Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on May 14, 2021, 12:18:00 PM
-
Are they manly or p****-whipped?
-
husbands should listen to their wives too. they have opinions, and the husband's opinion is not absolute simply because he's a man. be humble. compromise.
-
Are they manly or p****-whipped?
more details necessary
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9y2Yr1wxRzo (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9y2Yr1wxRzo)
-
more details necessary
At my chapel here, I see many sheepish husbands doing everything they can to placate their wives and children. Is this good or bad?
1 Cor. 7:33 simply states a fact: "he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife", but St. Paul doesn't say husbands shouldn't please their wives.
Col. 3:19 seems to imply husbands should placate their wives: "Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter towards them."
Should a husband obey/compromise with the wife in everything but sin?
-
Are they manly or *****-whipped?
This is vile and impure language, which does not belong on a Catholic forum.
-
This is vile and impure language, which does not belong on a Catholic forum.
I totally agree. The whole thread is stupid and no one would ever miss a thing if it were deleted.
-
At my chapel here, I see many sheepish husbands doing everything they can to placate their wives and children. Is this good or bad?
1 Cor. 7:33 simply states a fact: "he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife", but St. Paul doesn't say husbands shouldn't please their wives.
Col. 3:19 seems to imply husbands should placate their wives: "Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter towards them."
Should a husband obey/compromise with the wife in everything but sin?
It certainly can be a problem. I knew a guy (not Catholic, no kids) who really wanted to be self-employed. His wife insisted that he stay working at a mine (good pay/benefits), so he did. He was quite unhappy and miserable to be around. The day after the mortgage was paid (house was in wife's name) he came home to find his clothes and a copy of the divorce papers on the front porch. By not having any spine, even though it did not involve sin, he made both of them miserable.
-
more details necessary
Yep, a million more details needed. Is he always conceding even when it seems not to be for the good of the family? Is he letting her overrule all his decisions? For things indifferent to the welfare of souls in the family, "yes, dear" is a virtue, and giving up your own desires for hers is a virtue. But if he ends up caving simply to avoid the inevitable fight, that could be weakness or, as I've seen it in some cases, resignation. That phrase when uttered regularly can have the sense of: "whatever you want, because you don't care what I think anyway." Prudential considerations dictate whether he should be more forceful or not, especially the receptivity by the subject. There are many women, the more you try to impose something on them, the more rebellious they become.
I've noticed this in life. Men who are willing to obey are much more common than women. Men make good soldiers and officers and leaders, because they're willing to operate in a hierarchical structure and don't take it personally. Women, however, have a strong tendency to rebel. Now, it has bee less so to some extent in earlier times in human history, but I believe only marginally. You see Traditional Catholics who, while paying lip service to their role of subjection in marriage, don't really believe it and hardly ever act like that's the case. I think the societies that are able to teach virtues to women are the ones where there's a strong female culture and education, where women desire not to be shunned by other women, and that's the only thing that works to keep them on the straight and narrow from feminism.
-
At my chapel here, I see many sheepish husbands doing everything they can to placate their wives and children. Is this good or bad?
1 Cor. 7:33 simply states a fact: "he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife", but St. Paul doesn't say husbands shouldn't please their wives.
Col. 3:19 seems to imply husbands should placate their wives: "Husbands, love your wives and be not bitter towards them."
Should a husband obey/compromise with the wife in everything but sin?
We don't really know them to be able to judge. Sacrificing oneself and one's wishes is a virtue ... when the matter is morally indifferent. Hey, i want chocolate cake for dinner, but my wife really prefers vanilla. "Yes, dear." That is self-sacrifice and strength, not weakness. But if he's caving to her whims on things that he decides would not be good for the souls of the family, then, yes, that would be weakness. Also, it's important to try to teach women subjection and humility, so they do have to avoid being total pushovers where they consider themselves in charge. She should be told that every time he gives in to her wishes, it's not a concession of his authority, but rather of his generosity. Otherwise, by constantly giving in on trivial things, one could give the impression that this is the rule rather than an exception.
Again, some men might have wives that will simply not accept being told what to do, and those can be a dry martyrdom for these me, and they realize the futility of putting up any fight ... knowing that it'll lead to a total blowup, threats of divorce, vitriolic assaults on the man's character, lack of peace in the family, etc.
So people keep forgetting to include considerations from the most prince of all the virtues, prudence ... the one which decides how much of what virtue can be practiced when and to what extent.
So we don't know the makeup of these women and what the husband recognize or do not recognize about whether there's any point in forcing their subjection.
-
It certainly can be a problem. I knew a guy (not Catholic, no kids) who really wanted to be self-employed. His wife insisted that he stay working at a mine (good pay/benefits), so he did. He was quite unhappy and miserable to be around. The day after the mortgage was paid (house was in wife's name) he came home to find his clothes and a copy of the divorce papers on the front porch. By not having any spine, even though it did not involve sin, he made both of them miserable.
Well, there's a case where I could see a decision going either way. What if his self-employed venture had failed and then the family really struggled? Women have a stake in the stability of their husband's work. I know one guy, a Motu Catholic, who quit one job after another, went on unemployment while he worked get-rich-quick schemes (which all failed). He couldn't stand the thought of sucking it up and working a normal job. Finally his wife couldn't take it anymore and divorced him. They were constantly going on food stamps and unemployment and barely scɾαριɳg by. That guy was grossly negligent in providing for his family. Now, does his negligence justify divorce? No, of course not ... as you are bound for richer or for poorer.
-
This is vile and impure language, which does not belong on a Catholic forum.
Agreed, but Trump was a good candidate despite his constant use of such language.
-
Well, there's a case where I could see a decision going either way. What if his self-employed venture had failed and then the family really struggled? Women have a stake in the stability of their husband's work. I know one guy, a Motu Catholic, who quit one job after another, went on unemployment while he worked get-rich-quick schemes (which all failed). He couldn't stand the thought of sucking it up and working a normal job. Finally his wife couldn't take it anymore and divorced him. They were constantly going on food stamps and unemployment and barely scɾαριɳg by. That guy was grossly negligent in providing for his family. Now, does his negligence justify divorce? No, of course not ... as you are bound for richer or for poorer.
also his problem is that he was a prideful ass thinking he can suddenly get rich
look at anyone who is actually rich -- it takes them years of sacrifice and actual hard work, not "ooh shiny the stock market, i hope apple's doing well"
"there's a sucker born every minute" -p.t. barnum
-
if he wanted a get-rich quick scheme, he should've robbed a bank or become a famous pentecostal preacher.
-
This is vile and impure language, which does not belong on a Catholic forum.
It's descriptive, like the word "sodomite". It means an effeminate husband whose wife plays on his weakness to carnal desires in order to control/manipulate him.
-
The whole thread is stupid and no one would ever miss a thing if it were deleted.
Husbands today need to know how to govern their wives. Who's teaching them this? Modern marriage manuals (even traditional Catholic ones) don't mention the duties of a husband toward his wife that 15th century Cherubino da Siena, O.F.M., did in his Rules of Married Life (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=7923):
1. instruction
2. correction
3. sustenance.
-
Husbands today need to know how to govern their wives. Who's teaching them this? Modern marriage manuals (even traditional Catholic ones) don't mention the duties of a husband toward his wife that 15th century Cherubino da Siena, O.F.M., did in his Rules of Married Life (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=7923):
1. instruction
2. correction
3. sustenance.
For the judaized Catholic wife, can ignore 1 and 2.... but buddy, don't you dare forget number 3. :jester:
-
For the judaized Catholic wife, we can ignore 1 and 2.... but buddy, don't you dare forget number 3. :jester:
-
the societies that are able to teach virtues to women are the ones where there's a strong female culture and education, where women desire not to be shunned by other women, and that's the only thing that works to keep them on the straight and narrow from feminism.
Feminist women today desire "to be shunned by other women"?
-
I know one guy, a Motu Catholic, who quit one job after another, went on unemployment while he worked get-rich-quick schemes (which all failed). He couldn't stand the thought of sucking it up and working a normal job. Finally his wife couldn't take it anymore and divorced him.
What his wife doing?
-
For the judaized Catholic wife, we can ignore 1 and 2.... but buddy, don't you dare forget number 3. :jester:
Yes, husbands today especially neglect #1 and #2.
If husband's can't instruct and correct their wives, then how can they educate and discipline their own children?
-
When we were together, I never did jack to "placate" my wife. Not sure what her illicit consort does now. Maybe she placates him, I can't say. She hasn't seen our son in over a year, by her choice.
I find this whole concept of "SWMBO" (she who must be obeyed) to be, well, "whipped", to refer back to the rude (yet very apt) figure of speech in the OP. In fact, when I saw the subject line, before I even read further, "PW" was the first thing that came to mind.
-
Husbands today need to know how to govern their wives. Who's teaching them this? Modern marriage manuals (even traditional Catholic ones) don't mention the duties of a husband toward his wife that 15th century Cherubino da Siena, O.F.M., did in his Rules of Married Life (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=7923):
1. instruction
2. correction
3. sustenance.
I find reminding her of #3 to be one of the most effective tactics for correcting an unruly wife. My wife isn't Catholic, but she receives all three of those duties whether she wants them or not.
-
Husbands today need to know how to govern their wives. Who's teaching them this? Modern marriage manuals (even traditional Catholic ones) don't mention the duties of a husband toward his wife that 15th century Cherubino da Siena, O.F.M., did in his Rules of Married Life (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=7923):
1. instruction
2. correction
3. sustenance.
Sounds good but in reality, how many men would you take instruction or correction from?
They would have to be well formed in the truth and in virtue.
-
I find reminding her of #3 to be one of the most effective tactics for correcting an unruly wife. My wife isn't Catholic, but she receives all three of those duties whether she wants them or not.
Another reason it's bad for women to be financially independent -- especially to have better job prospects/career/education than their husband.
Bp. Williamson addressed this point in his famous Rectors Letter about women in college.
-
Husbands today need to know how to govern their wives. Who's teaching them this? Modern marriage manuals (even traditional Catholic ones) don't mention the duties of a husband toward his wife that 15th century Cherubino da Siena, O.F.M., did in his Rules of Married Life (https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=7923):
1. instruction
2. correction
3. sustenance.
-
I find reminding her of #3 to be one of the most effective tactics for correcting an unruly wife. My wife isn't Catholic, but she receives all three of those duties whether she wants them or not.
Just as a kind of side thought, and this wouldn't work if a husband were the sole financial support of his family (which is the ideal), but the way my wife and I always handled it, I had my bank account, and she had hers. When it came time to pay bills, I would sit down with a spreadsheet, and the expenses held in common (rent, utilities, groceries, etc.), we would split down the middle, she would allow me to transfer funds from her account to my account, to cover "her half", and I would then pay the bills. Then how I spent "my money" was my business, and how she spent "her money" was her business. If there had ever been a shortfall from either one of us --- "I can't pay my half" --- then there would have been a problem. In 14 years of being together, that problem never arose. Then, if I chose to buy electronics or computer equipment from "my money", no problem. One month she spent $600 on arts and crafts supplies. When I saw the bill, I said "hoo-boy!" or something like that, but if that's how she wanted to spend "her money", fine. Never in 14 years did we have a single fight or disagreement about money. Not even once.
Now, again, before anybody's hackles get raised, let me reiterate that this really wouldn't work if a husband were the sole breadwinner. But for us, it worked just fine. Also, I funded my retirement investments, and she funded hers. Each of us saved a boatload of money. And let me also be clear that I quite aware, in marriage, both from a spiritual and a legal standpoint, all goods are held in common. I get that. In theory, we never challenged that --- once upon a time, I foresaw that I was going to have an expense of over $1000, and I didn't have it to spare. I asked her if I could get the money from her. She said yes without hesitation. It didn't materialize, but if it had, it wouldn't even have been an issue. When, sadly, we got our divorce, my attorney told me "your financial issues are simple", and they were. They usually aren't. No, our big issue was custody of our son, and I would have gladly lived in a double-wide and eaten from a food pantry, if it would have meant retaining primary custody of our son. Well, I did, and it didn't come to that.
Needless to say, marriage wasn't created by Almighty God so that two oppositely-gendered people could set up housekeeping, confer mutual rights WRT this and that, and be good financial managers. Parenthood came late for us. Just why that happened, is beyond the scope of this post. But for people who marry later in life and never have children, or who find themselves unable to have children (a couple may adopt, and that is praiseworthy, but AFAIK there is no moral obligation to do so), such an arrangement works very well. If someone can produce magisterially binding Catholic teaching as to why a childless couple may not maintain separate but collaborative finances, I'd be much obliged, but lacking that, I propose this as a solution that eliminates many problems.
-
SM, you talk about how great your financial arrangement was with your wife ... and yet here you are divorced. I would be surprised if her independence did not contribute to that. There’s no such thing as just financial matters.
-
SM, you talk about how great your financial arrangement was with your wife ... and yet here you are divorced. I would be surprised if her independence did not contribute to that. There’s no such thing as just financial matters.
Our marriage was far from being all bad --- she and I get along very well for our son's sake, and she even still laughs at my corny jokes and puns. I'm not one to be a "splitter" --- to characterize situations, or people, as being totally bad or totally good in some kind of Manichaean dualism (not saying that you are doing that). It was complicated and a scenario I shall not discuss here, aside from saying that the world of secular work outside the home can indeed cause problems for women within marriage. Enough said about that.
It's pretty difficult these days for a man to find a woman who is willing to bow out of the working world. With the way that the working world is pretty much totally dominated by women and all of the various interest groups and intersectionalities, I am seriously looking into helping my son to get set up in his own business or manual apprenticeship. He shows far more signs of being a skilled tradesman or mechanic, than of being a liberally and classically educated Renaissance man. (That said, the deep philosophical questions he comes up with sometimes, all on his own, never cease to amaze me.)
-
I had my bank account, and she had hers.
St. Thomas, addressing whether the wife can give alms without her husband's consent, says the wife can have her own allowance and income:
Summa Theologica II-II q. 32 a. 8 (https://isidore.co/aquinas/summa/SS/SS032.html#SSQ32A8THEP1) ad 2:A wife, who has other property besides her dowry which is for the support of the burdens of marriage, whether that property be gained by her own industry or by any other lawful means, can give alms, out of that property, without asking her husband's permission: yet such alms should be moderate, lest through giving too much she impoverish her husband. Otherwise she ought not to give alms without the express or presumed consent of her husband, except in cases of necessity as stated, in the case of a monk, in the preceding Reply. For though the wife be her husband's equal in the marriage act, yet in matters of housekeeping, the head of the woman is the man, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:3). As regards Blessed Lucy, she had a betrothed, not a husband, wherefore she could give alms with her mother's consent.
-
I find reminding her of #3 to be one of the most effective tactics for correcting an unruly wife.
St. Alphonsus addresses whether a husband should feed an adulterous wife…
-
St. Alphonsus addresses whether a husband should feed an adulterous wife…
:confused: ...to the lions ?
;)
-
:confused: ...to the lions ?
;)
‘sdat you, Emile?
-
‘sdat you, Emile?
:laugh1:
-
:confused: ...to the lions ?
;)
I think he says he should feed her, though not excessively; excessive food is matter for lust.
-
I take my advice on drinking from sober men, my advice on investment from wealthy men, and my advice on good marriages from men who have had long successful marriages and whose children have married well and stayed married.
-
my advice on good marriages from men who have had long successful marriages and whose children have married well and stayed married.
So not from celibate priests?
-
No, practically what do they know?
-
No, practically what do they know?
Parish priests counsel thousands of marriages of all different types; they confess mostly marrieds. They have training in moral theology, too.
Most married people have only seen one marriage up close and personal (and not even objectively, because they're within it): their own (and their parents' to a lesser degree).
-
I take my advice on drinking from sober men, my advice on investment from wealthy men, and my advice on good marriages from men who have had long successful marriages and whose children have married well and stayed married.
Stupidest post of the week. :facepalm:
So a reformed drunkard has no useful advice on the sinfulness of excessive drinking? 👌
-
Stupidest post of the week. :facepalm:
So a reformed drunkard has no useful advice on the sinfulness of excessive drinking? 👌
I wouldn't go so far as to call it "stupid", but both of your points are well taken.
Having been married and divorced, I could tell any man who cares to listen, some things you might do --- and that I didn't do --- to secure the integrity of one's marriage, home, and family. Had to learn the hard way.
One thing --- and this isn't necessarily a reference to adultery --- is do not ever let third parties into your home (physically or psychologically) to the extent that they end up running your lives. There's a certain stripe of person who will do that if you let them --- they live for such an opportunity. Once a man loses sovereignty of his own home, it's pretty much game over. Mistake made that wouldn't be repeated, if there ever were a second time. All I'm going to say about that.
-
Once a man loses sovereignty of his own home, it's pretty much game over.
How exactly does the husband lose sovereignty?
-
How exactly does the husband lose sovereignty?
By getting married. :clown:
-
How exactly does the husband lose sovereignty?
By allowing interlopers, over-reachers, kibitzers, and that certain kind of person who sees themselves as a "savior of the world", especially when their task is to "educate" or "liberate" your wife, or to "reform" your home into "what it is supposed to be". There are other types of interference.
-
By getting married. :clown:
Facetiousness aside, there is a truth to this.
-
Women want to get married but they don't want to be wives.
-
husbands should listen to their wives too. they have opinions, and the husband's opinion is not absolute simply because he's a man. be humble. compromise.
Crypto-feminist alert ^
-
Women want to get married but they don't want to be wives.
And definitely not mothers.
-
We are helpers to our husbands.
-
Crypto-feminist alert ^
Is that you Croix?
-
Croix: hates Jews and hates women. I hope your next neighbors are a Jєωιѕн family with 5 daughters:jester:
-
Croix: hates Jews and hates women. I hope your next neighbors are a Jєωιѕн family with 5 daughters:jester:
God hates Jews so Croix is in good company. And most feminist women in modern America are no better than the Jews
-
Never meddle in somebody else's marriage. Some of those yes dear husbands may be perfectly happy with their arrangement.
-
Never meddle in somebody else's marriage. Some of those yes dear husbands may be perfectly happy with their arrangement.
Amen to that. See my above comments.
But I would like to find some way, to educate "yes, dear" husbands that their obsequiousness is not worthy of a Catholic man.
Sometimes I suspect that, at one point back in the past, the wife has caught the husband up in something, and as a result, he has become basically her b**** for life.
-
I know of one yes dear husband. He was not chaste before the marriage and gave his wife herpes. I think he let himself be ruled in part because he ruined her life. They divorced eventually and he found that he couldn't stand on his own. He needs a dominant woman and he got married again after a year. I don't know what went wrong with him but while we all chuckled at him or felt sorry for him; he was in an arrangement that met his needs.
-
I know of one yes dear husband. He was not chaste before the marriage and gave his wife herpes. I think he let himself be ruled in part because he ruined her life. They divorced eventually and he found that he couldn't stand on his own. He needs a dominant woman and he got married again after a year. I don't know what went wrong with him but while we all chuckled at him or felt sorry for him; he was in an arrangement that met his needs.
No man should ever "need" any woman. Full stop.
-
No man should ever "need" any woman. Full stop.
Right. Codependency isn't good.
1 Cor 11:9: "the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man."
The man comes first and is self-subsistant like God. The woman comes from and depends upon the man.
-
Stupidest post of the week. :facepalm:
So a reformed drunkard has no useful advice on the sinfulness of excessive drinking? 👌
There are no reformed drunkards. Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic.
If sin and repentance were better than chastity and sober living, Our Lady and Our Lord would have sinned to learn their lessons and be better examples to us. They did not.
There is no teaching to stray off the narrow path so you better know what it looks like when you return. The prodigal son was not superior to the brother who stayed at home and worked the land.
My heroes and those I seek to imitate are the little quiet people who live good lives and don't screw up.
-
There are no reformed drunkards. Once an alcoholic always an alcoholic.
That is not true.
If sin and repentance were better than chastity and sober living, Our Lady and Our Lord would have sinned to learn their lessons and be better examples to us. They did not.
There is no teaching to stray off the narrow path so you better know what it looks like when you return. The prodigal son was not superior to the brother who stayed at home and worked the land.
Who claimed that sin and repentance would be better than chastity and sober living? This is a straw man argument, of course it's better to remain chaste and not go astray.
My heroes and those I seek to imitate are the little quiet people who live good lives and don't screw up.
Exactly!