Marriage Question

[Slappo]

Genesis isn't merely symbolic or merely literal. It is both. It gives us both symbolism, and also factual information.

Symbolism is seen in the creation story of 6 days. The 4th day rules over the 1st, the 5th over the 2nd and the 6th over the 3rd. Look at the breakdown of the days, it's actually really cool. It builds into a pyramid.
7
3 6
2 5
1 4

What is the story showing? The 7th day as the climax. It is a writing style used to emphasize a certain part.

At the same time you have the creation story of Adam and Eve (there are two creation stories in Genesis that if both taken literally contradict each other). Adam is created and God tells Adam to till and keep the garden, or a stronger translation of the text would be something more like to minister to and guard the garden. The garden can then be symbolic of Eve. The garden is fruitful, woman is fruitful, the "womb" of the garden bears the fruit (the tree of life), and the womb of Eve is to bear fruit. Adam is then meant to MINISTER to and GUARD the "garden" or Eve, his wife.

The fall of Eve is just as much a fall of Adam because why? Adam failed even before Eve did in that he failed to GUARD her from the serpent. This puts both the responsibility of mankind on Adam in that he is the one commanded by God to guard, but also the fault on Adam in that he failed.

Men are then to minister to and guard their wives. This means to love them with complete self gift (by ministering to them), but also calling the plays in that it is his job, his responsibility to guard her, and therefore her responsibility to LET him guard her. If the wife is supposed to help perfect the role of man, and man the role of wife, and if mans role is to guard, it is woman's role to be guarded, to receive his protection.




Now, another point that has yet to be brought up, part of what it means to be the head is to DELEGATE responsibilities. If a wife is obviously better at finances then the man... it would be his responsibility to step aside and have her balance the checkbook and manage finances. He is still in charge in the sense that he has set himself aside and HUMBLED himself (men have a huge ego and pride) by asking his wife to manage the finances. He both grows in virtue through humility, AND grows in manliness through leading the family. It is extremely beautiful how the relationship between a man and woman works.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[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 assume monogenesis because the Church assumes monogenesis.

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own." -Humani Generis 37

Overall, the creation account is to be read as a story with a deeper theological truth, not as a science text. However, the fact that we have two original first parents is such an important theological truth that we cannot possibly let go of it. Pope Pius XII made many concessions to modern Biblical scholarship; this was not one of them.

I invite you to read the tract on this at Catholic Answers: [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp[/url].

God bless,

Micah

[tinytherese]

[quote name='picchick' post='1680804' date='Oct 18 2008, 08:19 PM']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".[/quote]

Well, it wouldn't be the first time that I've been wrong.

[scardella]

Men = pants
Women = barefoot and pregnant

Any questions?

[jeffpugh]

Watch yourself. You might get pwn'd for that.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='scardella' post='1682578' date='Oct 21 2008, 03:46 PM']Men = pants
Women = barefoot and pregnant

Any questions?

[/quote]
When I announced my pregnancy to my family, I sent them a picture of me standing barefoot in the kitchen.

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1683314' date='Oct 22 2008, 09:43 AM'] When I announced my pregnancy to my family, I sent them a picture of me standing barefoot in the kitchen. [/quote]

Did you also include some text in the email, or did you all know that a picture of you barefoot in the kitchen would be enough to convey the message by itself?!

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='puellapaschalis' post='1683404' date='Oct 22 2008, 03:34 PM']Did you also include some text in the email, or did you all know that a picture of you barefoot in the kitchen would be enough to convey the message by itself?![/quote]
Yes, I did have some text. The caption was "Barefoot. . . in the kitchen". My brother called me immediately to ask if it meant what he thought it meant.

[missionseeker]

Awesome!

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1683515' date='Oct 22 2008, 09:25 PM']Yes, I did have some text. The caption was "Barefoot. . . in the kitchen". My brother called me immediately to ask if it meant what he thought it meant. [/quote]

Excellent!!

[scardella]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1682863' date='Oct 21 2008, 06:23 PM']Watch yourself. You might get pwn'd for that.[/quote]

I'm willing to risk it...

[-I---Love]

scardella - I just noticed your status and would like to say Congrats!! That's really awesome!!

[scardella]

[quote name='-I---Love' post='1685377' date='Oct 24 2008, 06:22 PM']scardella - I just noticed your status and would like to say Congrats!! That's really awesome!![/quote]

Oops.. I just realized that's 3 months out of date! It's now up to date!

[jeffpugh]

Rockin'. That's awesome! Congrats.

[Saint Therese]

What's pwn'd?

[Sarah_JC]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1680799' date='Oct 18 2008, 08:14 PM']?

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[/quote]


The Bible, especially the gospels, was/is radical. This includes women's lib. Jesus healed the women with the hemorrhage (according to jewish law her touching him would make him unclean), Jesus spoke to women he didn't know (scandalous at the time), the first person he appeared to resurrected was a woman. By his actions, our Lord made a very clear effort to show he valued women equally, as intelligent spiritual people. If Jesus wanted to change anything else about gender roles, he would have. He clearly had no qualms about breaking social customs.

I like to think of myself as a feminist. I think there's a lot of people calling themselves feminists who are really anti-woman. Making women into men means one thinks there's something wrong with femininity. I don't think St. Paul wrote to sum up our gender roles, but to address what was missing because of concupiscence. I tend to think of the submission as allowing myself to be loved. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't be the only one who's terrible at receiving gifts (both immaterial and material ). It's a gift to the giver to receive the gift. So often I let my pride get in the way and deny my loved ones the joy of bringing me joy. Maybe that's not what St. Paul meant, but that's what I take from it.