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

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...

SSPX and the Resistance - A Comparison Of Ecclesiology

Shining the light of Church Teaching on the doctrinal positions of the SSPX and the Resistance. Principles are guides used to aid in decision making.  It stands to reason that bad principles will lead to bad decisions. The recent interactions between Rome and the SSPX has challenged a number of closely held cultural assumptions of people in both sides of the disagreement. This has resulted in cultural skirmishes in both Rome and the SSPX. Since it is the smaller of the two, the skirmishes have been more evident within the SSPX.  The cultural fault-line that Bishop Fellay crossed appears to be linked to two points of Catholic Doctrine: Ecclesiology and Obedience.  The cultural difference of view points is strong enough that it has resulted in the expulsion of a number of members.  It should also be noted that some other priests expelled since the beginning of the latest interactions (starting in 2000) held the same view points and have joined with the l...

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...

Spiritual Journey Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Extracts

+ JMJ I have posted these two chapters to provide context for the quote of: It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith. P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.ca Chapter II The Perfections of God We ought to remember during this entire contemplation of God that we must apply all that is said of God to Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God. We cannot separate Jesus Christ from God. We cannot separate the Christian religion from Jesus Christ, Who is God, and we must affirm and believe that only the Catholic religion is the Christian religion. These affirmations have, as a result, inescapable conclusions that no ecclesiastic authority can contest: outside of Jesus Christ and the Catholic religion, that is, outsi...

Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (de fide) - Expanded Listing: Answer for Reader

 + JMJ  A reader asked the following question in the 2015 version of the article on the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith (link) : 117: "In the state of fallen nature it is morally impossible for man without Supernatural Revelation, to know easily, with absolute certainty and without admixture of error, all religious and moral truths of the natural order." Where can you find this in the documents of the Church? ( Link to comment )  Here's the reference from Ott: The citation that Ott provided was Denzinger 1786 and the source document is Dogmatic Consitution Concerning the Faith from the First Vatican Council (Papal Encyclicals - link) : Chapter 2 On Revelation, Article 3: It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation , that those matters concerning God, which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone, without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error. Here's ...