M
Melchior_1
Guest
As an aside, I’m 99% certain this is the case for all secular orders. The Lay Dominicans have a similar stance.
- Status
B
ballin
Guest
Well I agree that women are not be man’s subordinate. But at the same time, they do both have to submit to each other and someone has to make the decisions, especially in a marriage? If both parties just agree to disagree all the time, I would imagine that it would be an unhealthy marriage.Subjection means the same as conform. In the relationship between Christ and the Church, it is the Church that conforms to Christ, not Christ to the Church. In marriage, it is mutual.
There is the difference between this concept and submission. Bl. John Paul is trying to get to clearer understanding of what Paul means and get away from the distortion that has happened over the centuries, where submit has become compliance for the sake of compliance. In other words, its all about power and authority and very little about love.
The fact is that we’re not going to find the perfect word that describes what Paul is trying to say. We can only explain the original intent as language evolves and words take on different meanings.
Going back to Francis, you have to remember what the word submission mean during the Middle Ages. There was noting loving about it. It was oppressive and usually an abuse of strength and power. Francis knew this was not how Paul was using the word. Paul was using it as Genesis describes the creation of man and woman. Woman was created for man’s good, not to be man’s subordinate.
Do you see the difference?
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
But I think I see what you mean. So is this simply replacing of the word with something that might capture the essence of the word “Submit” as it meant in Pauline times more? And also, sometimes don’t we need to submit to authority and power without love? Like when we submit to our parents when we are young or to the authority of the Pope when we disagree? It isn’t always out of love too?
Isn’t love an act of the will? We can choose to submit that will to the authority or power?
J
JReducation
Guest
You are probably right. The tendency in more traditionalist circles is to want to go back to using Paul’s language as a counter action to feminism. That’s fine as long as we always clarify that Paul does not use “submit” the way that modern man uses it. He uses it in the context of a loving relationship. It has nothing to do with taking orders or complying for the sake of compliance or just because it pleases someone.
Paul is describing a relationship. In Latin, the term is probably clearer than in English. It literally means to enter into. That concept of entering into is the concept that defines covenant. We’re talking here about more than authority of male over female. We’re talking about a covenant relationship that exists between spouses.
That’s why Francis had such a knee-jerk reaction to the way the term submit was used in his day. There was nothing that indicated a covenant between male and female. All of the obligations were on the woman and the rights on the man. Paul never had this in mind.
The secular orders that have male and female forbid submitting another person to you. Because that’s not love.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
J
JReducation
Guest
Now you got what Francis was doing. He was trying to get back to what Paul meant and not what people in his time meant.
As I said, there is no perfect word, because language keeps changing. We always have to keep explaining that Paul does not mean to put someone under you foot.
You bring up a valid point,which is authority. The difference between authority and marriage is that my relationship with my brothers is not a covenant. Marriage is a covenant. Therefore, I don’t have to expect my brothers to love me. They should love me, in charity. At the end of the day, I’m the superior and they will do as I say, whether they love me or not.
As far as making decision in marriage, Francis advice to the married Franciscans was a practical one. Once one partner makes a decision, the other partner must support it unless it violates the law of God or the Church. In other words, both have decision making power, not just males. This does not mean that the person who disagrees cannot try to present his case. It simply means that if after he or she makes his case, the other partner stands by what he or she has decided, love requires humility. You do what you have to do and consider it a penance.
He was very practical. You want to read someone who is really dead set against the word submit, read Teresa of Avila. One of her best lines is the answer as to why she became a nun. “I became a nun so that I would not have to submit to the authority of any man, especially one who is less intelligent than I am. God knows that I know nothing.”
Teresa was a riot.
Fraternally,
Br.JR, FFV
M
Melchior_1
Guest
This is where the partnership aspect comes in though.
*Heart: Hey, it’s warm outside. Lets get a treat!
Head: You know what, you’re right!
Heart: ICE CREAM.
Head: Great plan! LOVE ICE CREAM! But we’re lactose intolerant.
Heart: Yeah, but soft serve ice cream doesn’t make is sick, and there’s a Dairy Queen five minutes from here!
Head: SCORE! But we have to clean the house up a bit first, then we’ll go!
Heart: Sure, lets clean then eat some soft serve!*
Both the heart and the head worked together to come to a delicious decision.
B
ballin
Guest
Oh I see. Yes, I think I see what you meant now.
Oh I think that makes perfect sense. That is what I meant when I said submit to each other and then agree on a decision in marriage. In my understanding, it meant ‘submit’ to the others decision in a marriage. In this case, it would be ‘conform’ to the other person’s decision I guess.
If you have time, what about the issue of love being an act of the will? Would this to some extent mean that when I forcefully conform my-self to do something good for the other, like concede my view for their view, I am also loving them anyway? Hence all acts of obedience as long as they are not contrary to moral law and I can get my self to freely will to act, would be automatically with Love as well?
W
Walking_Home
Guest
Ditto.
L
LucyLight
Guest
I don’t want to nit pick…really
the issue I have with your scenario (and maybe you didn’t mean it this way) is that the woman, as you call the heart, seems like the child. And the head seems like the parent.
People think that two people in a marriage always need a leader or they would be constantly going in different directions. I think that this is just not true. If you have two mature adults who have each other’s best interest in mind things just work out. I can see why a larger group would need a leader but not two people who are in a covenant relationship. They work together.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Interesting that you thought this, because in this example (based off of my own marriage) I am the heart, and my wife is the head.I don’t want to nit pick…really
the issue I have with your scenario (and maybe you didn’t mean it this way) is that the woman, as you call the heart, seems like the child. And the head seems like the parent.
I have Adult ADHD, which means that I am prone to occasional childish outbursts. In the example I gave, I was super stoked with the idea of getting a peanut butter milkshake and nearly started bouncing off the walls with the prospect of doing so. My wife also likes Dairy Queen’s, but she knew that if I didn’t start cleaning right then and there, I’d get distracted and it simply wouldn’t get done.
There are other times the roles are reversed, where I become the head and she becomes the heart. Either way, we work together as one.
I never specified who was the head and who was the heart in the example I gave, but now you got me thinking how many others also thought what you did
L
LucyLight
Guest
That’s kind of funny cause I’m ADD too. I think forums like this are appealing to me because I can just bounce around from topic to topic ha ha. Your example of changing back in forth between who is the head and who is the heart is probably what actually happens in most marriages. It is certainly like that in my marriage.Interesting that you thought this, because in this example (based off of my own marriage) I am the heart, and my wife is the head.
I have Adult ADHD, which means that I am prone to occasional childish outbursts. In the example I gave, I was super stoked with the idea of getting a peanut butter milkshake and nearly started bouncing off the walls with the prospect of doing so. My wife also likes Dairy Queen’s, but she knew that if I didn’t start cleaning right then and there, I’d get distracted and it simply wouldn’t get done.
There are other times the roles are reversed, where I become the head and she becomes the heart. Either way, we work together as one.
I never specified who was the head and who was the heart in the example I gave, but now you got me thinking how many others also thought what you did
N
nickybr38
Guest
Where is it written that women are not allowed to have authority?
Where is it written that altar serving is a position of authority?
Where is it written that being a Eucharistic Minister is a position of authority?
Where is it written that only those with authority are allowed near or on the sanctuary?
When you address these points I will be more willing to answer your concerns.
Where is it written that altar serving is a position of authority?
Where is it written that being a Eucharistic Minister is a position of authority?
Where is it written that only those with authority are allowed near or on the sanctuary?
When you address these points I will be more willing to answer your concerns.
F
floresco
Guest
It actually is written in the Bible that women are not allowed to have authority: I Tim 2:11,12 “Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence.”
However, I see no reason to think that being an altar server or EMHC or being on the sanctuary are positions of authority, so I don’t think this passage applies. (Not that I’m crazy about women doing these things, but I don’t think it is about authority.)
B
Baelor
Guest
Interpreting the Bible without context would leave us all without eyes and hands.
F
floresco
Guest
You are welcome to look up the context. I did give the reference.
NIckybr asked where it was written so I told her.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Can you please reconcile the passage quoted from Timothy with the fine women who are members within the Order of Preachers? I understand that quite a few female members of the family have long been involved with teaching and having positions of authority within schools.
F
floresco
Guest
It would make more sense for the Order of Preachers to explain how they reconcile their practices with Scripture.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Of course if you interpret this passage literally it means that women cannot have any authority in general.
That they cannot teach men at all (so no female professors, instructors, etc.), and that a female leader is by definition a bad one. Its passages like this that make me think that Saint Paul really had a problem with women:shrug:
F
floresco
Guest
I think that Saint Paul was inspired by God, not by problems with women. I leave it to the Church to say how the passage ought to be interpreted.
C
catholicmamajoy
Guest
Actually…that conference I mentioned attended on Women in the Early Church brought up those verses…and in light of the what the Magisterium teaches on the roles of women, it was explained that those verses were as instruction for women to not be in the role of priest (consecrating the bread and wine and giving the homily). Otherwise, how do we explain the elevation of 3 female saints to “Doctor of the Church”. All things must be read and interpreted in the context of what the Magisterium teaches… otherwise, we end up like those sects of Protestant fundamentalist running around pulling verses out of context to justify their personal belief and interpretations.
N
nickybr38
Guest
What’s the point of being Catholic if we don’t trust the interpretation the Church provides?
- Status