Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Anσnymσus Posts Allowed => Topic started by: Änσnymσus on July 29, 2013, 11:05:27 AM
-
This is a question for married women only:
Have any of you had serious difficulty in obeying your husband due to doubts about his ability to love and care for you and how did you overcome it?
Another scenario is not letting him lead because of past indiscretions or poor judgments on his part?
I'm hoping to hear from ladies who have successfully worked past this issue and find joy in being obedient even when it seems less than ideal.
God bless.
-
This is yet more evidence that we need a women's subforum with access granted solely by Mrs. Moderator, MaterDominici.
Only those who are female and have registered as such should be allowed to contribute to conversations of such a sensitive nature unless one of the contributors is a priest.
-
It's an internet forum, how are they to know anyone's identity unless they require something like a $1 paypal donation from a verified address? If it shouldn't be posted publicly then it shouldn't be posted on a forum, even a "private" one.
-
Women's subforum? Have the feminists invaded? Modernists?
:confused1:
-
Napoli, there are many times on CI when issues come up that really belong in the realm of older women teaching and encouraging the younger women. The idea of a separate subforum which could be restricted to moderators, priests (if there are any on here) and the female members of the forum has nothing at all to do with feminism or modernism. It would be a worthwhile safeguard against sharing topics which can only rightly be understood by women with men who are total strangers and not ordained to priestly ministry. Likewise, sensitive topics which could be occasions of sin to men could be discussed in relative confidentiality.
-
The trick is to make him think that you are obeying him when in truth he is doing what you want. You need not be rash or dominant in any way, but sweet and gentle.
Be INDIRECT in your approach and gain his heart and his life-time devotion! Be truly feminine, but not servile.
-
I've had to turn to the priest before on speakerphone. I try to lay the blame on myself when possible, and not throw personal barbs, but I let the situation be known without embarrassing my husband. While my husband's usually angry at first, he's very obedient of our priest, and the priest really doesn't have to say much to right the wrong-headed thinking. In fact, the priest usually just says "I'll pray for [situation] and your whole family," and suggests we do a rosary. (My husband is a blessing, but he has a temper and shouldn't make important decisions when in that state of mind.)
-
The trick is to make him think that you are obeying him when in truth he is doing what you want. You need not be rash or dominant in any way, but sweet and gentle.
Be INDIRECT in your approach and gain his heart and his life-time devotion! Be truly feminine, but not servile.
That seems pretty manipulative to me. And dishonest.
Also, aren't wives suppose to serve their husbands.
-
The trick is to make him think that you are obeying him when in truth he is doing what you want. You need not be rash or dominant in any way, but sweet and gentle.
Be INDIRECT in your approach and gain his heart and his life-time devotion! Be truly feminine, but not servile.
That seems pretty manipulative to me. And dishonest.
Also, aren't wives suppose to serve their husbands.
Maybe. Can you share your successes with serving your husband?
-
Napoli, there are many times on CI when issues come up that really belong in the realm of older women teaching and encouraging the younger women. The idea of a separate subforum which could be restricted to moderators, priests (if there are any on here) and the female members of the forum has nothing at all to do with feminism or modernism.
I just want to point out that the two concrete suggestions so far (and I believe both have come from women) are (1) manipulate your husband and (2) gang up on him with your priest.
-
The trick is to make him think that you are obeying him when in truth he is doing what you want. You need not be rash or dominant in any way, but sweet and gentle.
Be INDIRECT in your approach and gain his heart and his life-time devotion! Be truly feminine, but not servile.
That seems pretty manipulative to me. And dishonest.
Also, aren't wives suppose to serve their husbands.
We are helpmates of our husbands but not slaves. We serve them but not as objects or maids.
What if our husbands wants us to commit sins and err against Our Lord? Are we to obey them then, even at the cost of the salvation of our immortal souls? I don't think so.
I'm the one that wrote about being truly feminine but not "servile", by the way.
-
What if our husbands wants us to commit sins and err against Our Lord? Are we to obey them then, even at the cost of the salvation of our immortal souls? I don't think so.
Who condoned that on this thread? That's a strawman.
-
This is why St. Paul says women are to be silent in church.
Listen you feminist leaning women who don't know any better:
Obviously if there are VALID reasons that you CANNOT reasonably obey your husband, then you are not bound in obedience. That is something for which you consult a priest. (and these days you have to be careful because a lot of priests will tell women what they want to hear) Not a board where secret feminist "trads" are lurking.
As for "having difficulty" obeying husband, that seems pretty vague. Is it an actual specific issue or is it rather you don't believe he should be your boss?
If it's the latter you have a problem of wishing to usurp authority.
And yes, you women can't run from us here and pontificate without us men setting you straight. Wouldn't you love that special privilege!
-
I also don't think that my advice is manipulative even if it sounded that way. This is just how men are. It is reality. Men do not respond to the same way of women and women are foolish if they pretend to deal with men with the same logic that they would with other women. We understand and appreciate an honest conversation. Men in their nature, become competitive every time they feel threatened or we try to blame them. Men don't deal with guilt like women do.
Chances are that if you try to point out to your husband his past mistakes in hope for him to change his mind and not make the same mistakes, he will become instantaneously defensive and stubborn.
I insist, is better to use INDIRECT ways. This is ancient female wisdom in dealing with men.
-
I wonder if it's typical for women in these chapels to work together to undermine their husbands' authority, as we see being instigated in this thread?
-
I also don't think that my advice is manipulative even if it sounded that way. This is just how men are. It is reality. Men do not respond to the same way of women and women are foolish if they pretend to deal with men with the same logic that they would with other women. We understand and appreciate an honest conversation. Men in their nature, become competitive every time they feel threatened or we try to blame them. Men don't deal with guilt like women do.
Chances are that if you try to point out to your husband his past mistakes in hope for him to change his mind and not make the same mistakes, he will become instantaneously defensive and stubborn.
I insist, is better to use INDIRECT ways. This is ancient female wisdom in dealing with men.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. But the word "trick" and the phrase "make him think" and "he is doing what you want", all seem manipulative.
-
Ignorant women begrudge male dominance. Smart women go around it, smother it with feminine charm, tease it into submission, and manage the pressures
Feminism promotes ‘get in his face’ as the way to protect a woman’s interests. This nullifies her natural strengths for shaping a man’s behavior
-
tease it into submission
Manipulation.
Instead of an ignorant feminist, I'd call that a crafty feminist.
-
Ignorant women begrudge male dominance. Smart women go around it, smother it with feminine charm, tease it into submission, and manage the pressures
Catholic women obey their husbands.
-
Ignorant women begrudge male dominance. Smart women go around it, smother it with feminine charm, tease it into submission, and manage the pressures
Catholic women obey their husbands.
What if the husband isn't a Catholic?
-
This is yet more evidence that we need a women's subforum with access granted solely by Mrs. Moderator, MaterDominici.
Only those who are female and have registered as such should be allowed to contribute to conversations of such a sensitive nature unless one of the contributors is a priest.
I agree. It would be better having a female - only board with no access to men, so we can discuss these type of issues.
-
Ignorant women begrudge male dominance. Smart women go around it, smother it with feminine charm, tease it into submission, and manage the pressures
Catholic women obey their husbands.
What if the husband isn't a Catholic?
If the marriage is valid, and he isn't telling you to sin, you are still subject to him.
-
This is yet more evidence that we need a women's subforum with access granted solely by Mrs. Moderator, MaterDominici.
Only those who are female and have registered as such should be allowed to contribute to conversations of such a sensitive nature unless one of the contributors is a priest.
I agree. It would be better having a female - only board with no access to men, so we can discuss these type of issues.
Why? Because they will give you permission to disobey your husband?
-
Ignorant women begrudge male dominance. Smart women go around it, smother it with feminine charm, tease it into submission, and manage the pressures
Catholic women obey their husbands.
What if the husband isn't a Catholic?
Talk to a priest. It can be quite delicate. Unfortunately many good women who want to be good wives are put in very difficult positions sometimes. This is not the place to ask for advice.
-
Ignorant women begrudge male dominance. Smart women go around it, smother it with feminine charm, tease it into submission, and manage the pressures
Catholic women obey their husbands.
What if the husband isn't a Catholic?
If the marriage is valid, and he isn't telling you to sin, you are still subject to him.
And if he's telling you to sin?
We don't know exactly what is the difficulty the OP is having obeying her husband. What if it is of evil matter?
-
This is yet more evidence that we need a women's subforum with access granted solely by Mrs. Moderator, MaterDominici.
Only those who are female and have registered as such should be allowed to contribute to conversations of such a sensitive nature unless one of the contributors is a priest.
I agree. It would be better having a female - only board with no access to men, so we can discuss these type of issues.
Why? Because they will give you permission to disobey your husband?
No. Because there are issues that are better understood and discussed among women - only. Stop feeling threatened. Now you are being defensive!
-
No. Because there are issues that are better understood and discussed among women - only. Stop feeling threatened. Now you are being defensive!
If an issue is a public issue and you don't want men to comment on it it's pretty clear you think only women should be authorities on it.
It's very obvious to me that such women are common in trad circles and they work to undermine the authority of men and police the women to make sure that they are not properly submissive.
-
Ignorant women begrudge male dominance. Smart women go around it, smother it with feminine charm, tease it into submission, and manage the pressures
Catholic women obey their husbands.
Their equally Catholic husbands. It would not be difficult, in fact, quite wonderful to obey a true Catholic gentleman.
-
No. Because there are issues that are better understood and discussed among women - only. Stop feeling threatened. Now you are being defensive!
If an issue is a public issue and you don't want men to comment on it it's pretty clear you think only women should be authorities on it.
It's very obvious to me that such women are common in trad circles and they work to undermine the authority of men and police the women to make sure that they are not properly submissive.
Define properly submissive
-
Their equally Catholic husbands. It would not be difficult, in fact, quite wonderful to obey a true Catholic gentleman.
A wive's obedience isn't contingent on her husband fitting some model of being a "true Catholic gentleman."
That being said, there are many issues, and not just issues of sin, where obedience is not required.
Any woman who is having trouble with unreasonable demands should discuss the matter with a priest who respects male authority in the home. If it is really a trial of conscience for you I'm sorry.
-
This is yet more evidence that we need a women's subforum with access granted solely by Mrs. Moderator, MaterDominici.
Only those who are female and have registered as such should be allowed to contribute to conversations of such a sensitive nature unless one of the contributors is a priest.
I agree. It would be better having a female - only board with no access to men, so we can discuss these type of issues.
Why? Because they will give you permission to disobey your husband?
No. Because there are issues that are better understood and discussed among women - only. Stop feeling threatened. Now you are being defensive!
Beside that, men have no business advising a another man's wife on most matters regarding marital issues other than, "Here's a good book" or "Talk to a priest" but even then it is still a fine line. This goes triple for unmarried men, especially in regards to correcting women. I don't think they really give much thought to the fact that they are talking to another man's wife.
There is also a line that should not be crossed when women are advising other women, mostly in advising anything that would hurt the marriage and turn husband and wife against one another.
There shouldn't be any problem with a woman wanting advice from women. If I had a simple marital problem, the first person I would ask for advice would be a happily married, pious woman.
-
It is the Catholic Church that reinstated the proper dignity of womanhood through our Blessed Virgin Mary.
Frankly, there are a lot of posters in this forum that resemble more Protestant puritans or even moslems in their views of women. Don't cross the line!
-
It is the Catholic Church that has restored the proper dignity of womanhood through our Blessed Virgin Mary.
Frankly, there are a lot of posters in this forum that resemble more Protestant puritans in their views of women.
You will have to be more specific about what you mean. What do Puritans teach about women and how is it similar to what is being said by "many of the Catholics on this forum" ? What does the Church specifically teach about women that isn't being upheld by Catholics on this forum ? Are women allowed to disobey their husbands in matters that are not sinful because they have a low opinion of their husband's judgment ? Or he's not Catholic, so many of the things that he says can be dismissed ?
-
Beside that, men have no business advising a another man's wife on most matters regarding marital issues other than, "Here's a good book" or "Talk to a priest" but even then it is still a fine line.
Who do you think you're kidding? I will tell a woman what I think is right, and on a public internet forum you'd better be sure we're not going to let certain belligerent women carry on their manipulative trad chapel harpie routine.
If someone asks someone what the church teaches, and a man says what the truth is, but the feminist says the opposite and says men have no right to say anything, then I'm guessing the feminist cares less about church teaching than about undermining it.
Which is why they aren't allowed to pontificate, exclude men from public discussions, etc.
If you want to speak privately about things no one is stopping you.
You want to have a special platform on this board where you can't be contradicted.
-
Their equally Catholic husbands. It would not be difficult, in fact, quite wonderful to obey a true Catholic gentleman.
A wive's obedience isn't contingent on her husband fitting some model of being a "true Catholic gentleman."
That being said, there are many issues, and not just issues of sin, where obedience is not required.
Any woman who is having trouble with unreasonable demands should discuss the matter with a priest who respects male authority in the home. If it is really a trial of conscience for you I'm sorry.
This advice seems to be solid. It seems best to consult a good priest on this subject, rather than other women, since this thread has demonstrated that not all the women who would give advice are thinking in a very Catholic way.
-
This advice seems to be solid. It seems best to consult a good priest on this subject, rather than other women, since this thread has demonstrated that not all the women who would give advice are thinking in a very Catholic way.
It seems obvious to me that some of these women believe in colluding with each other as to what "obedience" means, and policing the group. This could well be the reason we see so much trad feminism. So if a man ends up in trouble at his chapel and in his marriage because of these hens, it's probably because women are told they must trust the hens, no one else (except the priest) has a right to answer simple questions, and the hens will often manipulate the priest.
-
This is yet more evidence that we need a women's subforum with access granted solely by Mrs. Moderator, MaterDominici.
Only those who are female and have registered as such should be allowed to contribute to conversations of such a sensitive nature unless one of the contributors is a priest.
This thread is a PERFECT example why it is a bad idea to discuss these things among men and women. :facepalm:
-
Notice the attack on "single males" etc - not their business?
Then why put it up for public discussion? If single males can't make judgments about such things, why do you trust priests to do so?
Seems to me the attitude of those who attack men discussing such things, is very similar to the attitude of those who would dismiss priests as being "unmarried men" found among non-traditional people.
-
Frankly, there are a lot of posters in this forum that resemble more Protestant puritans or even moslems in their views of women.
And frankly, my dear, there are a lot of feminists on this forum posing as traditionalists who resemble Gloria Steinem or Barbra Streisand in their views of a woman's role.
-
This is a question for married women only:
Have any of you had serious difficulty in obeying your husband due to doubts about his ability to love and care for you and how did you overcome it?
Another scenario is not letting him lead because of past indiscretions or poor judgments on his part?
I'm hoping to hear from ladies who have successfully worked past this issue and find joy in being obedient even when it seems less than ideal.
God bless.
This is a question for married women only:
This is a question for married women only:
This is a question for married women only:
This is a question for married women only:
:fryingpan:
-
And frankly, my dear, there are a lot of feminists on this forum posing as traditionalists who resemble Gloria Steinem or Barbra Streisand in their views of a woman's role.
I wouldn't say they resemble Gloria Steinem or Barbra Streisand. They do resemble bossy church ladies who have some feminism in their systems.
The claim that a public discussion regarding how and when women should obey their husbands should be closed to trad men is pretty revealing.
It leads to the "tradition" that we see in practice. Women, in a group, are to decide what teachings on marriage actually mean, and men had better not contradict them or they'll be compared to Muslims, extreme protestant sects, etc.
This attitude, in society at large, (because of men in influential positions fostering it, to undermine men lower in social status) results in a situation where marriage in practice ceases to be a two-way contract and becomes an arrangement that exists for women, with obligations only falling on men, not truly falling on women, who will find a group of women and a liberal priest to dispense them from their marital obligations.
-
And frankly, my dear, there are a lot of feminists on this forum posing as traditionalists who resemble Gloria Steinem or Barbra Streisand in their views of a woman's role.
I wouldn't say they resemble Gloria Steinem or Barbra Streisand. They do resemble bossy church ladies who have some feminism in their systems.
The claim that a public discussion regarding how and when women should obey their husbands should be closed to trad men is pretty revealing.
It leads to the "tradition" that we see in practice. Women, in a group, are to decide what teachings on marriage actually mean, and men had better not contradict them or they'll be compared to Muslims, extreme protestant sects, etc.
This attitude, in society at large, (because of men in influential positions fostering it, to undermine men lower in social status) results in a situation where marriage in practice ceases to be a two-way contract and becomes an arrangement that exists for women, with obligations only falling on men, not truly falling on women, who will find a group of women and a liberal priest to dispense them from their marital obligations.
I say they resemble Steinem and Streisand because there seems to be a lot of "I am woman; hear me roar" BS. Not only that, any woman who attempts to manipulate her husband or bend him to her will is a feminist. Period. I've seen plenty of women at trad chapels who clearly wear the pants in their families. Maybe that the husband's fault in that he refuses to exercise his role or maybe the husband is browbeaten into submission.
-
Beside that, men have no business advising a another man's wife on most matters regarding marital issues other than, "Here's a good book" or "Talk to a priest" but even then it is still a fine line.
Who do you think you're kidding? I will tell a woman what I think is right, and on a public internet forum you'd better be sure we're not going to let certain belligerent women carry on their manipulative trad chapel harpie routine.
If someone asks someone what the church teaches, and a man says what the truth is, but the feminist says the opposite and says men have no right to say anything, then I'm guessing the feminist cares less about church teaching than about undermining it.
Which is why they aren't allowed to pontificate, exclude men from public discussions, etc.
If you want to speak privately about things no one is stopping you.
You want to have a special platform on this board where you can't be contradicted.
If you think it is okay to call another man's wife a harpie, I hope you have the courage to do it to his face.
-
FWIW I think it's a matter of courtesy to acceed to the reasonable wishes of the person who opens a thread or broaches a conversation or question, i.e. to abide within the confines that person sets if they are reasonable ones.
For what little it's worth too, I was once told that the father and husband's authority is for the sake of his office. the office of father or husband -- which is for the sake of the family, for God's sake, not for his own person's sake?
It may be that a lot of men don't understand this and see it as a means of self-indulgence instead.
But I don't understand the matter fully myself so I hesitate to say much about it.
I've heard it's about virtue. The more gracefully virtuous you are the better everything will work, because virtue is beautiful and desirable and trustworthy. But you do it for God and then God through the family and its members. So even if the members don't value it properly, God does, and besides, all good is His truly.
You respect the office and God and the husband in that he bears this and is after all, the husband.
A lot of stuff belongs in private or in more personal forum. Perhaps this is some of that. I don't know. It's anonymous at least.
Hope this helps a little. Forgive me if not or for any mistakes.
Turn to Mary, and her mercy, Ave Maria.
-
This advice seems to be solid. It seems best to consult a good priest on this subject, rather than other women, since this thread has demonstrated that not all the women who would give advice are thinking in a very Catholic way.
It seems obvious to me that some of these women believe in colluding with each other as to what "obedience" means, and policing the group. This could well be the reason we see so much trad feminism. So if a man ends up in trouble at his chapel and in his marriage because of these hens, it's probably because women are told they must trust the hens, no one else (except the priest) has a right to answer simple questions, and the hens will often manipulate the priest.
Our Lord never referred to women as hens, even with their fears, worries, and womanly concerns. Women consult with one another because friendships between married people of opposite genders are an occasion of sin, men are not to be the confidants and companions of married women.
You can make your point without calling names and vilifying ladies.
-
Notice the attack on "single males" etc - not their business?
Then why put it up for public discussion? If single males can't make judgments about such things, why do you trust priests to do so?
Seems to me the attitude of those who attack men discussing such things, is very similar to the attitude of those who would dismiss priests as being "unmarried men" found among non-traditional people.
Priests are not single, they are in the clerical state. The word refers to state in life.
-
:popcorn:
-
If you think it is okay to call another man's wife a harpie, I hope you have the courage to do it to his face.
I wonder if the women who inspired that word being used in the first place would like their husbands to hear them telling a public forum of how they find ways to manipulate and "trick into submission" their husbands rather than obey them in spirit...
-
Our Lord never referred to women as hens, even with their fears, worries, and womanly concerns. Women consult with one another because friendships between married people of opposite genders are an occasion of sin, men are not to be the confidants and companions of married women.
You can make your point without calling names and vilifying ladies.
Gossipy feminist hens in trad circles say they support Catholic marriage however they constantly conspire to undermine it in practice. That is just a reality, it doesn't necessarily apply to anyone here, although those who say men have no business discussing these matters obviously want to have the say so.
-
I am truly sympathetic to any woman in a truly difficult situation, where her submission to her husband is tested by his unreasonable actions.
That being said, don't expect trad women to tell you to do the right thing.
-
Our Lord never referred to women as hens, even with their fears, worries, and womanly concerns. Women consult with one another because friendships between married people of opposite genders are an occasion of sin, men are not to be the confidants and companions of married women.
You can make your point without calling names and vilifying ladies.
Gossipy feminist hens in trad circles say they support Catholic marriage however they constantly conspire to undermine it in practice. That is just a reality, it doesn't necessarily apply to anyone here, although those who say men have no business discussing these matters obviously want to have the say so.
Additionally, it seems okay for the hens to ask what Our Lord said or didn't say, but they conveniently omit what Our Lady's behaviour would be in her role as a model for wives.
-
Our Lord never referred to women as hens, even with their fears, worries, and womanly concerns. Women consult with one another because friendships between married people of opposite genders are an occasion of sin, men are not to be the confidants and companions of married women.
You can make your point without calling names and vilifying ladies.
Gossipy feminist hens in trad circles say they support Catholic marriage however they constantly conspire to undermine it in practice. That is just a reality, it doesn't necessarily apply to anyone here, although those who say men have no business discussing these matters obviously want to have the say so.
Additionally, it seems okay for the hens to ask what Our Lord said or didn't say, but they conveniently omit what Our Lady's behaviour would be in her role as a model for wives.
I'm not the one verbally abusing other men's wives. You can't see or demonstrate the behavior of women towards their husbands here, but you are giving the rest of us words by which to judge your poor character. Those who are harsh and accusatory are often lacking in prayer life or have bigger sins to hide.
No one has given the OP any public advice regarding her specific issue, other than the normal, good non-descript advice. The OP was basically stating, " I have a problem, I need advice from other married women who have over come the same problem-- I want to be good and do my duties well, please help me" there was only a basic, general description given of them problem, in a modest manner. At no point did any of the ladies or men advise the OP in such a manner that would be scandalous or warrant making a confession.
If many of the women were to take the time to write out a detailed response, I'm sure there would be good advice that would be completely agreeable to even the men on here who belittle and hate women. The point is that you are on a paranoid witch hunt, well, that and you have no manners. You turned a thread where someone humbly asked for advice into something about you, your agenda, and your need for a good tirade.
-
"I'm not the one verbally abusing other men's wives."
Verbal abuse!
Sounds like an excuse!
Do what you want, these men are abusers!
So say the gossipy hens.
-
This advice seems to be solid. It seems best to consult a good priest on this subject, rather than other women, since this thread has demonstrated that not all the women who would give advice are thinking in a very Catholic way.
It seems obvious to me that some of these women believe in colluding with each other as to what "obedience" means, and policing the group. This could well be the reason we see so much trad feminism. So if a man ends up in trouble at his chapel and in his marriage because of these hens, it's probably because women are told they must trust the hens, no one else (except the priest) has a right to answer simple questions, and the hens will often manipulate the priest.
Our Lord never referred to women as hens, even with their fears, worries, and womanly concerns. Women consult with one another because friendships between married people of opposite genders are an occasion of sin, men are not to be the confidants and companions of married women.
You can make your point without calling names and vilifying ladies.
I agree, such speech is disgusting, and would never come from a Catholic gentleman. There must be non-Catholics posting on here. I hope Matthew gets rid of them.
-
I agree, such speech is disgusting, and would never come from a Catholic gentleman. There must be non-Catholics posting on here. I hope Matthew gets rid of them.
It's about time that Catholic men stop worrying about feminist-minded women stating they feel abused when the propensity of gossip and manipulation of many very unpleasant "trad" women is discussed.
As for the white knights, they should stop their woman worshipping.
If you can't stand up to women, you can't stand up to anyone.
-
I am a Catholic man who still believes in chivalry.
-
[22] Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: [23] Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it. Ephesians 5:22-25
It's two-fold.
-
I am a Catholic man who still believes in chivalry.
19th Century chivalry is about enabling women behaving badly and intruding on the private lives of men who are beset by their bad behavior.
It's not genuine chivalry.
In the old days, a lot of these "chivalrous" men would end up being dealt with violently because of their meddling.
We live in an age of feminism.
Chivalry is for ladies, not for women who conspire to subvert Catholic marriage.
-
[22] Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: [23] Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it. Ephesians 5:22-25
It's two-fold.
But it's not contingent.
It's not:
I'll obey my husband when he loves me as Christ loves the Church.
That's something he'll never live up to.
Women read that as an excuse not to obey their husbands. It's nothing of the kind.
-
I never said 19th century chivalry, I mean medieval chivalry.
-
Okay Don Quixote, protector of chapel hens.
-
The Knights Code of Chivalry and the vows of Knighthood
The Knights Code of Chivalry described in the Song of Roland and an excellent representation of the Knights Codes of Chivalry are as follows:
To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
To protect the weak and defenceless
To give succour to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honour and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honour of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honour of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe
-
"I was once told that the father and husband's authority is for the sake of his office. the office of father or husband -- which is for the sake of the family, for God's sake, not for his own person's sake?
It may be that a lot of men don't understand this and see it as a means of self-indulgence instead".
I agree with this. I think there are some men out there that abuse their authority over submissive wives. Instead of leading the family towards a true Christian home, they just indulge in selfish pleasures and disrespect their women, commit all kind of sins and expect their wives to be silent.
Of course, I am talking about non-Catholics and Catholics in name only. A true Catholic gentleman would understand his real position as lead of the home and not abuse his authority.
-
Someone thumbs down the Code of Catholic Knights. Amazing!
-
Someone thumbs down the Code of Catholic Knights. Amazing!
A resentful, self hating, lonely youth, no doubt. Probably not enjoying any favor from any lady.
-
I've never heard of the Code of Catholic Knights. From where/when does it originate?
-
Someone thumbs down the Code of Catholic Knights. Amazing!
I think he is downthumbing its applicability to this discussion.
Our religion isn't based on the Song of Roland btw.
We need more men willing to punish women, rather than protect them while they do wrong.
-
I've never heard of the Code of Catholic Knights. From where/when does it originate?
http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/knights-code-of-chivalry.htm
-
Someone thumbs down the Code of Catholic Knights. Amazing!
I think he is downthumbing its applicability to this discussion.
Our religion isn't based on the Song of Roland btw.
We need more men willing to punish women, rather than protect them while they do wrong.
Catholic ladies must be honored and protected from those seeking to "punish" them. It is the duty of any Catholic gentleman do protect the ladies.
-
[22] Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: [23] Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. [25] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it. Ephesians 5:22-25
It's two-fold.
But it's not contingent.
It's not:
I'll obey my husband when he loves me as Christ loves the Church.
That's something he'll never live up to.
Women read that as an excuse not to obey their husbands. It's nothing of the kind.
Not what I mean:
"I was once told that the father and husband's authority is for the sake of his office. the office of father or husband -- which is for the sake of the family, for God's sake, not for his own person's sake?
It may be that a lot of men don't understand this and see it as a means of self-indulgence instead".
I agree with this. I think there are some men out there that abuse their authority over submissive wives. Instead of leading the family towards a true Christian home, they just indulge in selfish pleasures and disrespect their women, commit all kind of sins and expect their wives to be silent.
Of course, I am talking about non-Catholics and Catholics in name only. A true Catholic gentleman would understand his real position as lead of the home and not abuse his authority.
-
The Knights Code of Chivalry and the vows of Knighthood
The Knights Code of Chivalry described in the Song of Roland and an excellent representation of the Knights Codes of Chivalry are as follows:
To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
To protect the weak and defenceless
To give succour to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honour and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honour of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honour of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe
:applause:
-
Catholic ladies must be honored and protected from those seeking to "punish" them. It is the duty of any Catholic gentleman do protect the ladies.
In other words, Catholic "ladies" are immune from all responsiblity for their actions because some meddlesome fellow is going to interfere in your private life.
And if you resent gossipy women causing trouble in your marriage, then you mustn't call them on it.
Hmmmm.
We live in a feminist society, trad women are embracing feminism, and these Don Quixotes want to kill "monsters" of their own imagination.
-
I think these days husbands are more sinned against by their wives than they sin themselves.
-
-
Catholic ladies must be honored and protected from those seeking to "punish" them. It is the duty of any Catholic gentleman do protect the ladies.
In other words, Catholic "ladies" are immune from all responsiblity for their actions because some meddlesome fellow is going to interfere in your private life.
And if you resent gossipy women causing trouble in your marriage, then you mustn't call them on it.
Hmmmm.
We live in a feminist society, trad women are embracing feminism, and these Don Quixotes want to kill "monsters" of their own imagination.
A Catholic lady is the opposite of a feminist. Perhaps you have never met one, I know hundreds of good Catholic ladies, worthy of honor and respect.
-
A Catholic lady is the opposite of a feminist. Perhaps you have never met one, I know hundreds of good Catholic ladies, worthy of honor and respect.
Yes, you see hundreds of Dulcineas.
-
I know hundreds of good Catholic ladies, worthy of honor and respect.
I doubt that anyone could know hundreds of women well enough to judge whether or not they are good Catholic ladies.
-
I know hundreds of good Catholic ladies, worthy of honor and respect.
I doubt that anyone could know hundreds of women well enough to judge whether or not they are good Catholic ladies.
Well, I do, and I speak the truth. I am no liar. I know hundreds of Catholic ladies and they are not feminists. I must live in a different world than your feminist dominated worldview.
-
deleted
-
Someone thumbs down the Code of Catholic Knights. Amazing!
A resentful, self hating, lonely youth, no doubt. Probably not enjoying any favor from any lady.
Truly. I don't know if the rejection makes them bitter or their "gentlemanly behavior" just wards off the ladies who know how to spot a loser.
-
Truly. I don't know if the rejection makes them bitter or their "gentlemanly behavior" just wards off the ladies who know how to spot a loser.
Willingness to stand up to women is attractive to women, which is one of the main reasons it's so strongly attacked.
If suddenly you had men as a group standing up to women and finding it that it works for them, then the feminists would be in real trouble.
Indeed, many "bad" (some really are bad) behaviors are attractive to women, which sometimes is a good reason to discourage them, because it's not good for women to go with bad men. But sometimes what is considered "bad" behavior is just what men in the past did as a matter of custom, which is why marriage was more stable in the past.
-
I might add,
submissiveness in a wife is considered "bad" behavior, and even among trads I'm sure there are many women who are criticized for "excessive" submission.
That sort of behavior is very attractive to men, which is another reason less submissive women want to discourage it, so as to not feel inadequate.
-
A new thread should be started to help the OP with her issue. It should state clearly NO MISOGYNISTS ALLOWED!
-
I love my husband. I thank God for sending him to me.
I would like to "chat" with ladies.
Bishop Williamson said that women are the heart of a family.
That is true.
-
It seems to me that we women tend to care excessively what our friends think. We try mightily to fit into whatever group we are in whether that be worldly type or "religious" type. We all have to think the same, dress the same and live the same type of life. Differences in any of these areas tend to make us very uncomfortable.
I agree with the poster who said that women judge each other for excessive submission and that many women do hold the thought that they really have to stay vigilant against their husbands because they fear if they "give them an inch, they'll take a mile." They're afraid of total submission because they don't trust God and they don't trust their husbands.
Most of us have been raised with the bad examples of our homes and society to believe that if you don't stay dominant in your marriage, your H will turn into a monster who will abuse you and take advantage of your kindness, and you'll never get your needs met.
-
As a Catholic woman, I am truly disgusted at some of these women's posts. It's no wonder you have such problems with your men. Sick feminism is what this is.
If you would learn YOUR place, your husband would benefit from it in so many ways. A priest once told the young ladies of our parish: "A good woman will draw a bad man to good, while a good man will not draw a bad woman to good."
Think about that.
That is power, in the true sense. Try working on your humility to submit, Ladies. You will suffer in the end for your "I am woman" mentality; and you will, in effect, bring your whole family down with you...in this life and the next.
-
As a Catholic woman, I am truly disgusted at some of these women's posts. It's no wonder you have such problems with your men. Sick feminism is what this is.
If you would learn YOUR place, your husband would benefit from it in so many ways. A priest once told the young ladies of our parish: "A good woman will draw a bad man to good, while a good man will not draw a bad woman to good."
Think about that.
That is power, in the true sense. Try working on your humility to submit, Ladies. You will suffer in the end for your "I am woman" mentality; and you will, in effect, bring your whole family down with you...in this life and the next.
It is not feminism. It is ancient female wisdom and common sense. There is nothing wrong trying to influence your husband through indirect ways, when he is clearly erring.
-
When I hear the words "...make him think you are obeying him..." and "be truly feminine, but not servile", it is NOT wisdom, nor common sense. Manipulation comes to mind.
I've seen wives (Trads) do all the talking and decision-making in their homes and the parishes. They stand in front of their husbands instead of behind. And their husbands? Cowering. Ever wonder why there are so many young men still at their mother's apron strings? Even for those who say "be sweet in your approach" to get what you want: your children will pick up on this and come to look at their Father as a pushover.
Really, isn't your husband your best friend? Can't you talk your concerns over with him? Why the trickery?
Behind every good man is his...
Feminist wife?
No. His honest, faithful, caring, gentle, (etc etc) WIFE, who is there for him, through thick and thin, trying to make him the best he can be. This is in our nature, and we get the graces from the Sacrament of Matrimony. Don't be deceived!
-
No. His honest, faithful, caring, gentle, (etc etc) WIFE, who is there for him, through thick and thin, trying to make him the best he can be. This is in our nature, and we get the graces from the Sacrament of Matrimony. Don't be deceived!
I agree with everything you've said ... however, in this part, maybe "help him be the best he can be" might work a little better.
-
I am the OP. It was not my intent to share tips on how to subvert husbands but rather learn how to grow in the virtue of meekness and become a true helpmeet.
I'm sorry the men of the forum have been offended by this thread. I really just wanted discussion on how to overcome aversion to submission. Do not attack me because I am struggling. Rather show compassion for my attempts to do what is right.
-
"Really, isn't your husband your best friend? Can't you talk your concerns over with him? "
How naïve!!!! :facepalm:
-
I am the OP. It was not my intent to share tips on how to subvert husbands but rather learn how to grow in the virtue of meekness and become a true helpmeet.
I'm sorry the men of the forum have been offended by this thread. I really just wanted discussion on how to overcome aversion to submission. Do not attack me because I am struggling. Rather show compassion for my attempts to do what is right.
Not all men on here are the same. I am a Catholic father, and I would not let my daughters when they are of marrying age close to men such as some of these men. I would not allow them to even talk to them. I want my daughters to marry Catholic gentlemen who will love and support my girls, and honor them.
-
I am the OP. It was not my intent to share tips on how to subvert husbands but rather learn how to grow in the virtue of meekness and become a true helpmeet.
I'm sorry the men of the forum have been offended by this thread. I really just wanted discussion on how to overcome aversion to submission. Do not attack me because I am struggling. Rather show compassion for my attempts to do what is right.
I'm really sorry that your thread was de-railed and that you were attacked. It is really hard to have a discussion about such an important topic without unrelated and unfounded accusation flying.
-
I am the OP. It was not my intent to share tips on how to subvert husbands but rather learn how to grow in the virtue of meekness and become a true helpmeet.
I'm sorry the men of the forum have been offended by this thread. I really just wanted discussion on how to overcome aversion to submission. Do not attack me because I am struggling. Rather show compassion for my attempts to do what is right.
I don't think that your first post was what caused any offence. It was the advice that was given by some of the other posters. I was concerned that the reaction to their advice would be misconstrued as being an attack on you, and I am sorry that it was perceived that way. In any case, it seems to me that the rebuke given to the feminist posters who gave you bad advice was actually a defence of your legitimate concerns. God bless you.
-
I hate feminism,, but I also hate mysogynism, both sides of the same disgusting perverse coin.
-
Really? Naive? I must be delusional then. My husband is my BFF, and I wouldn't want to walk through this life with anyone else. (Do you see a couple running through those fields of Daisies? That's us. LOL) Seriously, I think it's naive to think he can't be your best friend.
As for you, OP... I feel for you, and will pray. Our fallen nature makes it hard to submit, I truly know. Sometimes it's repungent, huh? Obviously, you can never obey anything sinful, and as long as you are both "fighting the good fight", you will find things get easier (more or less). Keep your prayers going!
-
Not all men on here are the same. I am a Catholic father, and I would not let my daughters when they are of marrying age close to men such as some of these men. I would not allow them to even talk to them. I want my daughters to marry Catholic gentlemen who will love and support my girls, and honor them.
Define gentleman. Define honour. What is it about women that inspires the honour that was originally considered to be something rightly bestowed by men of noble character ? I think that one of the problems that affects Traditional Catholics is that so many are beholden to conventional Western morality -- most of which has long been removed from its original metaphysical framework as a systematic ethics. But the generic sense of decency and decorum that developed in the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries is not really Catholic.
There is a real place for chivalry, but I don't think that it is well placed in the context of how it was posted here, nor is it being well understood on this thread. That, precisely, is why I personally down-thumbed the "knight's code" being posted on this thread : It is not applicable to the issue, or at least is misapplied, poorly understood, and is introduced typically as a way of shutting down the discussion by appealing to a nice, warm thought rather than manfully facing the real issue at hand. After all, what men could be against the nice warm thought but one who is cold and mean ? "I won't let my daughter get into the violent hands of one of these cold mean men ! She deserves a gentleman."
-
Perhaps if people considered the opening poster a little more and not divert threads, starting new threads on whatever thing they want to discuss things would be more courteous.
I.e., if someone says something you disagree with and it's going to go long, copy/paste, start your diversion thread, link to it, and leave the OP's thread alone?
Takes a little more effort but, you should be thinking before posting and not just running off whatever passion has seized you in any case.
Copy and paste your post into a note file, and think about it awhile before you post, no?
If you want to do reparation and repent a sin or vice, you have to do the opposite virtue and do more of it than just a little. Lots of vice in conversation we all have to work on. God help us. +
-
Really? Naive? I must be delusional then. My husband is my BFF, and I wouldn't want to walk through this life with anyone else. (Do you see a couple running through those fields of Daisies? That's us. LOL) Seriously, I think it's naive to think he can't be your best friend.
As for you, OP... I feel for you, and will pray. Our fallen nature makes it hard to submit, I truly know. Sometimes it's repungent, huh? Obviously, you can never obey anything sinful, and as long as you are both "fighting the good fight", you will find things get easier (more or less). Keep your prayers going!
You are blessed with your husband being your best friend. Not all women share that happiness, though.
-
Not all men on here are the same. I am a Catholic father, and I would not let my daughters when they are of marrying age close to men such as some of these men. I would not allow them to even talk to them. I want my daughters to marry Catholic gentlemen who will love and support my girls, and honor them.
Define gentleman. Define honour. What is it about women that inspires the honour that was originally considered to be something rightly bestowed by men of noble character ? I think that one of the problems that affects Traditional Catholics is that so many are beholden to conventional Western morality -- most of which has long been removed from its original metaphysical framework as a systematic ethics. But the generic sense of decency and decorum that developed in the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries is not really Catholic.
There is a real place for chivalry, but I don't think that it is well placed in the context of how it was posted here, nor is it being well understood on this thread. That, precisely, is why I personally down-thumbed the "knight's code" being posted on this thread : It is not applicable to the issue, or at least is misapplied, poorly understood, and is introduced typically as a way of shutting down the discussion by appealing to a nice, warm thought rather than manfully facing the real issue at hand. After all, what men could be against the nice warm thought but one who is cold and mean ? "I won't let my daughter get into the violent hands of one of these cold mean men ! She deserves a gentleman."
Do you think St. Joseph treated Our Lady in any way other than love, decency, and kindness. He is the model for men, and the men I see posting on here miss the mark.
-
Perhaps if people considered the opening poster a little more and not divert threads, starting new threads on whatever thing they want to discuss things would be more courteous.
I.e., if someone says something you disagree with and it's going to go long, copy/paste, start your diversion thread, link to it, and leave the OP's thread alone?
That presupposes that the bad advice given by the feminist women at the beginning of the thread was not itself the diversion that ruined the OP's thread, which is ridiculous.
Takes a little more effort but, you should be thinking before posting and not just running off whatever passion has seized you in any case.
So then, you are defining your "side" as the winner of the dispute. What distresses me about this is that, in your womanly way, I am not sure you are aware that you are doing it. The whole basis for the dispute is that the OP's thread was being used as a platform for feminist mischief, something that was bothersome to those who were concerned for the well-being of both the OP and others reading this thread.
-
I hate feminism,, but I also hate mysogynism, both sides of the same disgusting perverse coin.
I never thought there were any traditional Catholic misogynists, until recently. Mistakenly, I had always blamed feminism. Now I see that there are as many true feminists as misogynists, in the sphere of traditional Catholicism. Fortunately, the number is small on both sides and I'm going to think well of everyone else until I have been forced otherwise.
I can see how misogyny can cause a reaction of feminism, it still is the wrong reaction though.
-
Do you think St. Joseph treated Our Lady in any way other than love, decency, and kindness. He is the model for men, and the men I see posting on here miss the mark.
No, I don't think that he did. But do you think that all women are just like Our Lady and deserve the same treatment ? What if she is doing wrong or is habitually disobeying her husband in spirit and trying to manipulate him ? Is a man being unloving, indecent, or unkind for correcting his wife when she acts so much unlike Our Lady did towards St Joseph ? What about when women are encouraged to act this way ? Chivalry seems to be not very good if it is opposed to the Truth, justice, and true spousal charity.
Anyway, your post seems to demonstrate that you do not understand the issue at hand. Nobody is attacking being loving, being decent, or being kind. What at least I am precisely attacking is the idea that being loving, decent, and kind means putting women on the pedestal where convention Western mores has placed them in opposition to the history and wisdom of the Church. That is to say, I disagree with your idea of what being loving, decent, and kind looks like.
As for "missing the mark," you will have to be more specific than simply asserting some vague shortcoming on the part of others. Which specific comment showed that the mark was being missed and why ?
-
I disagree with your idea of what being loving, decent, and kind looks like.
Then you disagree with all pre-Vatican Catholic spiritual writers who I learn from. Those are my ideas, and you state you disagree with them.
I learn from St Francis de Sales, Fr. Faber, and many others like them.
-
I disagree with your idea of what being loving, decent, and kind looks like.
Then you disagree with all pre-Vatican Catholic spiritual writers who I learn from. Those are my ideas, and you state you disagree with them.
No, I think what is more likely is that your ideas are your ideas, not that your ideas are the same as those of the great spiritual writers. I gather my own ideas from Catholic theologians and some philosophers. I guess we are at an impasse, then. Either you understand what the theologians and spiritual writers say better or I do. That being said, since you are here claiming that your ideas come directly from Catholic spiritual writers, certainly you would be able to give texts that inform your ideas, give brief interpretations of them, and then we can discuss the matter. In this way, with only a tiny bit of work, the misunderstanding between us can be overcome.
I learn from St Francis de Sales, Fr. Faber, and many others like them.
Could you please provide some samples ?
-
I disagree with your idea of what being loving, decent, and kind looks like.
Then you disagree with all pre-Vatican Catholic spiritual writers who I learn from. Those are my ideas, and you state you disagree with them.
No, I think what is more likely is that your ideas are your ideas, not that your ideas are the same as those of the great spiritual writers. I gather my own ideas from Catholic theologians and some philosophers. I guess we are at an impasse, then. Either you understand what the theologians and spiritual writers say better or I do. That being said, since you are here claiming that your ideas come directly from Catholic spiritual writers, certainly you would be able to give texts that inform your ideas, give brief interpretations of them, and then we can discuss the matter. In this way, with only a tiny bit of work, the misunderstanding between us can be overcome.
I learn from St Francis de Sales, Fr. Faber, and many others like them.
Could you please provide some samples ?
I can assure you that you are wrong in your assumptions about me. I learn from the Doctors, theologians, and approved writers as you claim to do. As time permits, I will post some excerpts.
For now, lets start with St. Paul:
Charity is patient, is kind: charity envieth not, dealeth not perversely; is not puffed up; [5] Is not ambitious, seeketh not her own, is not provoked to anger, thinketh no evil;
I Corinthians XIII.
From Catholic commentary of Lapide:
Ver. 4.—Charity suffereth long and is kind. Ambrose reads: “Charity is high-souled” (so also S. Cyprian and Tertullian, de Patientiâi, c. 12, read), “and is pleasing.” Note, charity is long-suffering, not formally, but in the way of cause, because it produces patience and kindness; because patience, as well as kindness, is an act not elicited but ordered by charity. Tertullian (de Patientiâ, c. 2) beautifully teaches that no virtue is perfect which has not patience as its companion, and so in all the beatitudes which Christ (in S. Matt. v.) enumerates, patience also must be understood. He teaches also (c. 12) that the treasures of charity are held in by the discipline of patience, and that charity herself is taught by patience as her mistress; for, expounding, these words of the Apostle, “charity suffereth long,” he says: Love, the great mystery of the faith, by whose training is she taught save by that of patience? Love,” he, says, “is high-souled, so she adopts patience; she does good, so patience works no evil; envieth not—that also is the property of patience; savours nothing of wantonness—she has drawn her modesty from patience; is not puffed up, behaves not unseemly—for that belongs not to patience. But what would he have left to impatience? Therefore he says, ‘Love beareth all things, endureth all things,’ that is, because she is patient.”
Hence S. Augustine (de Moribus Eccl. c. 15) then defines fortitude: “Fortitude is love bearing easily all things for God’s sake.” In like manner he defines by love the three other cardinal virtues, that they are different forms of love. “We may say,” he says, “that temperance is love preserving itself pure and uncorrupt for God; that justice is love, serving God only, and for the same cause duly ordering other things which have been placed under man; that prudence is love, rightly discerning between those things by which God is served, and by which His service is hindered.” Again (c. xxii.) he says: “That love which we must have towards God, inflamed with all holiness, is called temperate in things that ought not to be sought for, and brave in things which can be lost.” And shortly afterwards: “There is nothing so hard, so steely, which cannot be overcome by the fire of love. By love, when the soul hastens towards God, rising above the defilement of the flesh, it will fly, freely and wonderfully, on most beautiful and most chaste wings, by which pure love strives for the embrace of God.” Every virtue therefore is love and charity, viz., an act of charity not elicited but ordered, because it is ordered, directed, formed, and perfected by charity. Add to this that virtue by itself is love of good. Such was the charity of Christ on the Cross towards His crucifiers, about which S. Bernard (Sermon de Passione Domini) says: “He was smitten with scourges, crowned wish thorns, pierced with nails, fastened to the Cross, laden with reproaches; yet, heedless of all pains, He cried, ‘Forgive them, for they know not what they do.’ How ready art Thou to forgive, 0 Lord! How great is the multitude of Thy sweet mercies! How far are Thy thoughts from our thoughts! How is Thy mercy established on the wicked! A wondrous thing! He cries, ‘For give;’ the Jews, ‘Crucify;’ His words were softer than butter, and they are as darts. Oh, suffering charity, but also long suffering. ‘Charity suffereth long’—it is enough; ‘charity is kind’—it is the crowning point. Because charity is kind, she loves also those whom she tolerates, and loves them so ardently.’ And a little lower: “O Jews, ye are stones, but ye strike a softer stone, from which is given back the sound of piety, from which pours forth the oil of charity. How, 0 Lord, wilt Thou give drink to those who thirst for Thee of the torrent of Thy joy, who so overwhelmest those who crucify Thee with the oil of Thy mercy!”
Envieth not. For, as S. Gregory says (Hom. v. in Evang.), “the good will which charity begets is one that fears others’ misfortunes as its own, which rejoices in the prosperity of its neighbour as in its own, believes others’ losses as its own, and reckons others’ gains as its own.” The reason is, because charity does not regard my things and thine, but those which are God’s. For, as S. Gregory says (ibid.), “whatever we desire in this world, we envy to our neighbour,” for we seem to lose what another gains. For this cause charity is cold where lust is bold. On the contrary, when brotherly love reigns, then lust lives an exile; for, as S. Augustine says (de Doctr. Christ. lib. iii. c. 10), “the more the kingdom of lust is destroyed, the more charity is increased.”
Does nothing wrongly. Perversely, wantonly, maliciously. Some interpret the Greek, “does not chatter idly,” Vatablus, “does not flatter;” Clement (Pædag. c. ii.), “does not paint her face or adorn her head overmuch.” “For worship,” says Clement, “is said to act unseemly which openly shows superfluity and usefulness; for excessive striving after adornment is opposed to God, to reason, and to charity.” Cajetan interprets the word: “is not inconstant;” Theophylact, “is not head-strong, fickle, rash, stubborn;” Ephrem, “is not riotous.” Theophylact again, “doth not exalt itself.” So also S. Basil seems to interpret it. “What,” he asks, “does this word (περπερεύεται) mean?” which the Latin translator of Basil renders: “What do we mean by being boastful and arrogant without cause?” He replies. “That which is assumed, not from necessity but for the sake of superfluous adornment, incurs the charge o unseemliness.” But from these words it is evident that the translator has not followed the mind of S. Basil, and that Basil did not mean boasting and foolish arrogance, but painting, and excessive adornment, as did Clement of Alexandria in the place just cited. Best of all, Chrysostom understands it: “Charity is not forward or wanton, as is the carnal 1ove of lascivious men, wanton women, and harlots.” Whence Tertullian (de Patientiâ, c. xii.) says, “Charity makes not wanton.”
Ver. 5.—Is not ambitious. Ephrem translates it: “Does not commit what is shameful.” Clement (Pædag. lib. iii.c. 1). “Doth not behave itself unseemly.” Our translator with Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Œcuмenius, takes it thus: Charity thinks that nothing is dishonouring or unbecoming to it, though it suffer or do what is vile, ignominious, or degrading. Or more shortly: Charity is not ashamed, because it is ambitious of nothing, and of no honour. Our translator therefore has, from the effect, understood and rendered the cause—the cause why any one is not ashamed is, because he seeks for no honour or glory. Whence Chrysostom and Theophylact think that this is said by Paul against the arrogant. “Charity,” says Chrysostom, “knows not what dishonour and disgrace are; she covers with her wings of gold the vices of all whom she embraces.” So the love of Christ did not spurn or reject harlots, scourgings, or washing of men’s feet. S. Basil understands it (in Regul. Brev. Reg. 246): “Charity doth not depart from her habit and form.” But Œcuмenius: “Charity doth not treat bitterly as a prisoner the man who is her enemy.”
Thinketh no evil, i.e., charity, if she is provoked by any one, does not reckon up the injury nor seek revenge, but conceals it, excuses it, forgives it. For the Greek word, as Vatablus and the Greeks understand it, is, imputes not his evil to any one.
-
Napoli, there are many times on CI when issues come up that really belong in the realm of older women teaching and encouraging the younger women. The idea of a separate subforum which could be restricted to moderators, priests (if there are any on here) and the female members of the forum has nothing at all to do with feminism or modernism. It would be a worthwhile safeguard against sharing topics which can only rightly be understood by women with men who are total strangers and not ordained to priestly ministry. Likewise, sensitive topics which could be occasions of sin to men could be discussed in relative confidentiality.
Napoli got 4 thumbs down for saying the idea of a women's only subforum sounds feminist, but he's right. It does sound feminist.
-
To the feminist who thumbed me down, please give me one good reason why the idea isn't feminist.
-
It would be a worthwhile safeguard against sharing topics which can only rightly be understood by women with men who are total strangers and not ordained to priestly ministry. Likewise, sensitive topics which could be occasions of sin to men could be discussed in relative confidentiality.
But as Tiffany said, how would you know that all posters are women?
It's really something you'd expect to have on FE or SD. A "women's subforum". Sorry, it sounds very feminist. I doubt Matthew would ever add something like that.
-
To the feminist who thumbed me down, please give me one good reason why the idea isn't feminist.
Just because the ladies want privacy and freedom to discuss personal, feminine, matters, doesn't mean they are feminists. The fact that you are feeling clearly threatened by it, makes me think you suffer from misogyny, though.
-
Because there are matters ladies should discuss among ladies and normally without much or any male company, just like gentlemen should discuss among gentlemen.
Having a women's only subforum is as feminist as having a men's only subforum is misogynist.
As feminist as having a female only convent, or male only monastery.
In other words, not at all. In fact it's quite Christian to have more separation of the genders than there normally is these days.. A bit of separation helps folks be more respectful too, just like that separation from the sanctuary.
Or like how after dinner the ladies might retire to talk with each other, and the men sit down and smoke cigars and talk to each other.
There's men's talk and there's women's talk, and it is different.
-
I think only an effeminate man would be so interested in women's talk.
:dancing-banana:
-
If Bishop Williamson were to ever open his own forum, I guarantee you he wouldn't have a "women's only subforum".
-
To the feminist who thumbed me down, please give me one good reason why the idea isn't feminist.
Just because the ladies want privacy and freedom to discuss personal, feminine, matters, doesn't mean they are feminists. The fact that you are feeling clearly threatened by it, makes me think you suffer from misogyny, though.
How can you have privacy if any man can still come on and read the subforum? That's not privacy, nor is there any way to prevent men from posting on it. Any man can create a new account and claim to be a woman. Even if the idea wasn't feminist, it would never work anyway.
As for suffering from "misogyny", that is a lie and I hope you retract it. I do not "hate or dislike women". I only said that the idea of a women's only subforum sounds feminist. How is that displaying hatred of women?
-
I can assure you that you are wrong in your assumptions about me. I learn from the Doctors, theologians, and approved writers as you claim to do. As time permits, I will post some excerpts.
First, you refer to an assumption of mine. What would that be ? Also, it doesn't seem like any of the quotations you posted relate to what we were discussing or even to what has so far been discussed on the thread. If you disagree, please show where there is a relation, because I do not see it.
-
This argument won't lead to anything good, so please forget I said anything.
-SSS
-
:popcorn:
-
Because there are matters ladies should discuss among ladies and normally without much or any male company, just like gentlemen should discuss among gentlemen.
Having a women's only subforum is as feminist as having a men's only subforum is misogynist.
As feminist as having a female only convent, or male only monastery.
In other words, not at all. In fact it's quite Christian to have more separation of the genders than there normally is these days.. A bit of separation helps folks be more respectful too, just like that separation from the sanctuary.
Or like how after dinner the ladies might retire to talk with each other, and the men sit down and smoke cigars and talk to each other.
There's men's talk and there's women's talk, and it is different.
I can see your point here. But I also see some danger in it.
A public forum isn't exactly sitting down with the ladies after dinner to chat. You know the ladies you are sitting down with after dinner. You know wether they are sound to recieve advice from. This is a public forum- we are in the midst of complete strangers. Some could be trolls for all we know. As I was reading this thread, I had to wonder if one of the people posting was a a troll. A feminist troll at that. I mean, tease your husband into submission?! That is terrible!
As far as matters of faith and morals are concerned, I don't think women should be left alone to discuss these issues on a forum. Not because women are stupid, but because women are more easily led astray and feminists are great at corrupting. This is not a controlled environment. The people giving advice could be wolves in sheeps clothing. I am thankful for men like PereJoseph on this forum. He isn't demeaning anyone, he's simply correcting errors for the sake of charity. He rebukes with true charity. Charity towards the posters who are speaking error, and charity for the ones in danger of being led astray. You could learn a lot from him in this thread if you had ears to hear!
And please don't call me a misogynist, I'm not! I am a woman, afterall.
-
[You could learn a lot from him in this thread if you had ears to hear!
quote]
Sorry, I'm not specifically referring to "you" as in the person i quoted, but in this threads participants in general.
Perhaps a better word to use would have been "we".
-
I can assure you that you are wrong in your assumptions about me. I learn from the Doctors, theologians, and approved writers as you claim to do. As time permits, I will post some excerpts.
First, you refer to an assumption of mine. What would that be ? Also, it doesn't seem like any of the quotations you posted relate to what we were discussing or even to what has so far been discussed on the thread. If you disagree, please show where there is a relation, because I do not see it.
This assumption:
PereJoseph wrote:
No, I think what is more likely is that your ideas are your ideas, not that your ideas are the same as those of the great spiritual writers.
The quote from Saint Paul was a start, it was not meant to fully address the issue. The idea is to educate you that charity is patient and kind. I am not sure yet if you grasp this. if you do understand this, we can move on.
Catholic husbands and wives are both bound to this, they must be patient and kind with each other. Maybe you understand this already, and if you do understand this you would know that men should strive to be like St. Joseph, the model of Catholic husbands. Charity is patient and kind.
-
Because there are matters ladies should discuss among ladies and normally without much or any male company, just like gentlemen should discuss among gentlemen.
Having a women's only subforum is as feminist as having a men's only subforum is misogynist.
As feminist as having a female only convent, or male only monastery.
In other words, not at all. In fact it's quite Christian to have more separation of the genders than there normally is these days.. A bit of separation helps folks be more respectful too, just like that separation from the sanctuary.
Or like how after dinner the ladies might retire to talk with each other, and the men sit down and smoke cigars and talk to each other.
There's men's talk and there's women's talk, and it is different.
I can see your point here. But I also see some danger in it.
A public forum isn't exactly sitting down with the ladies after dinner to chat. You know the ladies you are sitting down with after dinner. You know wether they are sound to recieve advice from. This is a public forum- we are in the midst of complete strangers. Some could be trolls for all we know. As I was reading this thread, I had to wonder if one of the people posting was a a troll. A feminist troll at that. I mean, tease your husband into submission?! That is terrible!
As far as matters of faith and morals are concerned, I don't think women should be left alone to discuss these issues on a forum. Not because women are stupid, but because women are more easily led astray and feminists are great at corrupting. This is not a controlled environment. The people giving advice could be wolves in sheeps clothing. I am thankful for men like PereJoseph on this forum. He isn't demeaning anyone, he's simply correcting errors for the sake of charity. He rebukes with true charity. Charity towards the posters who are speaking error, and charity for the ones in danger of being led astray. You could learn a lot from him in this thread if you had ears to hear!
And please don't call me a misogynist, I'm not! I am a woman, afterall.
The points you bring up can apply to any forum, women's only or not. There are men on here who I would never advise anyone to learn from, and they are just as dangerous as the feminists.
-
PereJoseph,
I just posted Fr. faber's book, Kindness, in this subforum.
Have you read the book previously? If not we can work through it. Do you accept that Catholic husbands are bound to be kind as St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Ghost commands? Do you accept the definition of kindness as explained by Fr. Faber's explanation as given through his entire book on the subject?
I have answered your questions, thus far. Once you answer these questions we can move to the next point.
-
Napoli got 4 thumbs down for saying the idea of a women's only subforum sounds feminist, but he's right. It does sound feminist.
They should start their own forum, away from this one, where they can advance their ideology there. Then people will recognize what it is.
-
Just because the ladies want privacy and freedom to discuss personal, feminine, matters, doesn't mean they are feminists. The fact that you are feeling clearly threatened by it, makes me think you suffer from misogyny, though.
There's nothing private about posting here.
What is being demanded has nothing to do with private discussion. It's about having a public platform in which men are not going to be allowed to object to anything said. In short, it's suggesting that only women can be authorities on what women should do. Since the subject is obedience to husbands, men should be open about what they believe they should expect. And women should willing to hear it.
-
I never thought there were any traditional Catholic misogynists, until recently. Mistakenly, I had always blamed feminism. Now I see that there are as many true feminists as misogynists, in the sphere of traditional Catholicism. Fortunately, the number is small on both sides and I'm going to think well of everyone else until I have been forced otherwise.
I can see how misogyny can cause a reaction of feminism, it still is the wrong reaction though.
This is a disgusting attempt to draw moral equivalence in a feminist society as is had in this country. Your reckless talk about "misogynists" is senseless. Catholic men are sick and tired of women deciding to be the interpreters of doctrine and morality, because after all, they are women and this is America in the 21st Century and therefore they can't be expected to respect men or follow the religion as it was before.
If you don't want men to despise women, then be honest and don't try to get around what the religion demands, to circuмvent men in public discussions by attempting to exclude them from your public platform.
-
Not all men on here are the same. I am a Catholic father, and I would not let my daughters when they are of marrying age close to men such as some of these men. I would not allow them to even talk to them. I want my daughters to marry Catholic gentlemen who will love and support my girls, and honor them.
Which is one of the main problems in Catholic traditionalism.
You put your daughters on a pedestal and pretend truly traditional men aren't good enough for your little Dulcinea, because they don't like trad gossips and say so.
Well, you know, if you push away honest men, then expect the dishonest men to move in.
-
I am the OP. It was not my intent to share tips on how to subvert husbands but rather learn how to grow in the virtue of meekness and become a true helpmeet.
I'm sorry the men of the forum have been offended by this thread. I really just wanted discussion on how to overcome aversion to submission. Do not attack me because I am struggling. Rather show compassion for my attempts to do what is right.
Dear Ma'am,
we're not offended by your opening question, although when someone suggested there should be a woman's only forum, that was highly suspicious.
At that point there was a need to interject.
I'm sure all the men here wish you the best in convincing your husband to do the right thing.
-
I am the OP. It was not my intent to share tips on how to subvert husbands but rather learn how to grow in the virtue of meekness and become a true helpmeet.
I'm sorry the men of the forum have been offended by this thread. I really just wanted discussion on how to overcome aversion to submission. Do not attack me because I am struggling. Rather show compassion for my attempts to do what is right.
Dear Ma'am,
we're not offended by your opening question, although when someone suggested there should be a woman's only forum, that was highly suspicious.
At that point there was a need to interject.
I'm sure all the men here wish you the best in convincing your husband to do the right thing.
Thank you. It's very difficult at times to suppress myself and be invisible. I hope to acquire the ability to do that with grace and cheer.
God bless!
-
I apologize to the woman whom I called a feminist. Although I don't like the idea of a women's only subforum, I shouldn't have gone that far.
-
I am the OP. It was not my intent to share tips on how to subvert husbands but rather learn how to grow in the virtue of meekness and become a true helpmeet.
I'm sorry the men of the forum have been offended by this thread. I really just wanted discussion on how to overcome aversion to submission. Do not attack me because I am struggling. Rather show compassion for my attempts to do what is right.
Dear Ma'am,
we're not offended by your opening question, although when someone suggested there should be a woman's only forum, that was highly suspicious.
At that point there was a need to interject.
I'm sure all the men here wish you the best in convincing your husband to do the right thing.
Thank you. It's very difficult at times to suppress myself and be invisible. I hope to acquire the ability to do that with grace and cheer.
God bless!
Suppress yourself and being invisible? I'm afraid you are very mistaken in your understanding of your role at home. As a wife, you should be the heart of the home, not being invisible! Pray to the Holy Ghost for guidance!
-
I was told once that God is the heart of the home, the woman close to it, but not quite -- God is the heart.
-
Not all men on here are the same. I am a Catholic father, and I would not let my daughters when they are of marrying age close to men such as some of these men. I would not allow them to even talk to them. I want my daughters to marry Catholic gentlemen who will love and support my girls, and honor them.
Which is one of the main problems in Catholic traditionalism.
You put your daughters on a pedestal and pretend truly traditional men aren't good enough for your little Dulcinea, because they don't like trad gossips and say so.
Well, you know, if you push away honest men, then expect the dishonest men to move in.
I would never entrust my daughters lives and salvation to losers, whether they call themselves Catholic or not. They deserve better than that. I want them to marry good decent Catholic men, who will love, honor, and cherish them.
Such men are getting harder to come by these days. The fruit on the trees is often rotten.
-
I am a mother of daughters and to hear from other "Traditional Catholics" that wives must blindly obey their husbands even when they are leading them to sin, that they should suppress themselves and become invisible, that they cannot even talk among them about their affairs without male participation and dominance is frankly disturbing to me.
I can understand the biblical call for "silence" but this is going way too far. Where do you cross the line here? Next thing you know, we can't talk, think, or even being seen. I assure you there are lots of men out there that totally abuse their wives in the name of authority - submission.
I doubt that this is the official position of the Catholic Church in the role of wives.
-
Not all men on here are the same. I am a Catholic father, and I would not let my daughters when they are of marrying age close to men such as some of these men. I would not allow them to even talk to them. I want my daughters to marry Catholic gentlemen who will love and support my girls, and honor them.
Which is one of the main problems in Catholic traditionalism.
You put your daughters on a pedestal and pretend truly traditional men aren't good enough for your little Dulcinea, because they don't like trad gossips and say so.
Well, you know, if you push away honest men, then expect the dishonest men to move in.
It is disgusting for you to speak in such a way about another man's daughter. What kind of man belittles a child, especially girls/young ladies by calling names?
Honest men? Well, maybe you are being up front that you are likely to beat your wife, I mean you freely insult little girls, so why not? I guess that is direct, if not honest. Thanks for the favor of the warning.
-
Not all men on here are the same. I am a Catholic father, and I would not let my daughters when they are of marrying age close to men such as some of these men. I would not allow them to even talk to them. I want my daughters to marry Catholic gentlemen who will love and support my girls, and honor them.
Which is one of the main problems in Catholic traditionalism.
You put your daughters on a pedestal and pretend truly traditional men aren't good enough for your little Dulcinea, because they don't like trad gossips and say so.
Well, you know, if you push away honest men, then expect the dishonest men to move in.
The author of this post is clearly not a father and let's hope never a husband
-
If husbands have good prayer lives and seek to be obedient to God in running their households, then women should have nothing to fear. A good dose of humility would help as well.
-
If husbands have good prayer lives and seek to be obedient to God in running their households, then women should have nothing to fear. A good dose of humility would help as well.
[28]Come to me, all you that labour, and are burdened, and I will refresh you. [29] Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. [30] For my yoke is sweet and my burden light. Matthew 11:28-30
-
Not all men on here are the same. I am a Catholic father, and I would not let my daughters when they are of marrying age close to men such as some of these men. I would not allow them to even talk to them. I want my daughters to marry Catholic gentlemen who will love and support my girls, and honor them.
Which is one of the main problems in Catholic traditionalism.
You put your daughters on a pedestal and pretend truly traditional men aren't good enough for your little Dulcinea, because they don't like trad gossips and say so.
Well, you know, if you push away honest men, then expect the dishonest men to move in.
One more point on this. I am the head of my home. My authority was given to me by God. I love my wife and children. It is for me to decide the company my girls will keep which will lead to the type of man she marries.
This is my paternal authority, yet you challenge it. You are acting like a feminist, the very thing you claim to despise.
-
One anonymous poster (8:32 PM today) has said that some men on this forum are suggesting that women must obey their husbands in sin. This is not true. No such thing has been said. There is nobody on this thread or even this entire forum who would dare say that a wife should follow her husband into sin. I am quite sure of that. Before we begin claiming that somebody said this, such an accusation should be substantiated.
Indeed, the points of dispute have been shrouded by emotional rhetoric. The real issue here is whether or not (i) women should be able and have the authority and capacity to decide by themselves and within their own private discussions the extent and nature of their obedience to their husbands (there are several issues within this one), (ii) whether or not those who have invoked chivalry have a true and Catholic understanding of it and have invoked it fairly, and (iii) the original question posed by the OP as to how she should cope with the difficulty of obeying her husband in certain situations. It's unjust to claim that anybody is suggesting that a woman should obey her husband in sin or any such thing like that, and it leads to needless bitterness and contention.
-
One more point on this. I am the head of my home. My authority was given to me by God. I love my wife and children. It is for me to decide the company my girls will keep which will lead to the type of man she marries.
This sounds like a good point, but then, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that you are saying that you would personally use your paternal authority to keep your daughters away from the company of men precisely because they are not feminists. Either this is true or you do not understand what was written by the men you speak against or you do not understand what feminism really is. As it stands currently, it appears that you are upholding the authority of a father in your own case in order to undermine the authority of fathers and husbands in general, which is absurd.
This is my paternal authority, yet you challenge it. You are acting like a feminist, the very thing you claim to despise.
I don't think that anybody you are writing against is challenging paternal authority, even your own paternal authority. They are criticising your conception of your paternal authority because of an apparent proclivity to misuse it. It should be amply clear to you that this is exactly what is happening. I too down-thumbed many of your posts, sir, because I think that the conception of men's and women's respective due is fundamentally awry. There is no need to personalise this issue when we can keep it still in the realm of ideas. I am confident that you will come to agree with me if we can persevere in patience as we continue this discussion. After all, what you say you would do is not something that has been done, so there is no reason to entirely close one's self off from reconsideration. Fair ?
-
This assumption:
PereJoseph wrote:
No, I think what is more likely is that your ideas are your ideas, not that your ideas are the same as those of the great spiritual writers.
That is not an assumption, it is a deduction of what I think is probable based directly on the content of what you have written so far.
The quote from Saint Paul was a start, it was not meant to fully address the issue. The idea is to educate you that charity is patient and kind. I am not sure yet if you grasp this. if you do understand this, we can move on.
Thank you for the reminder. It is always edifying to read the words of the Apostle and to reflect upon them. That being said, I am confused as to why you think this is immediately relevant to the thread or to anything that I have said. It seems to, as I said before, have no direct relation to anything that we were discussing.
Catholic husbands and wives are both bound to this, they must be patient and kind with each other. Maybe you understand this already, and if you do understand this you would know that men should strive to be like St. Joseph, the model of Catholic husbands. Charity is patient and kind.
Indeed. I absolutely agree that men should strive to be like Saint Joseph, the model of Catholic husbands, and that both spouses should pursue their marriage in charity, with all patience and kindness, to one another.
Once again, however, I must entreat you to explain why you are introducing these matters to the discussion, since they are at the very least radically tangential.
-
PereJoseph, I just posted Fr. faber's book, Kindness, in this subforum.
Yes, I saw this.
Have you read the book previously?
I have not.
If not we can work through it.
I can sincerely say that I would be happy to do so.
Do you accept that Catholic husbands are bound to be kind as St. Paul, inspired by the Holy Ghost commands?
I object to the phrasing of the question. I do not think that what Saint Paul, in that passage, establishes a direct obligation of kindness on men for their wives. I am agreeable to the idea that being kind is an obligation that pertains to the state of the husband, but I do not think that you can say that this passage from the Apostle's letter to the Corinthians is a binding law or precept. It seems, rather, that it is an exhortation to be charitable and an explanation of the nature of charity. That being said, there is an obligation to be charitable and the exercise of charity causes kindness to be manifested in the exerciser, so I can see how there would be a certain general obligation to be kind on the part of the husband, but we would first need to define kindness. Thankfully, it seems that Father Faber will do this for me.
Do you accept the definition of kindness as explained by Fr. Faber's explanation as given through his entire book on the subject?
I have not read his book, so I cannot comment on this.
I have answered your questions, thus far. Once you answer these questions we can move to the next point.
Actually, I do have a question. In all seriousness, I want to know how you think that your line of inquiry here relates to what was under discussion between us in this thread. I have trouble determining how this is not simply distracting us from the discussion. I would rather you answer this question now than continue in what you have implied was an attempt of "education." You could very well educate me on this subject, but I must question its relevance to the thread and to our former discussion. Thank you.
Pax Christi tecuм.
-
One more point on this. I am the head of my home. My authority was given to me by God. I love my wife and children. It is for me to decide the company my girls will keep which will lead to the type of man she marries.
This sounds like a good point, but then, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that you are saying that you would personally use your paternal authority to keep your daughters away from the company of men precisely because they are not feminists. Either this is true or you do not understand what was written by the men you speak against or you do not understand what feminism really is. As it stands currently, it appears that you are upholding the authority of a father in your own case in order to undermine the authority of fathers and husbands in general, which is absurd.
This is my paternal authority, yet you challenge it. You are acting like a feminist, the very thing you claim to despise.
I don't think that anybody you are writing against is challenging paternal authority, even your own paternal authority. They are criticising your conception of your paternal authority because of an apparent proclivity to misuse it. It should be amply clear to you that this is exactly what is happening. I too down-thumbed many of your posts, sir, because I think that the conception of men's and women's respective due is fundamentally awry. There is no need to personalise this issue when we can keep it still in the realm of ideas. I am confident that you will come to agree with me if we can persevere in patience as we continue this discussion. After all, what you say you would do is not something that has been done, so there is no reason to entirely close one's self off from reconsideration. Fair ?
You are twisting my words. I despise feminism! I never said or implied such a thing, so I cannot see where you got that.
I would use my paternal authority to protect my girls from men such as have posted on this thread. I would want to die rather than my daughter marry a misogynist pig. I know such men, abusers of their wives, men who selfishly indulge themselves and let their wives suffer.
I would use any means within my power to protect and shield my daughters from a life of misery in this life which could lead them to lose their soul in despair or unlawful divorce.
If you do not see this, then we will part ways with this discussion. My last statement on this is that good young Catholic girls should only seek men that will love, honor and cherish them, and work towards their mutual salvation. That is my wish for my daughters.
-
This thread has been eye opening. I began reading it thinking well of one poster and now I see that is no longer possible. Also, another poster whom I previously had misgivings about has really proved himself much better a man than I initially perceived. I'll be praying for both of you tonight. :pray:
-
Guest said:
This assumption:
PereJoseph wrote:
No, I think what is more likely is that your ideas are your ideas, not that your ideas are the same as those of the great spiritual writers.
That is not an assumption, it is a deduction of what I think is probable based directly on the content of what you have written so far
.
Yes, it is an assumption. You have no facts with which to deduce anything. You appear to me too smart to lower yourself like this.
-
It is for me to decide the company my girls will keep which will lead to the type of man she marries.
Unfortunately, this shows not only a lack of sound doctrine, but also a lack of rationality. The lack of rationality is the belief that your girls will be practically bound by your decision. The lack of sound doctrine is the view that it is "for you to decide" - it simply is not.
Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matter touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like.
The maid is in her father's power, not as a female slave without power over her own body, but as a daughter, for the purpose of education. Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another's power without her father's consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent's consent.
Now your daughters should hear your counsel but unfortunately if you are an irrational parent with a stubbornly erroneous concept as to the limits of your authority they will in all likelihood be forced to disregard it.
Daughters cannot be bound by fathers who think they are Dulcineas.
This is why as Pope Leo XIII says:
15. It is also a great blessing that the Church has limited, so far as is needful, the power of fathers of families, so that sons and daughters, wishing to marry, are not in any way deprived of their rightful freedom;
Now it is a fact it will not be your decision.
So as I said, anyone who drives away honest Catholic men who say what they really believe is likely to find himself that later bad men who have no respect for their daughters but will say what people want to hear.
-
I am a mother of daughters and to hear from other "Traditional Catholics" that wives must blindly obey their husbands even when they are leading them to sin, that they should suppress themselves and become invisible, that they cannot even talk among them about their affairs without male participation and dominance is frankly disturbing to me.
PereJoseph explained how you were wrong about number 1.
That's clearly true, since no one said that wives should follow their husbands in sin. Now this may be why it's not advisable for young women to seek "counsel" from people who have a loose grip on reality.
2) I don't know any man who said a woman should make herself invisible. I think that was a woman speaking of a manner in which she wished to practice humility and piety. I do not know whether she takes that language from spiritual writings she read or not. I do not take it to mean that she wishes to be self-effacing in a degrading manner, at all. I don't know of a man who said he wishes for his wife to be invisible on this thread.
3) "that they cannot even talk among them about their affairs without male participation and dominance is frankly disturbing to me"
We're talking about a public thread on an internet forum and whether or not it's valid for women to monopolize discussions on matter of practical morality in marriage. As for the idea that women must first confide in a group of church ladies about their married life, it disturbs me when women insist on intruding into discussion of a man's family life with a woman. I would hope that a husband would not have to worry about a wife having unworthy confidants who tried to undermine him.
-
This thread has been eye opening. I began reading it thinking well of one poster and now I see that is no longer possible. Also, another poster whom I previously had misgivings about has really proved himself much better a man than I initially perceived. I'll be praying for both of you tonight. :pray:
Why don't you privately send the offending comments to the person you suppose you no longer think well of?
-
Well, you know, if you push away honest men, then expect the dishonest men to move in.
[/quote]
This part is definitely true. I can say that none of my friends from church growing up kept their virginity. I think some parents would rather have their daughters with boyfriends who are popular, instead of marrying young and living a chaste life with a man who isn't in from the right crowd. There are many problems with Christian culture in America, I don't know why this one keeps coming up on here, but I've seen it too.
-
It's not casting aspersions on anyone's daughter to say that those who chase away good men are making it easy on the bad men.
It isn't casting aspersions on anyone's daughter, to say, for example, that college is typically a bad idea. That bad environments are dangerous.
Women are flesh and blood. If a father pretends his daughter is an angel, and chases away a good-hearted man because of his pride, he cannot succeed in chasing away the bad ones. He can't keep his daughter a prisoner, and he can't stop what he doesn't know about. Does that mean a woman inevitably does evil? No. What it means is that you cannot protect her from evil men by chasing away honest men. That is all it means. The reality is that to do so is the opposite of protection.
Sometimes I wonder, is it possible that the highly corrupt societies we see in Latin America are a result of men who are honest being given the shaft, so that only the ruthless and dishonest get what they want?
-
It is for me to decide the company my girls will keep which will lead to the type of man she marries.
Unfortunately, this shows not only a lack of sound doctrine, but also a lack of rationality. The lack of rationality is the belief that your girls will be practically bound by your decision. The lack of sound doctrine is the view that it is "for you to decide" - it simply is not.
Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matter touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like.
The maid is in her father's power, not as a female slave without power over her own body, but as a daughter, for the purpose of education. Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another's power without her father's consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent's consent.
Now your daughters should hear your counsel but unfortunately if you are an irrational parent with a stubbornly erroneous concept as to the limits of your authority they will in all likelihood be forced to disregard it.
Daughters cannot be bound by fathers who think they are Dulcineas.
This is why as Pope Leo XIII says:
15. It is also a great blessing that the Church has limited, so far as is needful, the power of fathers of families, so that sons and daughters, wishing to marry, are not in any way deprived of their rightful freedom;
Now it is a fact it will not be your decision.
So as I said, anyone who drives away honest Catholic men who say what they really believe is likely to find himself that later bad men who have no respect for their daughters but will say what people want to hear.
There is no lack of sound doctrine. A father has the right and the duty to protect his daughter from men who in his judgment will not keep the marriage vows, or be a good husband to their daughter.
They will be practically bound by my decision, because when I spot a man that I think poses a.danger to my daughters, I will keep them away from him, and warn them to not speak to such a man outside of my presence.
A father cannot absolutely stop his daughter from marrying badly, but he can refuse to give his daughters is blessing of the marriage, and use his influence on his daughter to not marry such a man. Fathers have more influence than you may think.
For myself, I would not let things get that far, and I would carefully decide who my family associates with to begin with.
I find it strange that a man who so strongly argues against feminism, is also arguing against the paternal authority of fathers over their own families. Real men protect their families, and are not effeminate and weak.
-
It's not casting aspersions on anyone's daughter to say that those who chase away good men are making it easy on the bad men.
It isn't casting aspersions on anyone's daughter, to say, for example, that college is typically a bad idea. That bad environments are dangerous.
Women are flesh and blood. If a father pretends his daughter is an angel, and chases away a good-hearted man because of his pride, he cannot succeed in chasing away the bad ones. He can't keep his daughter a prisoner, and he can't stop what he doesn't know about. Does that mean a woman inevitably does evil? No. What it means is that you cannot protect her from evil men by chasing away honest men. That is all it means. The reality is that to do so is the opposite of protection.
Sometimes I wonder, is it possible that the highly corrupt societies we see in Latin America are a result of men who are honest being given the shaft, so that only the ruthless and dishonest get what they want?
Only a foolish father would chase away a good and virtuous man. What we are talking about here is chasing away men who would not be good husbands to their daughters.
-
Only a foolish father would chase away a good and virtuous man. What we are talking about here is chasing away men who would not be good husbands to their daughters.
Uh-huh.
Keep telling yourself that. Or keep telling yourself these men aren't acting foolishly, pretending their daughters are different than what they are, false accusers of men, etc.
-
There is no lack of sound doctrine. A father has the right and the duty to protect his daughter from men who in his judgment will not keep the marriage vows, or be a good husband to their daughter.
No, the person said they would effectively decide who was fit.
They will be practically bound by my decision, because when I spot a man that I think poses a.danger to my daughters, I will keep them away from him, and warn them to not speak to such a man outside of my presence.
And how are you going to force them to listen?
A father cannot absolutely stop his daughter from marrying badly, but he can refuse to give his daughters is blessing of the marriage, and use his influence on his daughter to not marry such a man. Fathers have more influence than you may think.
Like I said, they can keep an honest man from seeing a girl publicly. They are quite delusional, about their influence out of their sight. That's for certain.
For myself, I would not let things get that far, and I would carefully decide who my family associates with to begin with.
You have no control.
I find it strange that a man who so strongly argues against feminism, is also arguing against the paternal authority of fathers over their own families. Real men protect their families, and are not effeminate and weak.
"Conservative" fathers are the biggest enablers of feminism there are. Their little girls can do no wrong, and men are always to blame.
The reality is that the Church accepted the validity of clandestine marriages for centuries, and after that priests would marry couples without the parents permission, UNTIL the ENLIGHTENMENT anti-clerical liberals decided that the priests were meddling and that paternal permission would be required.
Feminism is about causing harm to men, and there is no shortage of fathers willing to meddle in marriages these days. There's nothing traditional about that.
Face that fact that when your daughter marries she won't be under your authority, and she can marry who she wishes to marry.
there's nothing feminist about that. There is something very feminist in so-called traditionalists doing the bidding of feminists in giving the shaft to religious men. And they do it all the time.
-
There is no lack of sound doctrine. A father has the right and the duty to protect his daughter from men who in his judgment will not keep the marriage vows, or be a good husband to their daughter.
No, the person said they would effectively decide who was fit.
They will be practically bound by my decision, because when I spot a man that I think poses a.danger to my daughters, I will keep them away from him, and warn them to not speak to such a man outside of my presence.
And how are you going to force them to listen?
There is something very feminist in so-called traditionalists doing the bidding of feminists in giving the shaft to religious men. And they do it all the time.
Religious in what sense, that they post religiously on Internet fora?
Most devout men don't have tens of thousands of posts in which they ridicule little girls, correct other men's wives, drone on and on about conspiracy, and worry about finding all the feminists. Those things would be sign to me that a person might not be living in the state of grace, that they might even be entangled in a vice.
I know other devout young men and fathers and none of their posts or words resemble what I have seen here.
On a last note, if you have something to say about a man's wife or daughters, best say it to their faces. Let me know what happens when you call their wives conspiring, feminist, hens or harpies. Don't forget to make comments regarding their daughters for good measure. I'm sure it will solidify your rank as truly traditional and devout.
-
Religious in what sense, that they post religiously on Internet fora?
Most devout men don't have tens of thousands of posts in which they ridicule little girls,
You see, people like you don't know how to stop lying. I haven't ridiculed any "little girls." I'm referring to the absurdly exalted view that some fathers hold of their grown girls.
correct other men's wives,
Why is that they are posting on internet forums to engage in controversy? So that no one will contradict them? How can you be so dull?
drone on and on about conspiracy, and worry about finding all the feminists.
It's important for Catholic men to understand that a race of cock-fighters that crows about chivalry generally has only one thing in mind when getting behind them - putting in the knife.
Those things would be sign to me that a person might not be living in the state of grace, that they might even be entangled in a vice.
You seem to be a reader of souls and a slanderer.
I know other devout young men and fathers and none of their posts or words resemble what I have seen here.
I've seen how people of your ilk behave. They return evil for good. They return malice and lies for benevolence and gentility. Their first instinct seems to be cruelty.
On a last note, if you have something to say about a man's wife or daughters, best say it to their faces.
I certainly would if they were systematically abusing me with lies, and I have called them liars to their faces. They are very cowardly people. Cockfighting is not chivalry. Crowing like a rooster is not honor. When they go after innocuous men that their daughters flirt with it really seems like a bad joke. Tilting at windmills.
Let me know what happens when you call their wives conspiring, feminist, hens or harpies. Don't forget to make comments regarding their daughters for good measure. I'm sure it will solidify your rank as truly traditional and devout.
To be a Christian you have to believe in honesty. To say that I've ridiculed "little girls" is a filthy cowardly lie, but you saw a group of women wanting to calumniate a man, and so you felt a strong urge to join it, perhaps it's a cultural trait.
-
Pope Pius XI on the submission of wives ( 1930 ):
“1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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."
In a nut-shell, submission of wives to their husbands does not mean violating her dignity as a human person.
Husbands are called the head of the family. And wives are called the heart of the family. And the head and the heart must work together. They must be in harmony for the sake of keeping the family united.
A wife is called to be submissive to her husband but at the same time, the husband is called to love his wife as Christ loves the Church! It is a two-way commitment. When taking this passage in the proper context, the demand for a wife to submit herself to her husband may seem nothing to compare to the demand the husband has!
-
In a nut-shell, submission of wives to their husbands does not mean violating her dignity as a human person.
What this means is that their dignity is not violated when they obey their husbands. So what that means is that no woman should pretend a man who merely expects what was customary in the past is violating a woman's dignity.
A wife is called to be submissive to her husband but at the same time, the husband is called to love his wife as Christ loves the Church! It is a two-way commitment.
This is a thread about wifely obedience and its proper limits. Maybe you should start a thread about how men are to go about loving their wives as Christ loved the Church, and how you think that should be properly carried out. I'm guessing women would want to interject in that thread, and wouldn't appreciate men asking they be shut out of it.
If a husband doesn't love his wife as Christ loves the Church, what does that have to do with the duty of wifely submission?
When taking this passage in the proper context, the demand for a wife to submit herself to her husband may seem nothing to compare to the demand the husband has!
It certainly seems like nothing when feminists get a hold of "caveats" and twist them into disclaimers that essentially nullify the essential of what married women are required to do. Of course, a woman is to love her husband as well.
On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.
To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent.
Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.
Here's the full passage of Pius XI, without the feminist biased gloss:
26. 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]
27. 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.
-
Pope Pius XI on the submission of wives ( 1930 ):
“1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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."
In a nut-shell, submission of wives to their husbands does not mean violating her dignity as a human person.
Husbands are called the head of the family. And wives are called the heart of the family. And the head and the heart must work together. They must be in harmony for the sake of keeping the family united.
A wife is called to be submissive to her husband but at the same time, the husband is called to love his wife as Christ loves the Church! It is a two-way commitment. When taking this passage in the proper context, the demand for a wife to submit herself to her husband may seem nothing to compare to the demand the husband has!
Good post. This sums up the teaching of the Church! :applause:
-
Most devout men don't have tens of thousands of posts in which they ridicule little girls, correct other men's wives, drone on and on about conspiracy, and worry about finding all the feminists. Those things would be sign to me that a person might not be living in the state of grace, that they might even be entangled in a vice.
filthy vile mind you have to make an accusation like that, you know right well that isn't true in this case.
-
Most devout men don't have tens of thousands of posts in which they ridicule little girls, correct other men's wives, drone on and on about conspiracy, and worry about finding all the feminists. Those things would be sign to me that a person might not be living in the state of grace, that they might even be entangled in a vice.
filthy vile mind you have to make an accusation like that, you know right well that isn't true in this case.
Calm down. I'm not making accusations and you are interpreting what I said in the worst possible way.
-
Most devout men don't have tens of thousands of posts in which they ridicule little girls, correct other men's wives, drone on and on about conspiracy, and worry about finding all the feminists. Those things would be sign to me that a person might not be living in the state of grace, that they might even be entangled in a vice.
filthy vile mind you have to make an accusation like that, you know right well that isn't true in this case.
Calm down. I'm not making accusations and you are interpreting what I said in the worst possible way.
You're a liar.
-
No I'm not. You even connected the posting of those topics as some kind of evidence for sin with "Those things would be sign to me."
-
I did not read the statement in the same way you people read it. It was written in a conditional tone. The type of vice was not mentioned, but I suspect it may be anger.
-
I did not read the statement in the same way you people read it. It was written in a conditional tone. The type of vice was not mentioned, but I suspect it may be anger.
Sure you did. It was a string of accusations (some blatantly false), followed by an insinuation about whether or not someone is in the state of grace. What is the point of these personal attacks?
-
Most devout men don't have tens of thousands of posts in which they ridicule little girls, correct other men's wives, drone on and on about conspiracy, and worry about finding all the feminists. Those things would be sign to me that a person might not be living in the state of grace, that they might even be entangled in a vice.
filthy vile mind you have to make an accusation like that, you know right well that isn't true in this case.
Calm down. I'm not making accusations and you are interpreting what I said in the worst possible way.
You're a liar.
Yeah that is a better response than mine.
I really don't like this, people that try to play a trick on you to make you doubt what you know they did or said. Almost unbelievable this is happening on a Catholic board.
~Tiffany
-
I really don't like this, people that try to play a trick on you to make you doubt what you know they did or said. Almost unbelievable this is happening on a Catholic board.
~Tiffany
Tiffany, traditionalism is in crisis. How could we get to the point that a board like FE could be pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, or The Remnant tells us to learn from Hanukkah and endorses the Jєωιѕн celebration of it by posting a picture of a Jєωιѕн boy lighting a menorah?
The anti-Christian media is very insidious and it is destroying the Faith of the young people. There is a detachment from the values of the past in a very fundamental way.
There are people growing up now who believe it is normal for husbands to be morally and legally subject to their wives, especially from dysfunctional societies like the UK.
Worst of all is the defection of many trad priests away from their traditional positions - they are the ones who are behind the changes in the trad community, more than is readily apparent to the eye.
The irony is that genuine liberality and gentility exists among us far more than it exists among those who are trying to marginalize us even on boards like this.
-
I really don't like this, people that try to play a trick on you to make you doubt what you know they did or said. Almost unbelievable this is happening on a Catholic board.
~Tiffany
Tiffany, traditionalism is in crisis. How could we get to the point that a board like FE could be pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ, or The Remnant tells us to learn from Hanukkah and endorses the Jєωιѕн celebration of it by posting a picture of a Jєωιѕн boy lighting a menorah?
The anti-Christian media is very insidious and it is destroying the Faith of the young people. There is a detachment from the values of the past in a very fundamental way.
There are people growing up now who believe it is normal for husbands to be morally and legally subject to their wives, especially from dysfunctional societies like the UK.
Worst of all is the defection of many trad priests away from their traditional positions - they are the ones who are behind the changes in the trad community, more than is readily apparent to the eye.
The irony is that genuine liberality and gentility exists among us far more than it exists among those who are trying to marginalize us even on boards like this.
I agree with this. The problem on this thread is that some on here are going overboard against women.
Feminism is a modern evil. But, that does not mean that Catholic men do not honor their wives. There were people on here that actually down thumbed the Code of Catholic Knights.
It is one thing to resist modern evil, but quite another to create a new evil to fight evil. women are not cattle to be beaten into submission. That has never been a Catholic attitude.
Catholic men should be striving to imitate St. Joseph, meek and humble of heart. Catholic women should imitate Our Lady, always submissive to St. Joseph, with the utmost charity.
St. Joseph would never have mistreated or verbally abused Our Lady.
-
[qI agree with this. The problem on this thread is that some on here are going overboard against women.
No, the problem here is people kowtowing to women.
Women want to discuss wifely obedience and have no man comment, because they want to control the discourse.
Feminism is a modern evil. But, that does not mean that Catholic men do not honor their wives. There were people on here that actually down thumbed the Code of Catholic Knights.
Thumbed down it's inapplicability to this discussion.
It is one thing to resist modern evil, but quite another to create a new evil to fight evil. women are not cattle to be beaten into submission. That has never been a Catholic attitude.
This is slander.
St. Joseph would never have mistreated or verbally abused Our Lady.
"verbally abused"
It sounds like a sickening melange of Oprah with pious language.
St. Thomas said a man can chastise his wife with words and blows in the appropriate circuмstances.
The reality is, a lot of "trads" are half-Oprah half-Jansenist rigorist. They are not at all to be trusted.
I'll believe these people are against feminism when they stop trying to silence and smear anti-feminist Catholic men.
-
Historically what is now called "abuse" was called "cruelty"
It was a carte blanche for a woman to leave her husband under anglo-feminism/pseudo-chivalry.
Essentially it comes down to women accusing men of being "mean", whether it was some words uttered in anger years ago or some other trifle did not matter, there was generally some cowardly "chivalrous" dog ready to treat her as a wronged woman in need of a savior, willing to order some uniformed bully to come along and drag the husband out of the house if need be. It is based on upper middle class snobbery and its purpose has been to wreck the stability of marriage in the lower classes.
-
"verbally abused"
It sounds like a sickening melange of Oprah with pious language.
St. Thomas said a man can chastise his wife with words and blows in the appropriate circuмstances.
The reality is, a lot of "trads" are half-Oprah half-Jansenist rigorist. They are not at all to be trusted.
I'll believe these people are against feminism when they stop trying to silence and smear anti-feminist Catholic men.
I am not on board with blows, maybe I'm not well catechized, but you nailed it with the verbally abused. Go to any victim advocate/domestic violence office and they have name calling listed in their need a protection order list. I'm not saying name calling is OK but that to say a woman needs to have the state protect her from it not right. I was a very sleep deprived new mother when I encountered it, and even I knew it wasn't right, didn't even know what feminism was or that is was a recent thing. I can't imagine how people with plenty of sleep and life experience go along with it and don't stand up to it. Makes no sense.
-
[qI agree with this. The problem on this thread is that some on here are going overboard against women.
No, the problem here is people kowtowing to women.
Women want to discuss wifely obedience and have no man comment, because they want to control the discourse.
Feminism is a modern evil. But, that does not mean that Catholic men do not honor their wives. There were people on here that actually down thumbed the Code of Catholic Knights.
Thumbed down it's inapplicability to this discussion.
It is one thing to resist modern evil, but quite another to create a new evil to fight evil. women are not cattle to be beaten into submission. That has never been a Catholic attitude.
This is slander.
St. Joseph would never have mistreated or verbally abused Our Lady.
"verbally abused"
It sounds like a sickening melange of Oprah with pious language.
St. Thomas said a man can chastise his wife with words and blows in the appropriate circuмstances.
The reality is, a lot of "trads" are half-Oprah half-Jansenist rigorist. They are not at all to be trusted.
I'll believe these people are against feminism when they stop trying to silence and smear anti-feminist Catholic men.
The Knights Code is applicable to this discussion. It shows how virtuous Catholic men in an age of Faith acted.
There was no slander. On this thread many on here get shouted down for stating that women must be treated with honor by men. So, if women are not to be treated with honor, then that means with dishonor.
I never read St. Thomas say a women could be beaten with blows. He did say an adulterous wife could be accused before an ecclesiastical court and chastised.
The term "verbally abused" is a modern one, but its meaning is clear, is it not? Let me make this more clear for you. St. Joseph at no time would have ever used uncharitable, condescending, demeaning speech towards Our Lady. Do you agree? Catholic Men must strive to imitate St Joseph? Do you agree?
St. Joseph would have treated Our Lady with dignity and respect. His conduct toward Our Lady is the standard that all men should strive to imitate.
By the way, I am no Oprah fan. You know more about her than me. I agree with you that anti-feminists on here are being smeared, but they are being smeared by others who call themselves anti-feminists. Defending the honor and dignity of women is not feminism.
-
[qI agree with this. The problem on this thread is that some on here are going overboard against women.
No, the problem here is people kowtowing to women.
Women want to discuss wifely obedience and have no man comment, because they want to control the discourse.
Feminism is a modern evil. But, that does not mean that Catholic men do not honor their wives. There were people on here that actually down thumbed the Code of Catholic Knights.
Thumbed down it's inapplicability to this discussion.
It is one thing to resist modern evil, but quite another to create a new evil to fight evil. women are not cattle to be beaten into submission. That has never been a Catholic attitude.
This is slander.
St. Joseph would never have mistreated or verbally abused Our Lady.
"verbally abused"
It sounds like a sickening melange of Oprah with pious language.
St. Thomas said a man can chastise his wife with words and blows in the appropriate circuмstances.
The reality is, a lot of "trads" are half-Oprah half-Jansenist rigorist. They are not at all to be trusted.
I'll believe these people are against feminism when they stop trying to silence and smear anti-feminist Catholic men.
The Knights Code is applicable to this discussion. It shows how virtuous Catholic men in an age of Faith acted.
There was no slander. On this thread many on here get shouted down for stating that women must be treated with honor by men. So, if women are not to be treated with honor, then that means with dishonor.
I never read St. Thomas say a women could be beaten with blows. He did say an adulterous wife could be accused before an ecclesiastical court and chastised.
The term "verbally abused" is a modern one, but its meaning is clear, is it not? Let me make this more clear for you. St. Joseph at no time would have ever used uncharitable, condescending, demeaning speech towards Our Lady. Do you agree? Catholic Men must strive to imitate St Joseph? Do you agree?
St. Joseph would have treated Our Lady with dignity and respect. His conduct toward Our Lady is the standard that all men should strive to imitate.
By the way, I am no Oprah fan. You know more about her than me. I agree with you that anti-feminists on here are being smeared, but they are being smeared by others who call themselves anti-feminists. Defending the honor and dignity of women is not feminism.
St Joseph would not have called Our Lady names. That doesn't mean name calling necessitates others to step in or her obtaining state protection or making accusations to ruin him in different ways.
-
St Joseph would not have called Our Lady names. That doesn't mean name calling necessitates others to step in or her obtaining state protection or making accusations to ruin him in different ways.
Tiffany,
I agree with you. The State is intruding into the family and destroying it. Men are being treated as second class citizens. One false accusation can get them kicked out of their own home and separated from their kids. This is evil and inverts the order God created, as men are the lawful head of their families.
-
"verbally abused"
It sounds like a sickening melange of Oprah with pious language.
St. Thomas said a man can chastise his wife with words and blows in the appropriate circuмstances.
The reality is, a lot of "trads" are half-Oprah half-Jansenist rigorist. They are not at all to be trusted.
I'll believe these people are against feminism when they stop trying to silence and smear anti-feminist Catholic men.
I am not on board with blows, maybe I'm not well catechized, but you nailed it with the verbally abused. Go to any victim advocate/domestic violence office and they have name calling listed in their need a protection order list. I'm not saying name calling is OK but that to say a woman needs to have the state protect her from it not right. I was a very sleep deprived new mother when I encountered it, and even I knew it wasn't right, didn't even know what feminism was or that is was a recent thing. I can't imagine how people with plenty of sleep and life experience go along with it and don't stand up to it. Makes no sense.
Women should practice "turn the other cheek" more often.
-
Women want to discuss wifely obedience and have no man comment, because they want to control the discourse.
I'm the OP. I started this thread because I wanted practical advice from women who had overcome the problems SUCCESSFULLY and within the bounds of Catholic moral theology. If I man can offer me advice on how he worked with his wife on the problem--great.
I really haven't found any help on this thread so I went to talk to a priest. He gave me some solutions. None of them were what was mentioned in this thread.
-
In Catholicism, the figure of our Blessed Mother Mary shows that God has such esteem for woman that any form of discrimination lacks a theoretical basis.
-
St Joseph would not have called Our Lady names. That doesn't mean name calling necessitates others to step in or her obtaining state protection or making accusations to ruin him in different ways.
Tiffany,
I agree with you. The State is intruding into the family and destroying it. Men are being treated as second class citizens. One false accusation can get them kicked out of their own home and separated from their kids. This is evil and inverts the order God created, as men are the lawful head of their families.
The point of the matter though is that if Catholic men and women both lived and practiced their Faith, and sought to imitate Our Lady and St. Joseph, none of this discussion would be happening.
Evil begets evil. Rotten Catholics bear rotten fruit, both men and women.
-
OP:
I think consulting a priest if possible is usually the best course of action in most cases of this nature.
Would you mind sharing with us what he advised you to do?
-
In Catholicism, the figure of our Blessed Mother Mary shows that God has such esteem for woman that any form of discrimination lacks a theoretical basis.
Only a non-Catholic could have down thumb this
-
OP:
I think consulting a priest if possible is usually the best course of action in most cases of this nature.
Would you mind sharing with us what he advised you to do?
He said that if a husband is contrite, no matter what he has done, it is our duty to forgive and that indiscretions on the part of the husband in no way causes him to lose his authority or headship of the family. Bad or abusive husbands are still the leader and the head of the wife. Marriage is for better or worse and many marriages are "worse". He stated that this is a great suffering for me to bear for the sake of my children and I will be judged by God if I put myself or my feelings first. Wives are to keep the marriage and family intact at all costs (except if safety is a concern). Placing our trust in God, all our needs will be met by Our Lord even those that a weak husband will fail to provide.
He also said that lack of love does not invalidate the marriage or form a basis for separation. Marriage is based on right action, not romantic feelings.
-
women are not cattle to be beaten into submission.
No one here said a man should beat his wife.
-
OP:
I think consulting a priest if possible is usually the best course of action in most cases of this nature.
Would you mind sharing with us what he advised you to do?
He said that if a husband is contrite, no matter what he has done, it is our duty to forgive and that indiscretions on the part of the husband in no way causes him to lose his authority or headship of the family. Bad or abusive husbands are still the leader and the head of the wife. Marriage is for better or worse and many marriages are "worse". He stated that this is a great suffering for me to bear for the sake of my children and I will be judged by God if I put myself or my feelings first. Wives are to keep the marriage and family intact at all costs (except if safety is a concern). Placing our trust in God, all our needs will be met by Our Lord even those that a weak husband will fail to provide.
He also said that lack of love does not invalidate the marriage or form a basis for separation. Marriage is based on right action, not romantic feelings.
Countless problems would be avoided, if men and women entered into the married state with proper dispositions, not influenced by passion or silly feelings, but by the right ideas of the DUTIES of the state of marriage and of its noble and HOLY purpose.
-
OP:
I think consulting a priest if possible is usually the best course of action in most cases of this nature.
Would you mind sharing with us what he advised you to do?
He said that if a husband is contrite, no matter what he has done, it is our duty to forgive and that indiscretions on the part of the husband in no way causes him to lose his authority or headship of the family. Bad or abusive husbands are still the leader and the head of the wife. Marriage is for better or worse and many marriages are "worse". He stated that this is a great suffering for me to bear for the sake of my children and I will be judged by God if I put myself or my feelings first. Wives are to keep the marriage and family intact at all costs (except if safety is a concern). Placing our trust in God, all our needs will be met by Our Lord even those that a weak husband will fail to provide.
He also said that lack of love does not invalidate the marriage or form a basis for separation. Marriage is based on right action, not romantic feelings.
Countless problems would be avoided, if men and women entered into the married state with proper dispositions, not influenced by passion or silly feelings, but by the right ideas of the DUTIES of the state of marriage and of its noble and HOLY purpose.
Good post!
:applause:
-
OP:
I think consulting a priest if possible is usually the best course of action in most cases of this nature.
Would you mind sharing with us what he advised you to do?
He said that if a husband is contrite, no matter what he has done, it is our duty to forgive and that indiscretions on the part of the husband in no way causes him to lose his authority or headship of the family. Bad or abusive husbands are still the leader and the head of the wife. Marriage is for better or worse and many marriages are "worse". He stated that this is a great suffering for me to bear for the sake of my children and I will be judged by God if I put myself or my feelings first. Wives are to keep the marriage and family intact at all costs (except if safety is a concern). Placing our trust in God, all our needs will be met by Our Lord even those that a weak husband will fail to provide.
He also said that lack of love does not invalidate the marriage or form a basis for separation. Marriage is based on right action, not romantic feelings.
Countless problems would be avoided, if men and women entered into the married state with proper dispositions, not influenced by passion or silly feelings, but by the right ideas of the DUTIES of the state of marriage and of its noble and HOLY purpose.
OP here: YES!!!!!!!!
-
I am the OP. It was not my intent to share tips on how to subvert husbands but rather learn how to grow in the virtue of meekness and become a true helpmeet.
I'm sorry the men of the forum have been offended by this thread. I really just wanted discussion on how to overcome aversion to submission. Do not attack me because I am struggling. Rather show compassion for my attempts to do what is right.
Something that helps me a lot is recognizing that obedience is a channel of grace and an opportunity for spiritual growth. It is a great blessing to be a wife and be in a position of being obliged to submit to one's husband.
I think that part of the aversion to submission comes from secular culture which portrays it as a very negative thing. So we need to train ourselves to understand how positive it is. Whenever I meditate on the fifth Joyful Mystery, I think about what Scripture says happened after Our Lady and St. Joseph found Our Lord in the Temple. Luke 2:51:
And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them.
Our Lord, Himself, was submissive within family roles of authority. So, when I obey my husband, it is a way for me to imitate Our Lord. It is a great blessing and privilege, not some sort of imposition or oppression. I thank God that I am a wife and therefore have opportunities to obey my husband.
Obviously I am talking about genuine submission and obedience, not manipulation or trickery to get my own way. The spiritual benefits of obedience come about precisely because it is a form of death to the self. It is an act of mortification in which I renounce "my own way".
-
Yes, it's all about virtue. We live in Christ when we live in truly virtuous deeds, the more of these we can do, the more our lives are ones with treasure in Heaven and on earth.
We can always be happy about doing something truly good. :smile: