An Urban Family, Frank Dicksee

[A revised version of an earlier post.]

ALL of civilization depends on the father. As goes the father, so goes society. When fatherhood as an institution is strong, when a man governs his small commonwealth with a sense of his own place in a hierarchy that extends far beyond the home, order — though never perfect — radiates throughout society.

“Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum,” says Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P. “Either the man will be head of the house or the wife will; it is that simple.”

Women rule the world, says the trashy Beyoncé. And in many ways she is right.

But they rule because powerful men have let them and encouraged them to rule as a form of conquest over other men. Feminism is a black operation. Given the natural and inescapable power men have over women, the rule of women can only be a front for the rule of men, which does not mean women are not complicit in its rise. Men will always have power over women. It is only a question of whether men directed to the good will rule them or men directed toward the absence of good.

A man is not in essence superior to a woman. But by the accidental conditions of nature, he has authority over her. All male domestic authority must be founded in love, or it loses its legitimacy.

At his website Sensuus Traditionis, Fr. Ripperger’s essay “Parental Roles and Leadership” examines the issue of paternal authority.

The essay is excellent. I offer this lengthy quote with his permission:

If a wife refuses to submit to the authority of her husband, she loses the spiritual protection and providence of her husband. Whatever rises against an order or authority is deprived of that order and the principle of order. This means that when a wife volitionally rejects the authority of her husband as her spiritual head and head of the family, she takes herself out from underneath his spiritual protection and becomes vulnerable to the demonic since she has taken herself out from under the hierarchy of authority as established by God. Moreover, if she counsels her children contrary to her husband in a matter over which he has legitimate say or if she refuses to allow the children to be under her husband, she also affects the spiritual providence and protection of the children. While the husband can still exert his authority over the children, if the children take the lead of the mother in contravening his authority, the children lose that protection. We can also say this even if the children do so contrary to the consent of the mother. The father, by virtue of the office of fatherhood, has rights over the wife and children, and so when the wife and children submit to the father, they enjoy the fruits of those rights, i.e. spiritual providence and protection. Therefore, a wife should not view her subjection to her husband as a loss of freedom or control, but as a form of protection and providence, i.e. a means to her own holiness and spiritual safety.

Feminism, and by feminism is meant false feminism and not the feminism which strives to recapture the perfections of the truly feminine, directly attacks the spiritual and temporal protection and providence of the family. Power, like nature, abhors a vacuum. Either the man will be head of the house or the wife will; it is that simple. Feminists themselves are clear when they say that their movement is about power. But what they do not realize is that by grasping for an illusory feeling of being freed from “male domination,” they, in fact, place themselves open to demonic domination. Once they reject the authority of their husbands, they now become subject to the demonic since they have stepped outside the divinely established order of authority which leaves them unprotected and open to demonic influence. Once that occurs, the demonic can gain greater control over their emotional and appetite life, which results in a loss of freedom because they are now dominated byemotional and appetite life, which results in a loss of freedom because they are now dominated by their passions. It is for this reason as well as the fact that they are acting contrary to the natural law, that happiness and false feminism are mutually exclusive.

The defect of original sin of self will cannot be the determining factor in how women will lead their lives. They must overcome their self will by submitting to the divinely given authority of the husband and the husband overcomes his self will because now he must tend not to self, but to the spiritual and temporal welfare of his family. The moral of the story is that no creature ever gets absolute self governance. Let us be clear, the feminist movement has not increased the freedom of women but has left them slaves. Many women now must work because, with the glut of workers in the work force, the market will only pay so much and so a husband cannot, as a rule, sufficiently provide for his family. Feminism has locked women into a psychological prison by fashioning the mentality of the society into thinking that if a woman wants to stay home and take care of her children, she is inferior, there is something wrong with her or she is setting the feminist movement back by not being on the front lines.

Feminism has also had the bad effect of causing the rights of fathers to diminish within society and in the eyes of governmental officials. This has lead [sic] to a general moral and spiritual weakening of both government and society because they have stepped out from underneath the proper hierarchy of authority which respects the authority of the father. This has left the society as a whole unprotected and unprovided spiritually and temporally. The allowing of divorce has had a direct impact on this spiritual protection and providence for the children which in turn has had a general weakening effect on men psychologically because they no longer view themselves as head. Consequently, they no longer fulfill their temporal and spiritual responsibilities to their wives and children.

Since the father has a right in justice to protect his family, he also must pray for himself so that he does not surrender his authority and allow it to be usurped by his wife, children or others. Since his prayer stems from a right to govern and is in congruity with the divine providential plan, it is a holy prayer and therefore God will hear it. The husband must protect his authority, not as a means of controlling his wife, but to make her more free, i.e. to aid her and to protect her. He must protect his authority in order to protect his wife and it is here that we see the massive failure that has lead to our feminized culture.

The collapse of fatherhood is not due to women; it is due to men. Because men have not been men, women have been allowed to take positions for which God never intended them. If men would have protected their authority, none of this ever would have happened. But instead, men, in not having the proper self discipline which is proper to men, sought to please women or use them  in ways which were inconsistent with true manhood, and so they allowed women to pursue a feminist mentality. It is here that the ultimate blame must rest; in a word, men are more responsible for the feminist movement than women and for this reason men will pay the greater price, and not merely in the next life. For while true feminism has become distorted, true masculinity has been all but lost.

Other reasons men lose their proper authority are by (a) not observing the proper authority of the wife over the children as mother; (b) by not consulting her when prudence dictates and (c) not treating her with the dignity that is due her, either as a human being or according to her office as wife. We see this in conjunction to the words of Pius XI again:

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 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 customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs.13 

When a man assumes the headship of a home, he must respect the inherent dignity of his wife. He should not treat her in a manner inconsistent with the closest of friendships, since marriage by natureconstitutes the closest of friendships. Now since friendship is founded upon mutual love,14 the husband should not govern his family in any manner that is contrary to rightly ordered love. Men often experience a certain rebellion from their wives because of mistreatment or a lack of legitimate concern for their wives. While this is an admonition to husbands, it does not give the excuse to the wives to use it as a means of manipulating their husbands.

Moreover, women often rebel when the husband acts without consulting her or in a manner which the wife considers imprudent. Just as reason must take into consideration the condition of the
body when it deliberates about what action to perform, so the husband should take into consideration the good of his wife. He should also consult his wife when (a) there is a possibility that the wife may know more about the children since she lives more closely with them or (b) when she may have a particular ability in an area upon which the counsel touches. Just as it is imprudent sometimes to act without consulting others, so it can be imprudent, at times, for a husband to act without consulting his wife. This also follows from the fact that if the wife is consulted, it will psychologically dispose her to follow the governance of her husband because she knows he has taken her counsel into consideration. In this respect, we see that governance in the family is more of a political rule rather than a despotic rule. For just as a president or king more efficaciously rules when he persuades the citizens of the good of a law, so a husband is more able to lead his wife by consulting her and explaining his reasons. While it is true that sometimes the nature of the circumstances do not permit him to consult his wife or if the wife is not open to a rational discussion, he has the obligation to lead, even if the wife resists. This also does not take way the wife’s right to object when the course of action clearly violates God’s law or right reason.

The husband can also undermine his authority by not respecting the office of motherhood and of wife. Just as the husband and father is an office of governance and headship, so is the office of mother in relation to the children. Since the wife must be subject to her husband, her governance of the children must be in accordance with the legitimate commands of her husband. Yet, if the husband does not respect the office of motherhood by not recognizing the authority of his wife over the children, albeit her authority is subject to him, then he disrespects God from whom the authority of the office of motherhood is derived and divides the governance of the family. As St. Thomas has pointed out,15 governance is always done through a unified principle, whether it is the king who is one, or the aristocracy which acts together as one when it legislates or when by the multitude by consent of the majority which acts as one, so in the family the husband and wife must rule together as a single unit. If the husband, without reason, contravenes the mother’s governance of the children, he weakens his own governance. [cont.]

Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P., Ph.D.

Copyright © 2006

Please follow and like us: