Wondering what you do when you just can't agree

[Schieffelin]

Sounds like that would apply perfectly here, so yes.

Good post. Definitely should not have taken until the third page for this side to be advocated; and there ought to be no need for that “flamesuit”. You’re in good company, too. According to C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:
*In Christian marriage the man is said to be the ‘head’. Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all — why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?

(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement. What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.

(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say ‘Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.’ I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own ‘headship’. There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world — what might be called its foreign policy — must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?*

I’ve read this before and thought it was interesting. Are you sure C.S. Lewis has the final say though? He wasn’t even Catholic.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Well C.S. Lewis is not our authority as Catholics. Considering he never converted to Catholicism. And last time I checked, the CCC was posted just a little ways up the thread.

 

[In_Spiration]

Rence:

If the two of you can’t agree, then you do nothing right now until you talk again.

As in most disputes, neutrality is an illusion. And whenever inaction or passivity holds default favor, that quickly ends up being manipulated. Then all one has to do is create controversy, however irrational, in order to veto anything. This happens in the political arena all the time. Unbelievers also use this as a strategy for supposing that atheism/agnosticism maintains privileged status against some ad hoc theistic burden of proof. Unfortunately for the passive-aggressive, doubt and resistance require justification as well.

If the decision would be detrimental to the family’s safety and welfare, no, you do not “submit as his wife”. You ensure the welfare of your family. If he won’t listen to you, ask him to meet with a third party (like a priest, or a financial advisor even).

Marriage isn’t an agreement to defer to agreeable “experts” or external agents. Being the wife entails a significant degree of submission to his generally being in charge and taking the lead. Marrying him (after assessing his character, etc., obviously) is largely a statement to the effect: “I trust in your judgment to make wise decisions that are positively beneficial, not detrimental, to the family’s safety and welfare. As your wife, I will ultimately follow, support, and defer to you in your command, whether I agree or not.” A wife is a queen to her king’s kingdom; not to his democracy. Her evaluation of his choices is secondary. Otherwise he is not the head of the household in any real, non-trivial sense at all. “As long as I agree” = “As long as I give the final OK”. Not a legitimate loophole.

Godfollower:

So, to put it baldly, no: if the wife thinks the trip is financially unwise right now (not a waste in general, but unwise at the moment) and the husband thinks it’s necessary right now, he doesn’t get to just wave his magic wand and choose for them. It has to be a joint decision.

None of the sources you cite deny what SaintNobody stated or really support what you’re saying whatsoever. Rightful authority is not a “magic wand”. Nobody claims it is or is anything like that. And you shouldn’t so casually and disrespectfully mock that position. The fact you’ve attempted to dismiss it so brazenly and dishonestly is not a sign that you’re capable of being open-minded about it either.

 

[Godfollower]

Sounds like that would apply perfectly here, so yes.

Good post. Definitely should not have taken until the third page for this side to be advocated; and there ought to be no need for that “flamesuit”. You’re in good company, too. According to C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity:
*In Christian marriage the man is said to be the ‘head’. Two questions obviously arise here. (1) Why should there be a head at all — why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?

(1) The need for some head follows from the idea that marriage is permanent. Of course, as long as the husband and wife are agreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the normal state of affairs in a Christian marriage. But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I am assuming they have done that and still failed to reach agreement. What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no majority. Surely, only one or other of two things can happen: either they must separate and go their own ways or else one or other of them must have a casting vote. If marriage is permanent, one or other party must, in the last resort, have the power of deciding the family policy. You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution.

(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman who wants to be the head of her own house does not usually admire the same state of things when she finds it going on next door. She is much more likely to say ‘Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woman to boss him about the way she does is more than I can imagine.’ I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own ‘headship’. There must be something unnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule. But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside. The relations of the family to the outer world — what might be called its foreign policy — must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, much more just to the outsiders. A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world. Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims. She is the special trustee of their interests. The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head. He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife. If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question. If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question. Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?*

I would have to disagree here. The assumption that two people can’t reach an agreement and therefore one of them has to have the final say-so is simply wrong. You could simply say that, if you can’t agree about the circumstances under which a trip is to take place, then it doesn’t. You could have a “burden of persuasion” rule, in which the spouse advocating a particular position carries the burden of persuading the other of the rightness of his or her cause. Or you could have a “possession arrow” rule, under which the spouses alternate having the final say-so whenever they can’t agree.

Or you could sit down together like good Christians and explore the available options, weighing them honestly in light of the unity of marriage, until you find something that resolves the situation.

So Lewis’ entire premise, that obviously someone has to be the one “in charge,” is wrong.

As for his second argument, that appears to boil down to “the man has to be in charge, because otherwise he’s a pantywaist.” That’s not an argument; it’s a derogatory attack made based on a conclusion already reached.

 

[In_Spiration]

Well C.S. Lewis is not our authority as Catholics. Considering he never converted to Catholicism. And last time I checked, the CCC was posted just a little ways up the thread.

I’m not saying he’s “our authority,” but he is quite authoritative and certainly qualifies as “good company,” no? Plus, I’m not trying to present my opinion as a matter of binding dogmatic substance. Catholics can know a lot that isn’t precisely mandated by our Catechism!

 

[In_Spiration]

. . .Or you could have a “possession arrow” rule, under which the spouses alternate having the final say-so whenever they can’t agree.

Haha. I have to leave for an event and don’t have time to respond right now, but I had to highlight this as something that made me laugh.

I can tell someone’s been avidly watching March Madness!

 

[Schieffelin]

I’m not saying he’s “our authority,” but he is quite authoritative and certainly qualifies as “good company,” no? Plus, I’m not trying to present my opinion as a matter of binding dogmatic substance. Catholics can know a lot that isn’t precisely mandated by our Catechism!

Meh. I don’t know. I like Lewis but he did marry a divorced woman. Undid some of his credibility for me.

 

[Godfollower]

As in most disputes, neutrality is an illusion. And whenever inaction or passivity holds default favor, that quickly ends up being manipulated. Then all one has to do is create controversy, however irrational, in order to veto anything. This happens in the political arena all the time. Unbelievers also use this as a strategy for supposing that atheism/agnosticism maintains privileged status against some ad hoc theistic burden of proof. Unfortunately for the passive-aggressive, doubt and resistance require justification as well.

The illusion is supposing that the husband and wife are on opposite sides. Catholic theology holds that husband and wife are one. They might have a disagreement about what’s best for the marriage, but that isn’t the same thing as saying that they are opponents. They’re partners who are trying to figure out the best thing to do for the partnership.

If you assume ongoing bad faith on the part of either spouse, then the marriage is already over anyway. And it’s clear (to me, at least) that Schieffelin’s marriage isn’t over.

Marriage isn’t an agreement to defer to agreeable “experts” or external agents. Being the wife entails a significant degree of submission to his generally being in charge and taking the lead. Marrying him (after assessing his character, etc., obviously) is largely a statement to the effect: “I trust in your judgment to make wise decisions that are positively beneficial, not detrimental, to the family’s safety and welfare. As your wife, I will ultimately follow, support, and defer to you in your command, whether I agree or not.” A wife is a queen to her king’s kingdom; not to his democracy. Her evaluation of his choices is secondary. Otherwise he is not the head of the household in any real, non-trivial sense at all. “As long as I agree” = “As long as I give the final OK”. Not a legitimate loophole.

Except that this argument presupposes the conclusion: that the wife has to do what the husband says. Your description is basically a legalistic viewpoint of the marriage contract under civil law. But Catholic theology is clear: “Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life.” They’re equals.

None of the sources you cite deny what SaintNobody stated or really support what you’re saying whatsoever. Rightful authority is not a “magic wand”. Nobody claims it is or is anything like that. And you shouldn’t so casually and disrespectfully mock that position. The fact you’ve attempted to dismiss it so brazenly and dishonestly is not a sign that you’re capable of being open-minded about it either.

Dishonesty? Really? Did you have to go there? And in the same sentence in which you discuss open-mindedness?

Show me the source for your claim – and that’s all it is, I’m afraid – that the husband has “rightful authority” over his wife to the point that he can simply tell her “We’re taking this vacation, and that’s that!” when she’s pointing out that they simply can’t afford it right now.

I gave you the canon law citation, the Catechism discussion, and the Scriptural evidence for my position. Would you mind coming up with something other than your own conclusions and personal attacks to support your position?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I’m not saying he’s “our authority,” but he is quite authoritative and certainly qualifies as “good company,” no? Plus, I’m not trying to present my opinion as a matter of binding dogmatic substance. Catholics can know a lot that isn’t precisely mandated by our Catechism!

I love C.S. Lewis as a writer and he is a good general Christian apologist. He was J.R.R. Tolkien’s drinking buddy which also gives him points in my eyes. But I don’t look to him on an issue as important as this one. “Submitting” to one’s husband is something I’d need the Church to weigh in on.

 

[the_phoenix]

When my grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s,
the first thing my grandfather did was book a cruise to Europe
for the both of them,
so that her final memories would be filled with love.

…

Here’s hoping your trip works out.
Something to pray about, too.

 

[mini_me640]

OP, I would say try to make it happen. Life changes so much after kids and I am so grateful for the few big trips we took before they came along. Such great memories!

 

[thewanderer]

The illusion is supposing that the husband and wife are on opposite sides. Catholic theology holds that husband and wife are one. They might have a disagreement about what’s best for the marriage, but that isn’t the same thing as saying that they are opponents. They’re partners who are trying to figure out the best thing to do for the partnership.

If you assume ongoing bad faith on the part of either spouse, then the marriage is already over anyway. And it’s clear (to me, at least) that Schieffelin’s marriage isn’t over.

Except that this argument presupposes the conclusion: that the wife has to do what the husband says. Your description is basically a legalistic viewpoint of the marriage contract under civil law. But Catholic theology is clear: “Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life.” They’re equals.

Dishonesty? Really? Did you have to go there? And in the same sentence in which you discuss open-mindedness?

Show me the source for your claim – and that’s all it is, I’m afraid – that the husband has “rightful authority” over his wife to the point that he can simply tell her “We’re taking this vacation, and that’s that!” when she’s pointing out that they simply can’t afford it right now.

I gave you the canon law citation, the Catechism discussion, and the Scriptural evidence for my position. Would you mind coming up with something other than your own conclusions and personal attacks to support your position?

I don’t see how talking about the man as the head of the house comes down to sayin that he can just unreasonably pu his foot down about whatever he wants and the woman must submissively obey his every command. Honestly, I think a lot of people really misunderstand this point of view. The idea of the man as the head of the household, and so the one that women should cede to in decisions about the family really isn’t dictatorial like that. It’s based on an understanding of men and women having equal but different roles to play in a marriage. So it’s not about the man having the right to have always have his way because he is more important, or has more value or anything… But more of a loving decision on the wife’s part that she will, out of love and respect for her husband, generally defer to his wishes as an act of loving, trusting, self-giving. In turn, the man will respect and love his wife and family and really take into account their wishes and lovingly make a decision based on his understanding of the whole situation. That’s not to say that a couple who doesn’t follow this is going about their marriage the wrong way necessarily, but it certainly is a beautiful way for a couple to keep the self-giving side of their marriage alive. Also, it can help turn 50-50 legalistic decisions into acts of love and trust. Instead of saying ‘you get to decide this time and then me next time, so that we each get to have our share of getting what we want’ , the area of decisions within the marriage about the family life turns into yet another area of loving mutual self-giving. The reason it is that people decide the man should be the head instead of the woman is because of the real psychological differences between the sexes. Men really want to take care of their women, to the point where they can get very low self-esteem and become depressed if they do not have some way of taking on active role. Women generally like to be taken care of. It honestly just makes a lot of sense to me. It can obviously be taken too far to mean hat the woman must do whatever the man wants her to because she’s the ‘weaker’ sex, but I really doubt that’s what people usually mean when they talk about it.

 

[thewanderer]

Except that this argument presupposes the conclusion: that the wife has to do what the husband says. Your description is basically a legalistic viewpoint of the marriage contract under civil law. But Catholic theology is clear: “Each spouse has an equal duty and right to those things which belong to the partnership of conjugal life.” They’re equals.

To be perfectly honest, I don’t see how it necessitates that at all. I think people often misunderstand the idea of a wife submitting to her husband by boiling it down to some sort of legalistic ‘right’ which the man somehow has over the woman. I don’t see it that way at all. If a woman, in marrying her beloved decides that throughout this marriage she will, out of loving trust in his judgement, as an act of self-sacrifice, as an affirmation in the ability of her husband to be a good man and father and make good decisions for his family, and he decides hat in return he will try to love her as Christ loves the Church, and so always attempt to be fair-minded and to listen to her point of view and attempt to never make a selfish decision, I see that as being a very far cry from a legalistic view of marriage. It would be a complete distortion of that scripture passage to turn it into a legalistic right of the husband to have his way. It’s not a right, it is the loving self-gift of the wife. Maybe it’s not necessary for every married couple to I’ve themselves to each other in this way, but I think it’s a little harsh to talk about sub a manner of complete self-giving as ‘legalistic’ or in any way denying the equality of the husband or the wife, rather they take on different roles for their loving self-gift so that they can better compliment each other.

To the OP,

It looks like you’ve received a lot of good advice already and have made a decision about what you’re gonna do. I will say a prayer that you can raise enough for it. And even if you don’t get quite enough, I think I would still go on the trip simply because it really might be your only chance, and even if you need to count your pennies for a year or two, it will probably be worth it in the long run if the alternative is living with the regret that you never got to go. Good luck with it all!

 

[nodito]

Just throwing out another random idea that may or may not even be feasible:

Would your spouse be willing to work during the trip? Is there any way you could apply for a grant to study something or write about something in Machu Pichu? Any local travel agents or travel writers who might buy the pictures you take? Are either of you in a creative field where you could somehow leverage the trip as a work assigment (covering local history, taking video, etc.)?

 

[floresco]

Huh. The Church seems to feel differently. Marriage is not a dictatorship of the husband; it’s a partnership. No offense, but it’s wrong to take one small passage of the Bible out of its context and elevate it over the rest. The two passages always cited for wives’ submission are Ephesians 5 and Collossians 3; but both of them make it absolutely clear that the husbands are to love their wives as themselves. Yes, Jesus is head of the Church; but Jesus gave His life for the Church. So if any husband wants to start strutting around saying “Me heap big male! Me make choice!” he needs to sacrifice his entire self – to the point of death – for the sake of the marriage first.

Let’s see what the Church teaches about the marriage partnership:

Yes, let’s see. Here is Casti Connubii 26-28

1. Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of love,” as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: “Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church.”[29]

1. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs. But it forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself the chief place in love.

1. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .

If you look at the entire encyclical, you will see that it talks about marriage as a partnership as well as the obedience of wives because these things are not mutually exclusive as you seem to think. You have framed the headship of the husband in a negative way, calling it dictatorship, using words like “strutting”. Certainly, this headship does involved self-sacrifice, but when a wife asks for advice one does not tell her “Make your husband sacrifice.” Her part is to submit to her husband and that is what she should be told. When a husband asks the question, it is time to talk about how he must be like Christ, willing to give his life for his wife.

 

[sweetpetunia]

When my grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s,
the first thing my grandfather did was book a cruise to Europe
for the both of them,
so that her final memories would be filled with love.

Awwwww…what a beautiful way to handle a difficult cross.