VANESSA writes, as part of the ongoing discussion about Catholicism and feminism:

In response to Kimberly’s statement:

Another traditional priest I used to confess to told me that at times, it’s even okay to lie to your husband! The example he gave was that if my husband hates my mother and says she is not to be allowed in my home, and yet she comes to visit me and I allow her in, that it would be fine to tell him that she was never there if he were to ask. Makes sense to me. But then, I know my own husband,

I can only say that the priest was in grave error.

It is one thing to be disobedient if your husband asks you to commit a grave sin. It is another to be willfully and spitefully disobedient in such a manner. If your husband doesn’t want your mother in his house, that is completely within his rights and should be respected.

Lying about it, on top of the disobedience, is merely adding fuel to the fire. It is clear, from the Old Testament, that lying is allowed in extreme cases. For instance, to protect someone’s life. But lying to your husband because you can’t be bothered to respect his authority is nothing but a show of contempt.

The statement “submit in all things” is about the breadth, not depth, of his authority. There is no household or family topic in which the wife is the leader. The husband is the leader in all things. A wife carries the weight of the salvation of her own soul, and a responsibility for protecting her children and herself from grave abuse or neglect. Of course, her submission will be limited by that. But only by that.

Husbands carry an enormous responsibility to protect, lead, and provide for their families. It can be an almost crushing burden, and the wife’s obedience and respect are meant to ease this burden. How can he concentrate on what he has to do, if he’s constantly worrying about whether he can trust his wife to be his helpmeet? How can you be a helpmeet if you are defying him and second-guessing his decisions? You are merely adding to his burden. How is that a show of love and respect, on the part of the wife?

Laura writes:

This is an excellent statement. Thank you.

                                 — Comments —

Kimberly writes:

Vanessa’s response is good, and appreciated. She explained very well what St. Paul means.

The priest that told me I could lie was a bit nervous about my situation, and I think when I was confessing to him at that time, what he told me was good advice. But it’s probably not good advice to hang on to, and I’m glad I mentioned it to kill any resonance it left. I have never used it, mind you.

What I was asking was a more general question that I’ve had for a long time, and never had the opportunity to ask. I’m wondering what the big difference is between Vatican II and pre-Vatican II and how it can be possible that the Church has been so poisoned? It seems to go against what Jesus promised. Maybe it doesn’t. I’m just wondering why John, and so many other good Catholics I know, see the church now as “rotten from the head”, and yet don’t seem to be worried about Jesus having handed those keys to Peter. It’s just really scary to think that the Church as I know and love her is considered “rot” by other Catholics. I guess it’s extra scary when you don’t understand everything that has been going on, and since I’m in my early twenties, I have had little time to take notice. It’s all pretty overwhelming.

Laura writes:

Suffice it to say that the Church reflects the wider culture in the changes you mention. No one here has come close to calling the existing Church “rot” or to dismissing it. 

Kimberly writes:

John wrote:

There are two fundamental views of this situation. One says, “The teachings of Vatican II and the conciliar popes (e.g. Theology of the Body) are compatible with the Catholic Faith, but liberal interpreters (e.g. Christopher West) have distorted and mis-represented them.” The other view says, “Since the time of Vatican II the teachings coming from Rome no longer represent the Catholic Faith of the prior 2,000 years.” 

“As for myself, I take the second view. The more I investigated these questions, the more I realized that the problems began at the top. “The fish rots from its head.” 

John compares the Church, since the time of Vatican II, to a fish that’s rotting. Anyone reading carefully will see that. You can pick and choose and brush things over if you like. But I see what he said and it doesn’t sit right.

Laura writes:

I stand corrected. He did speak of the Church as rotting. He said so in defense of the Church’s traditional beliefs. A thing rots when it is infected with foreign organisms that are harmful to its existence. I have no problem with his use of this phrase and do not consider it disrespectful in the least. To the contrary, he is defending the Church.

Vanessa writes:

Suffice it to say that the Church reflects the wider culture in the changes you mention.

I think we also have to remember the universal nature of the Church. A Western feminist who reads the Pope’s writings could twist it to mean that wifely submission is no longer acquired. (Something he never said, nor has Benedict ever said that. We are complaining that they did not reinforce it, not that they have denied those teachings.) But what of the woman in Africa, whose father is requiring her to undergo female circumcision? What about the Chinese Christian, who reads JPII’s writings on the dignity of women, and is emboldened in his refusal to abort his baby daughter? There are people in the third world (where Catholicism is growing quickly) who are dealing with completely different issues than we are. Perhaps his writings give them hope, reaffirm their essential worth as children of Christ, and stiffens their backs against the daily persecution such Christians have to deal with.

Western women don’t generally need this affirmation, so perhaps we should merely learn to take such writings with a grain of salt. They are a bit like telling the world’s most intelligent person that they are smart. It is redundant, and even a bit counter-productive.

Another thing we should also not forget is that priests and bishops are trained to deal with theological issues. It is very difficult for them to give advice on the day-to-day living in a marriage. It’s a bit like asking a tailor about bread baking. He can conjecture, project, and ruminate. He can discuss how he’s watched other people baking bread, or read books about baking. But he’s never actually baked any bread.

That’s why this blog, and other sites, are so vital. Many of us are quite clueless, and the rest of us benefit from regular reminders. We used to have extended families and tight-knit communities to turn to, but many of us are living much more isolated today.

Kimberly said, It’s just really scary to think that the Church as I know and love her is considered “rot” by other Catholics.

The Church itself is actually quite diverse. There is room for a difference of opinion on many topics, even strident debate. Even once the theology is settled, the practical implications have to be hammered out. These are very complex issues with many facets. Such debate actually strengthens my trust in the Church.

Benedict was already slowly making moves in the right direction. Unfortunately, the Pope is now a bit side-tracked with the anti-Catholic pogrom ongoing. The Church moves slowly. It’s quite old, you know.

Laura writes:

Feminism has been so profoundly destructive in the West, it is no exaggeration to say that it threatens civilization itself, that when a pope reinforces feminist teachings in a possible effort to inspire  Third World Christians, it is crucial for him to recognize what harm he may be doing in the West and to therefore make these very important distinctions. (He would also do well to warn women in impoverished countries away from the sort of plundering of local traditions that international agencies sometimes advocate.) Instead of saying that women are wonderful in whatever they do, which is an idea harmful to Third World women too, he can say abortion is wrong, always and categorically wrong, and female circumcision is evil and an affront to God.

I would hope when making a speech to all the world’s women that he would remind us of our potential for evil. Judica me, Pater. To be judged is to be loved.

Please follow and like us: