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

What is Tradition?

 + JMJ What Is Tradition? The basic premise, from my perspective, is that what was taught before cannot be contradicted by the 'present' magisterium, only deepened and expanded upon. I recall the Roman theologians called the SSPX protestants while the SSPX called them modernists.  I believe this was all surrounding the concept of Traditon. SSPX's Understanding of Tradition One accusation made against the SSPX is that they don't have a correct understanding of 'Tradition'.  This is how the SSPX understands Tradition: I finally profess that Tradition is not a dead memory, but the living transmission of the doctrine received from the Apostles. It remains living, in distinction to Revelation, which is closed. It is so both in the activity of the Magisterium of the Teaching Church and in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, of which the sentire cum Ecclesia is the result of the teaching of the Magisterium. Tradition may be called ‘living’, not in the sense t...

SSPX.ca: What is the position of the SSPX on Vatican II???

 + JMJ With all the mis-information about the SSPX rejecting the Second Vatican Council, I thought it would be useful to publish an article that focuses on the real issues that the SSPX has identified. Update: Why Did the SSPX Consecrate Bishops? ( Neither Schismatic, Nor Disobedient link ) In the linked document the SSPX outlined the key motivation and core issues with Vatican II and the post-conciliar magisterium (see above link for full document): 4. The Society Acted Precisely Because of the State of Necessity in Which the Faith Finds Itself  In the present situation of the Church, if the Society of Saint Pius X had not carried out the consecrations of July 1st, it would have found itself facing an inevitable alternative: either to disappear gradually, or to accept, at least in fact, the new liturgy as well as the false doctrines of Vatican II and the post-council. Without the consecrations of July 1st, the Fraternity would have found itself, in a few years, without bishop...

Thoughts on: Finding Common Ground Between Rome and the SSPX

 + JMJ In the ramp up to the consecrations the noise floor in the intergnat grew to a constant din.  This was one of the few the peeped its signal over the noise. https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/finding-common-ground-between-rome-and-the-sspx The key issue is contained in this paragraph: In the lead-up to the planned July 1, 2026, episcopal consecrations,  the SSPX rejected Rome’s offer  of doctrinal dialogue on the grounds that “we both know in advance that we cannot agree doctrinally, particularly regarding the fundamental orientations adopted since the Second Vatican Council.” Fr. Pagliarani also said that his previous attempt at dialogue in 2019 was shut down by Rome because of an assumed irreconcilability. It seems that, from the Society’s perspective, and perhaps from Rome’s too, their positions are incompatible. If memory serves, Rome killed any opportunity for an open discussion by stating that Vatican II was not up for debate. So it was a still-birth and ...

The News is an Addiction ...

 + JMJ People seem to be mesmerised by train wrecks.   They just can't turn away as the disaster creeps forward along train tracks towards the crossing where a car, truck, bus, trailer awaits its destruction. Trads have been watching the train wreck that is this crisis of the Catholic Church for decades. The trade war between the Canada and the US has reminded me that the news is addictive.   The first time I was addicted what from 2009 to  2014 when I was closely following the Rome / SSPX discussions.  I was at work watching a live-stream as Bishop Fellay disappeared into the Vatican. The lead-up to this moment had been intense as the 'resistance' got freaked out and the cultural cracks between doctrine and conspiracy theory widened. In the decade since then other things have emerged, wars, rumours of wars, conspiracies, celebrity Catholics etc. Now we have a new addiction and its name is Trump. Lately, no matter how much I try, I find myself wonderin...

Thoughts on the Thoughts of a former SSPX priest

 + JMJ Well Gary Campbell, former SSPX Priest and now laicised has posted a new article on WherePeterIs. https://wherepeteris.com/thoughts-of-a-former-sspx-priest-on-the-july-1-consecrations/ These words stuck out: Heck, they have built a five-star hotel, wine bar, and Walmart on the opposite bank of the Rubicon! They are not in danger of entering a state of schism, for they are  already  in a state of schism. I believe he doth protest too much. All the actual facts indicate that the SSPX was not in a state of schism before July 1st and an examination of the decree of excommunication highlights the either ineptitude of those in charge or a desire to leave the barn door open. The chasm between an act of disobedience and act of schism remains just what is has always been - an inconvenient barrier that person(s) in Rome seek to bridge but appear incapable of succeeding. The SSPX re-stated that they recognize the Pope as the Vicar of Christ and feel obliged by conscience...