing, honestly. I’m not masculine, but I’m pretty sure I’m not good at being a female.
It could be my PMS, but the answers so far seems to make me sad as some seem to be “sugarcoating” things, or too patronizing, or whatever. I am honestly don’t know what I’m looking for at this point
It could be my PMS, but the answers so far seems to make me sad as some seem to be “sugarcoating” things, or too patronizing, or whatever. I am honestly don’t know what I’m looking for at this point
X
Xantippe
Guest
Hey–you’re having PMS! That’s female fragility for you.
More seriously, when I was a young woman, I also would have found the idea of female weakness offensive, as I was a sturdy little farm girl. However, now that I’m older, married, and have three kids (two of which are getting quite big), I now think that the idea of being a “strong woman” is a sucker’s game.
I’m not Wonder Woman or whichever is the latest trendy female super hero. I’m not “strong”. I can’t do everything by myself. I can do some things (and there are some things that I’m rather good at!) but I can’t do All The Things. I need help. I’m not going to get shamed or guilted into the idea that I am supposed to do everything by myself, because that’s not actually Church teaching–it’s not in the Bible, and it’s definitely not in the Catechism. And yet it’s an idea that surfaces again and again.
I’ll add that for you personally, it’s quite OK to believe that you can do All The Things, because you more or less can at your stage in life.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
Even if a man or woman for that matter is strong and all that, we must remember that there is such a thing as aging where one’s physical and mental prowess will decline. This is enough to keep one humble especially when one notices that they are not getting any younger. Christians of both sexes will do well to remember that we are all called to be humble.
As for doing everything, the somewhat toxic atmosphere of the blogosphere has Christian women in particular thinking that not only must all women have a lot of kids but they must also homeschool, whip up delicious and nutritious meals on mere pennies, manage to look beautiful for their husbands. If they fail, they cannot be real Christian women. This is particularly pervasive in the Quiverfull world.
J
jmjZelie
Guest
Not just in the Quiverfull world. The pressures you describe are my daily companions. But those are still actually worldly markers of success. All I can offer to God is my little loaves and fishes and pray He multiplies them to accomplish His will for my family. I cannot do all that is “expected” of me according to Perfect Christian Mommy Blogger on Pinterest and Instagram.
- Status