Skip to main content

Your Future Spouse (Part 2) - Core questions that need answering ...

+
JMJ

In my last post on "Your Future Spouse Part 1", I discussed a simple three step process for achieving commitment. I also pointed out that Marriage requires commitment because when something bad happens (we live in an imperfect world so it is a "WHEN" and not "IF") any lack of commitment will result in a crisis.

The degree of commitment is directly proportional to the ability of a couple to survive a crisis.

What makes it worse is that it isn't a logical or, the equation is either/or.  It just takes one of the spouses to lack commitment to turn what could be a simple mis-understanding, into a major crisis - one that results in a separation.

So communication is essential to achieve a shared understanding of all that is included in a Catholic Marriage.  Make no mistake, the list is long and glorious and runs counter to the culture that permeates the world today.

St. Paul provided a brief summary (Ephesians 5-21-33) of the core commitments being made in a Catholic Marriage. Core because they highlight the key ways the Devil uses to break a marriage.  While I have used the Douay-Rheims translation, I will point out that the Knox translation makes clear the kind of fear that is spoken of in verse 33. 

Now on with it ...

First St. Paul speaks to the women (Douay-Rheims):
Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things.
If there is a head of the family, then obviously someone has to be responsible and accountable for the whole family.  Notice, I didn't say 'in charge' because that would be (frankly) stupid.  Only a micro-manager would try to be in charge of everything and it would make the wife's life a living hell.  Nope, the husband is responsible and accountable for his family ... in its entirety. 

If that doesn't make every single man reading this run for the nearest monastery, then they haven't given it enough thought.  
Let me be plain, as a husband and father, I am responsible and accountable for my family for my entire life and in a way beyond it.  My influence on them and my descendants until the end of the world will carry on long after I am dust. Only at the general judgement will I know the extent of my merite or culpability as a father. Now the free-will of those under your responsibility will come into play, but Husbands and Fathers need to keep this in mind and follow the virtuous path in working out their salvation and as far as they can those for whom they are responsible.  

So why does St. Paul tell wives that they need to be "subject to their husbands"?  I've heard it put simply that this was the first fault of  Eve, disobedience to God's law and it carries on as being part of married life, because if it worked once, the Devil (being an expert at human nature) will continue to use it until the end of the world.

Now, I am more interested in what St. Paul has to say to the men:
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh.
Notice anything at a glance?  The translation of St. Paul's words to the wive is 55 words.  To the men he spills much more ink: 137 words.  Abourt 2.5 times as many to be exact.

Why is this?

Because the fault line for a man is to treat his wife as an object / possession, a man who does this is in a fair way of becoming a tyrant. St. Paul goes to great lengths emphasizing how OLJC acted towards the Church.  A husband needs to love his wife as himself, nourishing and cherishing her thoughout their married life.

Nourish ... Cherish ...
These are important words that men need to hear and hold in their hearts.

So as a first step in communication the two parties to a possible Catholic Marriage need to ask themselves two questions:
  1. Man asks: Is this a woman that I can love above myself, can I nourish her (I don't mean just with the basics of life) and cherish her?
  2. Woman asks: Is this a man to whom I can respect and honour enough to willingly submit?
I believe that if the man can't follow St. Paul's admonition, then the woman should run screaming in the other direction and likewise for the man.

Otherwise, it will probably end badly.

The key to this will be to use communication to find out the answers to both questions.

P^3








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"Father, Should I Attend That Mass?" Advice on Attending Non-SSPX Latin Masses

 + JMJ I see that the 'resistors' are in a tizzy because Fr. Robinson used them as an example instead of the sedevacantists. What is interesting is that you can apply the exact same reasons against going to a sede mass as that of the 'resistors'. Namely: On the other extreme are those situations where an SSPX priest knows that a certain non-SSPX traditionalist venue is a grave danger to the faith . Frankly, most, if not all, of the Resistance Masses would fall into this category. In many cases, the behavior of these priests has been and continues to be scandalous, by their (A) spirit, their (B) preaching, and their indiscriminate conferral of the (C) priesthood and (D) episcopacy. To attend a Mass with such ongoing scandals poses a serious danger to the souls of the faithful. Yep, looking at A,B,C and D the shoe fits. On this basis the "resistors" = "sedevacantists". P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org   A companion article to a recent "Questions with ...

Correcting Caricatures of the SSPX

 + JMJ Introduction First, a little background on the FSSP St. John Vianney Chapel in Mission Hill Kansas.  After the 1988 consecrations and the foundation of the FSSP there was a consistent trend of Dioceses allowing the SSPX to run chapels and churches near SSPX locations. As with any 'organizational change' there were those who didn't agree with the change and no longer sought the sacraments from the SSPX. I heard from friends that in that era there was a lot of anger and tension (on both sides) between the St. Mary's SSPX and Mission Hill FSSP.  Second, there have been caricatures of the SSPX position (some are evident below) in which personal opinions of SSPX priests and laity are taken as the official position or conflated with those of sedevacantists or 'resistance'. Recent Perspectives of the SSPX Position In the shadow of the consecrations a fever pitch accusations and opinions how surfaced - many of which include caricatures of the SSPX positions, of w...

SSPX: Why Is the SSPX So Criticized?

 + JMJ As long as you are ok with what happens in other Catholic Churches, Traditional Catholics will be left 'alone'.  This is a paraphrase of words spoken by an Archbishop to Traditional Catholics (with a sprinkling of SSPX) who had requested the Traditional Latin Mass under Summorum Pontificum. This reflects that attitude of the Church towards anyone who takes issue with some of the ambiguities of Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium.  If you reject the papacy but are ok with V2, the New Mass, and what Rome has stated since 1965 - then you are welcome. Question some of the more abiguous statements and ask for Rome to realise that a circle is not a square - then you are in for a world of hurt. This is where the SSPX exists and has existed from almost its very first moments. Pointing out contradictions with previous magisterium is not acceptable - under any condition. Why? Because it will cause the whole V2 house of cards to fall. I guess only when the contradic...

Stories: Early Days of Tradition Part 8 - Convention Centre Chapel

 + JMJ I came to Tradition a few years after they had bought a chapel. My wife told me of the earlier years when Fr. Normandin would come to town and Mass would be held in a room at the convention centre.  He'd start by blessing the room and then proceed with Mass. This went on for a while before the one of the faithful found a small hall that would suit just fine. They pooled their money and bought the building.  Then came the work as the retiree's refinished the floor, setup the sactuary. Oh, did I mention that I heard that the hall had been used by a motorcycle gang? The floor needed a lot of work.  I remember seeing pictures of the founders working to make the hall into a fitting place for the Sacrifice of the Mass. That little chapel would be a refuge like many others serviced by Fr. Normandin.  From Thunderbay, Ontrario to Nanaimo, British Columbia - the SSPX chapels are all the results of Fr. Normandin's missionary work in those desperate times. Without h...

How many more must die for the throne? or How to combat FUD!

 + JMJ How many more must die for the throne? (Movie Quote: Prince Caspian) The Spread of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt I've seen a lot of FUD spreading across the intergnat on various stats etc.   So let's put this in context ... especially the perspective of those people in positions of authority who need to make decisions to protect the lives of their citizens. Yep, this is going to be that type of post.  Like it or not the leaders of our governments have their authority from God.  So, as Catholics should know, you need to have a very good reason to deliberately disobey the orders of their superiors. This is basic St. Thomas Aquinas ... so don't blame me for discussing things from a Catholic perspective. The leaders of our countries have taken action to protect the vulnerable of our countries.   As much as the young and not-so-young may whine and complain - I have to ask how many more of our elderly have to die? What the armchair virologists and ec...