Marriage Question

[StColette]

I thought some of these quotes would be great to post here when it comes to this topic

Pope Pius XI

[quote]“The submission of the wife neither ignores nor suppresses the liberty to which her dignity as a human person and her noble functions as wife, mother, and companion give her the full right.

It does not oblige her to yield indiscriminately to all the desires of her husband; and his desires may be unreasonable or incompatible with her wifely dignity.

It does not mean that she is on a level with persons who in law are called minors. And minors are ordinarily denied the unrestricted exercise of their rights because of their immature judgment and not having enough experience.[/quote]



In Pope Pius XI’s own words:

[quote]“It refuses... to allow the heart to be separated from the head.”

“As the husband holds the primacy of authority, so the wife can and ought to claim the primacy of love.”[/quote]



St. JoseMaria Escrivá said (cf. The Navarre Bible — Captivity Epistles):

[quote]“On this basis of fundamental equality, each must achieve what is appropriate to him. Each must achieve what is appropriate to her.

Women are called to bring to the family, to society, and to the Church characteristics which are their own and which they alone can give:

— their gentle warmth,

— their untiring generosity,

— their love for detail,

— their quick-wittedness and intuition,

— their simple and deep piety,

— and their constancy.”[/quote]


St. John Chrysostom wonderfully said to the husbands about this passage:

[quote]“Have you seen the measure of obedience? Hear also the measure of love. Would you have your wife obey you as the Church obeys Christ? Then you care for your wife as Christ cares for the Church. And if it is necessary that you should give your life for her or be cut to pieces a thousand times or endure anything whatever, do not refuse it. He brought the Church to His feet by His great care, not by threats nor fear nor any such thing; so that’s how you must conduct yourself toward your wife!”[/quote]

Beautiful quotes

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html"]On the Dignity & Vocation of Women [/url] by Pope John Paul II would be something great to read as well.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='StColette' post='1677377' date='Oct 14 2008, 04:52 PM']For example last night Micah really wanted to go to this one restaurant and I put up a fight about it because I wanted to go to a different one. He was very stubborn about it and so was I but it came down to the point that I realized this could be one of those moments where I could sacrifice what I want for what my husband wants. I'm glad I did. Turns out my coworkers had planned a baby shower for me at the restaurant Micah was trying to get me to go to.[/quote]
It was really fun to act like a selfish jerk and see your reactions just to get you to a party.

[philothea]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1677358' date='Oct 14 2008, 04:29 PM']But what if the man thinks his opinion is "better" than his wife's, and decides they should go with his opinion, when in reality they would've been better off going with the wife's opinion?[/quote]

Then you deal with it. Obedience is a virtue. Humility as well. What do professed religious do when their superior tells them to do something stupid?

Best not to marry someone whose judgment you don't trust.

[quote name='StColette' post='1677377' date='Oct 14 2008, 04:52 PM']For example last night Micah really wanted to go to this one restaurant and I put up a fight about it because I wanted to go to a different one. He was very stubborn about it and so was I but it came down to the point that I realized this could be one of those moments where I could sacrifice what I want for what my husband wants. I'm glad I did. Turns out my coworkers had planned a baby shower for me at the restaurant Micah was trying to get me to go to.[/quote]

[StColette]

[quote name='philothea' post='1677389' date='Oct 14 2008, 05:20 PM'][/quote]

I know, I felt pretty silly for putting up such a fight before saying to myself "I'm gonna be selfless and go where he wants" lol

[Ash Wednesday]

Yeah, I thought I was really clever quoting My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Until I saw that CrossCut already posted it.




FAIL.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Ash Wednesday

[CatherineM]

In the few things that we have truly disagreed about, and he basically had the last word, I thought I would be angry or feel second class, but instead I felt a great sense of relief. I took care of myself and made all my own decisions until I was 43 years old. Having him take that weight off my shoulders may be one of the greatest blessings I've received from the marriage. For a strong willed, opinionated female to admit that, is huge. Yielding to the way that God has made me, a woman and a wife, rather than fighting against the tide, is liberating.

[HisChildForever]

So if there really isn't a huge difference between husband and wife (I'm acknowledging that there's a difference), then why is it blown out of proportion sometimes? Or, I should ask, why is this little difference nitpicked and pulled apart so that it eventually turns into something it's not, which leads to argument? I mean this generally.

Anyway, if the only difference between husband and wife is that the husband is expected to have the final say, then why is this? Why can't the woman? Or why can't they just come to a compromise? Does Scripture say [i]why[/i] it's the man? Why does biology determine this?

[CatherineM]

This isn't based on my understanding of scripture, or on anything scientific. It is based purely on my experiences as a married woman. I feel compelled to do little things like straightening his collar as he goes out the door, or worrying over his hair needing a trim, in a way that I never have felt before. It's the same thing that makes him stop and grab my hand when going down a curb so I don't fall. When two people are joined in marriage, and live it in the right way, natural instincts come out in the same way that natural maternal instincts come out in new mothers. 99.9% of the time we either agree or come to a compromise. In that .1% where we couldn't, I yielded in faith in every case except one. He wanted to invest in a condo that was a bad investment. In that case, I pulled out my "lawyer knows best" card.

I wouldn't have believed it before being married. I was the epitome of a strong, independent woman, who could handle anything by herself. So, I am certainly willing to believe that it is biological, or perhaps something else deeper. Remember, marriage is a sacrament, which is outward sign of an internal grace being bestowed. I am willing to believe that the sacrament changed me, allowed me to experience being a true woman. That role, that I was born into, isn't a compromise, it isn't belittling. It is fulfilling if I let it be. I have seen a similar change in my husband. He has become more protective and sheltering.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1677457' date='Oct 14 2008, 06:34 PM']So if there really isn't a huge difference between husband and wife (I'm acknowledging that there's a difference), then why is it blown out of proportion sometimes? Or, I should ask, why is this little difference nitpicked and pulled apart so that it eventually turns into something it's not, which leads to argument? I mean this generally.

Anyway, if the only difference between husband and wife is that the husband is expected to have the final say, then why is this? Why can't the woman? Or why can't they just come to a compromise? Does Scripture say [i]why[/i] it's the man? Why does biology determine this?[/quote]


It's the man who has the final say because he is meant to be an image of Christ himself whose bride is the church and she lovingly submits to Him.


What with secular feminists that are gaining momentum this is a really hard thing for them to accept. I know because I go to a secular women's college! My history professor went as far as to say that the church saw women as either

1. sympathetically: Women are stupid and are like minors who can't take care of themselves.

2. misoginist: Women are agents of the devil because of what Eve did by cooperating with him and leading Adam into sin.

(Both takes are simply not true about how the church ever has or ever will view women.)

Have some men abused patriarchy in the name of faith. Yes, the bible can easily be twisted and taken out of context to suit other people's corrupt desires. Yet, not every man in church history or contemporary catholic men do this. It's the small percentage of the bad guys that get the attention unfortunately.

[LivingStone]

I've heard a lot of extreme feminists that denounce the Church's stance that "doesn't see women as equal of men"...

In a sense, men and women aren't equal (in the sense of sameness). When our Creator has made man and women, he has made each soul differently. I believe, from the philosophy that I've learned, that gender is NOT determine physically; rather, is determined from the soul, and the gender differences physically is an expression of the differences in the soul.

In example, I feel that it is written on the man's heart to be head of the household. This doesn't imply domination, but a power and duty to protect the household. Just as Christ was the head of the Church, so too is man the head of a household. This means that man needs to be ready to die as Christ did for his household, and especially his wife. I feel it is written on the woman's heart to take a less external active role in protection and is the foundation of the household [i]internally[/i].

Is every household perfect where this is the case? no. Are men and women equal (meaning sameness)? no, I don't think they were supposed to be. They are not the same and many people are trying to intermix the two genders:
-Men are trying to take the woman's role, and problems happen
-Women are trying to take the man's role, and problems happen
-Men are trying to become women and women are trying to become men by means of a sex change, but as I said earlier, God made you a man, you are a man (written on your soul, cannot change it despite physicalities)...

That's it. Let me know what ya think.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1677457' date='Oct 14 2008, 06:34 PM']Anyway, if the only difference between husband and wife is that the husband is expected to have the final say, then why is this? Why can't the woman? Or why can't they just come to a compromise? Does Scripture say [i]why[/i] it's the man? Why does biology determine this?[/quote]
Theologically, it's because Eve came from Adam's side. Because he was her "source," he has authority over her. This was the way it was always viewed. Christianity reinforces this by calling Christ the "Bridegroom" and the Church the "Bride." The Bride is saved through the Bridegroom by submitting to Him in humble obedience. Whether in sex or in theology, the Bride comes from the Groom and the two are united once again. In theology, that loving union of the Church with Christ is ultimately what we call heaven. So we can see an image of that in the natural world; the union of man and woman is a good and beautiful thing, the ultimate meaning and reality of marriage. Marriage should reflect the Church's relationship with God.

"It is not good for man to be alone." The original unity of man is insufficient, but the unity of man and wife is a unity that is at the same time a bond of love between two. It's a diversity in unity instead of a straight-up unity. That's why the unity of marriage is so very important and so much more than the unity of a single person.

Because woman originates from man, one could theologically say that when a woman becomes one with her husband, she "returns" to him what is missing in him. This obviously is felt both ways, but let's not get too literal. In any event, she is "based on" her husband and he is her head (this is not in any way to say that she has less dignity or is incomplete without him).

The unity of marriage goes beyond the marriage bed and must go into practical living. In all things, the husband has the ultimate duty to make sure that the unity remains (but he also can't force unity, both a husband's authority and a wife's obedience are necessary for that), but most husbands would only make a point out of exercising this authority in extreme cases, where disagreement would break apart the family or cause severe strain to unity.

A wife must submit to her husband because he is the head of the family, he is her "head." Eve came from Adam, not Adam from Eve. At the same time, as JPII said, Eve came from Adam's side to be loved, not from his head to rule over him or his feet to be ruled by him. The submission of marriage is a mutual submission; on the husband's part, a submission of will to die to himself for the good of his wife, to choose what is good for her and the family and not just for himself; on the wife's part, a submission of humble obedience to respect the authority of the husband out of love. If either submission is missing, this situation gets twisted into something it was never intended to be.

[b]Note:[/b] this does not guarantee that the man's logic or reasoning or decision-making skills will be correct, but it does place the obligation of leadership on the man. The man has authority over his wife, but also bears the ultimate responsibility for those choices. It is all the more important, then, that a man love his wife truly and deeply. The need for a wife to submit to her husband is a call for greater love and devotion from the husband, not a call for laxity and selfishness on the part of the husband.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1677405' date='Oct 14 2008, 05:43 PM']Yeah, I thought I was really clever quoting My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Until I saw that CrossCut already posted it.




FAIL.[/quote]



If you're going to do something, please do it right

like this.....

[img]http://b.mektroid.net/fail_cat.jpg[/img]

[Hassan]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1677457' date='Oct 14 2008, 06:34 PM']So if there really isn't a huge difference between husband and wife (I'm acknowledging that there's a difference), then why is it blown out of proportion sometimes? Or, I should ask, why is this little difference nitpicked and pulled apart so that it eventually turns into something it's not, which leads to argument? I mean this generally.

Anyway, if the only difference between husband and wife is that the husband is expected to have the final say, then why is this? Why can't the woman? Or why can't they just come to a compromise? Does Scripture say [i]why[/i] it's the man? Why does biology determine this?[/quote]

?

The Bible is a product of it's times.

It isin't into women's lib for the same reason it doesn't evidence any knoledge of the physical universe or geography or anything beyond what it's constituent believers would have known at the time the various books were written.

I think that is the most fair answer anyway

[picchick]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1678300' date='Oct 15 2008, 02:57 PM']It's the man who has the final say because he is meant to be an image of Christ himself whose bride is the church and she lovingly submits to Him.


What with secular feminists that are gaining momentum this is a really hard thing for them to accept. I know because I go to a secular women's college! My history professor went as far as to say that the church saw women as either

1. sympathetically: Women are stupid and are like minors who can't take care of themselves.

2. misoginist: Women are agents of the devil because of what Eve did by cooperating with him and leading Adam into sin.

(Both takes are simply not true about how the church ever has or ever will view women.)

Have some men abused patriarchy in the name of faith. Yes, the bible can easily be twisted and taken out of context to suit other people's corrupt desires. Yet, not every man in church history or contemporary catholic men do this. It's the small percentage of the bad guys that get the attention unfortunately.[/quote]

It is true that not every man has done this within the church. However, women were seen as stupid and they were seen as second class. I believe that this stemmed from the secular world seeing them as such. In acient times, women were not seen as equals to men. Even in recent history, women were not allowed to vote. It is not feminists who are making this up. It is what has happened. You cannot tell me that the Church did not hold this view as history played out. Of course the Church acknowledges many great women saints. However, they so under the clause "extraordinary".

[Hassan]

[quote name='tinytherese' post='1678300' date='Oct 15 2008, 01:57 PM']It's the man who has the final say because he is meant to be an image of Christ himself whose bride is the church and she lovingly submits to Him.


What with secular feminists that are gaining momentum this is a really hard thing for them to accept. I know because I go to a secular women's college! My history professor went as far as to say that the church saw women as either

1. sympathetically: Women are stupid and are like minors who can't take care of themselves.

2. misoginist: Women are agents of the devil because of what Eve did by cooperating with him and leading Adam into sin.

(Both takes are simply not true about how the church ever has or ever will view women.)

Have some men abused patriarchy in the name of faith. Yes, the bible can easily be twisted and taken out of context to suit other people's corrupt desires. Yet, not every man in church history or contemporary catholic men do this. It's the small percentage of the bad guys that get the attention unfortunately.[/quote]

it's not twisting the context to suffust that the Bible depicts men as superior to women. One can make a distinction between spiritual and legal inequality however I think at least the OT is clearly patriarchial. The NT seems to be better though. It does state that no women is to have authority over a man, I think that is clear even if Paul does claim that men and women are one before Christ.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

[quote name='Raphael' post='1678333' date='Oct 15 2008, 04:32 PM']Theologically, it's because Eve came from Adam's side. Because he was her "source," he has authority over her. This was the way it was always viewed. Christianity reinforces this by calling Christ the "Bridegroom" and the Church the "Bride." The Bride is saved through the Bridegroom by submitting to Him in humble obedience. Whether in sex or in theology, the Bride comes from the Groom and the two are united once again. In theology, that loving union of the Church with Christ is ultimately what we call heaven. So we can see an image of that in the natural world; the union of man and woman is a good and beautiful thing, the ultimate meaning and reality of marriage. Marriage should reflect the Church's relationship with God.

"It is not good for man to be alone." The original unity of man is insufficient, but the unity of man and wife is a unity that is at the same time a bond of love between two. It's a diversity in unity instead of a straight-up unity. That's why the unity of marriage is so very important and so much more than the unity of a single person.

Because woman originates from man, one could theologically say that when a woman becomes one with her husband, she "returns" to him what is missing in him. This obviously is felt both ways, but let's not get too literal. In any event, she is "based on" her husband and he is her head (this is not in any way to say that she has less dignity or is incomplete without him).

The unity of marriage goes beyond the marriage bed and must go into practical living. In all things, the husband has the ultimate duty to make sure that the unity remains (but he also can't force unity, both a husband's authority and a wife's obedience are necessary for that), but most husbands would only make a point out of exercising this authority in extreme cases, where disagreement would break apart the family or cause severe strain to unity.

A wife must submit to her husband because he is the head of the family, he is her "head." Eve came from Adam, not Adam from Eve. At the same time, as JPII said, Eve came from Adam's side to be loved, not from his head to rule over him or his feet to be ruled by him. The submission of marriage is a mutual submission; on the husband's part, a submission of will to die to himself for the good of his wife, to choose what is good for her and the family and not just for himself; on the wife's part, a submission of humble obedience to respect the authority of the husband out of love. If either submission is missing, this situation gets twisted into something it was never intended to be.

[b]Note:[/b] this does not guarantee that the man's logic or reasoning or decision-making skills will be correct, but it does place the obligation of leadership on the man. The man has authority over his wife, but also bears the ultimate responsibility for those choices. It is all the more important, then, that a man love his wife truly and deeply. The need for a wife to submit to her husband is a call for greater love and devotion from the husband, not a call for laxity and selfishness on the part of the husband.[/quote]

[puellapaschalis]

This might be veering off-topic a bit, but: does Raphael's post assume monogenesis, that is, that the human race is descended from one original "breeding pair"?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1681382' date='Oct 19 2008, 07:21 PM']This might be veering off-topic a bit, but: does Raphael's post assume monogenesis, that is, that the human race is descended from one original "breeding pair"?[/quote]

Now that you mention it - I always thought Catholics were to see Genesis as symbolic rather than literal.

[MissyP89]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1681386' date='Oct 19 2008, 07:30 PM']Now that you mention it - I always thought Catholics were to see Genesis as symbolic rather than literal.[/quote]

That's true--i.e., the world wasn't created in six literal days. However, I think it would be safe to assume that Eve did come after, and possibly from, Adam. But that's just my view of the whole thing.

[i]Sorry to anyone who caught me in the middle of editing that mess.[/i]

Edited October 19, 2008 by MissyP89

[Hassan]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1681382' date='Oct 19 2008, 07:21 PM']This might be veering off-topic a bit, but: does Raphael's post assume monogenesis, that is, that the human race is descended from one original "breeding pair"?[/quote]

I believe Pope John Paul the Great settled this by saying that while physical ancestors may have preceded Adam he was the first "human" with an immortal soul.

The rational still breaks down because then Eve would not have come from Adam in a physical sense I don't don't see how that can be corrected by assigning that to a spiritual derivation.

I think there is a history of the Church not accecpting a literal account of Genesis, for example St. Augustine's "Confessions" however the Church seems to have still taken it literally for a long time as a body, which may be why some of these explinations no longer fit.

I ono