Parental Roles and
Leadership
Fr. Chad Ripperger, F.S.S.P., Ph.D.
Copyright © 2006
One reads on
a daily basis in various news sources that the government is encroaching on the
rights of parents over their children. The government claims it is its place to
educate children and some even want to make it compulsory by forcing parents to
send their kids to public schools where they can be indoctrinated in what they
call the latest and greatest but which is nothing more than a failing sex
education experiment. However, despite all of this encroachment, it is my
contention that the greatest subverters of the temporal and spiritual authority
and leadership over their children are the parents and children themselves.
Since
leadership within the family, as will be seen, consists in the husband and wife
fulfilling their proper roles, what can be said of leadership may conversely be
said of roles. Yet, roles within the family are based upon authority and so it
is necessary to talk about parental authority. The understanding of the
temporal and spiritual authority of parents, however, is first founded on the
understanding of the nature of authority. Authority is defined as “the moral
right to direct the conduct of others and the duty on their part of obedience.”1 In like manner, Leo XIII in the document
Libertas
Praestantissimum2 provides the
following description or even definition, we may say, of authority:
For since the
force of law consists in the imposing of obligations and the granting of
rights, authority is the one and only foundation of all law – the power, that
is, of fixing duties and defining rights, as also of assigning the necessary
sanctions of reward and chastisement to each and all of its commands.
Authority is
the right to impose on others an obligation, i.e. they are bound to follow the
precepts of the authority. It consists in the right of governance over the
actions of others in relation to that over which he has authority, be it
persons or things. In this sense, parents have authority over their children
and so their children are obligated to submit to the authority of their parents.
Furthermore, others cannot act upon the children without permission. Having
authority also consists in the giving of reward and chastisements to each and
all of the persons over whom they have authority. Parents have a right and
obligation to reward or punish their child by virtue of the authority which
they have over them.
Yet, these
assertions require the understanding of two more things, viz. what is a right
and from whence is authority derived. The term right is defined in a slightly
different fashion by various authors but they tend to have pretty much the same
meaning; a right “is defined as a moral power vested in a person to which the
holder of the power may claim something as due to him or as belonging to him,
or to demand of others that they perform some acts or abstain from them.” A
right is something which gives a person the ability or capacity to have a say
over something and/or which requires obligations on the side of others to
render the thing or some action to the person holding the right. In this sense,
a right is something which obliges others to respect and observe as well as
render to another when justice demands it.
Authority is
a right, since it is something possessed by the holder which obliges two
categories of persons: (1) those under the authority must render to the
authority that which he asks of them and (2) those not under the authority must
respect and not encroach upon that authority by contravening it or by acting on
the thing or person over which he has authority. In the context of parental
rights over their children, it means that parents have the right to say what
the child will and will not do. The children have an obligation in justice to
render to the parents their due and the civil authorities must not infringe on
the rights of the parents.
All rights
are of two kinds, absolute and conditional. An absolute right is one in which
no one under any circumstances may contravene in relation to the thing over
which the person has a right. A conditional right is one in which the right is
bounded or limited either by the nature of the thing or the nature of the
relationship the person has to the thing. What this means is that no creature
has an absolute right; only God has an absolute right for only He is the author
of the whole of creation and since the whole of creation depends on God in
every way, then He has every right, i.e. an absolute right of the disposition
of His creation. Man, on the other hand, only has conditional rights, which are
limited first and foremost by the natural law. Even the right to life is not an
absolute right because (a) God has the right to take our life and (b) our right
to life is bounded by the natural law, i.e. one’s right cannot exceed the
limits of the right conceded. For instance, the state in being entrusted with
the care of the common good, has a conditional or limited right over the lives
of the citizens by being able to tell certain members of the society to lay
down their life for the protection of the society, e.g. in times of war. The
difficulty, of course, consists in precisely where the limits lie in relation
to the right, but here again, we know what the rights are and their limits by
means of the natural law.
This brings
us to the question of the derivation of authority. If authority is a right over
something or someone, by its very nature, authority establishes an inequality;
for superior and inferior are not equal, at least in relation to the aspect
over which the superior has authority. Let us put it a different way: no man by
virtue of his human nature has a right over another man; by this is meant that
since men are equal in essence, no man is essentially above another man and so
no man can have authority derived from his essence over another man. Yet, man
has accidents and the metaphysicians tell us that accidents are in a hierarchy.
We see this by virtue of the fact that some people have superior accidents to
other, e.g. some are more intelligent, some are more beautiful, some are more
physically powerful, etc. In this sense, it is possible that one man has
authority over another man by virtue of some accident which he possesses in relation
to the person, e.g. a father who has begotten a son does not have authority
over the son by virtue of his essence but by virtue of his accident of the
office of fatherhood. Fatherhood is a superior accident to sonship and so
fathers can have authority over sons.
Authority
gives one the ability to bind one in conscience and, yet, no man, merely by
being a man, has the right to bind another man in conscience. Our Lord confirms
this conclusion by the words which He spoke through St. Paul in his letter to
the Romans:3 “Let every soul be
subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that
are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resists the power, resists the
ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation.” We
also know that all authority must in some way be derived from Christ, since He
told us while on earth,4 “All power
is given to me in heaven and in earth.” The Magisterium also confirms this
since it says “Lawful power is from God,”5
and in another place: “With God and Jesus excluded from public life, with
authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority
has been taken away.”6 This
essentially means that all authority is in some way derived from God. Even if
one argues that the authority is derived from the people, God is the cause of
the people as well as the Natural Law and so the authority is still derived
from God, just indirectly.
This applies
to parents, for we see this by virtue of the prior Scriptural quotes but we can
also see it from the point of the view of the natural law. We see in children a
natural inclination7 to submit to
their parents. When a child acts according to the natural law and when the
parents give him a lawful command, the child feels compelled to obey his
parents and not others. Even though original and actual sin have eroded this a
bit, nevertheless, children naturally gravitate to the parents to tell them what
to do, which can be especially understood in times of distress or trouble. When
there is some serious event, the child naturally looks to the parents to direct
him away from the difficulty. This natural inclination stems from the fact that
children are not born with sufficient experience and knowledge to guide
themselves and so they must depend on the parents to do so. It is not until a
child reaches puberty that the changes in bodily dispositions embolden the
child to think he is capable of complete independence. Of course, the child’s
experiences prior to puberty do not fully make him capable of dealing with the
emotions and passions which differ after puberty since he lacks experience in
handling them. Even though general precepts from parents may help, the
application of the precepts in the concrete becomes difficult due to the
passions which blind his judgment. For a time, he needs the wisdom of the
parents whose passions should be ordered through virtue and whose experience
should have made them wise.
We now can
return to the observations with which this conference began. First, since
parents have been given authority over the child, conceded by God through the
natural law to the parents, then the state cannot infringe upon the rights of
parents unless, through some defect of the parents, grave harm would come to
the child. One of the signs that people do not grasp that the authority of the
parents comes from God is the fact that when people see a child being physically
disciplined in a manner consistent with virtue, they run off to the civil
authorities to intervene because they think the state has the ultimate rights
over the child. Most social programs run by the state suffer from a failure to
understand that their rights only pertain to the common good and cannot
infringe upon the rights and authority of the parents without it somehow
gravely touching upon the common good.
Yet, we must
address the problem of how parents and children undermine this God given authority.
First let us start with children because it is the easiest to see. Children, by
disobedience and disrespect, undermine the authority of their parents. Each
time a parent gives a child a lawful command and the child does not fulfill it,
the child violates the rights of the parents to govern him according to the
natural law. On the other hand, parents can indirectly undermine their
authority by not properly governing their children since the authority becomes
psychologically undermined in the minds of the children by inconsistent or
altogether missing direction, governance and discipline.
We now move
to a more thorny issue and that is the rights of the father over the family.
The submission of the wife to husband is a principle not only manifest in
natural law but in divine positive law. The natural law reasons involve too
many complexities and so we will stick only with the divine positive law. Our
Lord said by means of St. Paul, “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.”8
This passage
is interpreted by Pius XI in the following manner:
This order
includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children,
the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle
commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the
Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of
the Church." ...It forbids that exaggerated liberty which cares not for
the good of the family; it forbids that in this body which is the family, the
heart be separated from the head to the great detriment of the whole body and
the proximate danger of ruin. For if the man is the head, the woman is the
heart, and as he occupies the chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to
claim for herself the chief place in love. ...But the structure of the family
and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and
everywhere be maintained intact.9
Leo XIII put
it this way: “The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife.”10 The husband as
head of the family has a temporal authority insofar as it is his duty and right
to provide materially for and to protect physically his family, since the
nature of fatherhood is to provide and to protect. He also has a spiritual
authority insofar as his obligations to the children are not merely physical
but also spiritual and so he also enjoys a spiritual authority insofar as it
pertains to the father to determine the cult of a family. Since the husband
must provide and protect his family, not just physically but spiritually from
those things which can psychologically, morally and spiritually harm his
family, he enjoys a certain spiritual power. It is for this reason that
prayers, sufferings and good works offered to God for the spiritual protection
and providence of his family are of key importance. It pertains to the father,
first and foremost, to protect his children spiritually. Since he has the authority,
the father, more than the wife, has the capacity to merit the grace for his
wife to lead a life of virtue. Whenever a husband fails to pray, suffer and do
good works to merit graces for his wife and family, he fails in the most
important task as husband and father. For the father provides for his family
spiritually by meriting the graces for his wife (and children) to lead a life
according to virtue in accordance with her state. When the father sees a moral
or spiritual fault in his wife or child, he fails to provide for them if he
merely temporally admonishes them. Rather, once he sees the defect, he must
spiritually do what he can to merit the grace as well as direct his children
and wife through his commands to lead them to virtue. He must protect his
family spiritually, not only by not allowing things like pornography, false
religions, etc. to enter the minds and senses of his wife and children, but by
praying, suffering and doing good works to keep the demonic away from his
family. Since the husband has been entrusted to protect his wife and children
spiritually, if the demonic attack his family, the merits of the father to ward
off the demonic are more powerful by virtue of his office as husband than his
wife’s.11 Moreover,
since the demons must respect the order of authority, the father enters more
efficaciously into the spiritual warfare with the demonic since ultimately they
must submit to the order of authority established by God.
Here,
however, we see how damaging false feminism is. 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 by their passions.12 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 led 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 freer, 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 led 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 not
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 nature constitutes 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. Instead of ruling his children directly by having the right to give
them a command directly and indirectly through his wife, he is reduced to
ruling only directly. This means that when he is away, the children will
recognize a shift in the power structure within the family and thereby not obey
their mother since they can always think to themselves that they can tell their
mother no because dad would disagree or something of this nature. In effect,
the principle of governing unity is torn asunder by the bifurcation of the
husband and wife not acting as one. It is only in serious matters that the
husband should contravene the governance of his wife. He must respect the office
of motherhood insofar as it is also instituted by God, i.e. its authority is
derived from God as well. While it is true that her authority must be subject
to his, nevertheless, it does have its own intrinsic authority, not completely
derived from his but from God. This flows from the natural law insofar as
children have a natural inclination to obey not just the father but the mother
as well even though their obedience should be first to the father.16
If a man
contravenes the authority of his wife without sufficient reason, the natural
inclination of his wife to govern the children becomes frustrated and enmity
can arise between the man and his wife. Whereas when the husband affirms the
authority of his wife to govern the children, the proper order intended by God
is fulfilled and so peace, which is the tranquility of order, comes to the
house. Moreover, if the children clearly recognize that the parents are unified
in heart and in mind and work together, the wife under the husband in unity,
they are more likely to learn the proper understanding of authority both in the
family and out and more likely to be obedient and respectful of authority both
in the family and out.
Another way a
husband undermines his own authority is by not respecting the office of wife.
The office of
a wife consists in the obligation to maintain and at times arrange the
disposition of the home. Because the husband normally should be working, he
cannot tend to the upkeep of the home and so God established the office of
wife. It is for this reason that it is more connatural for a wife to determine
the disposition or arrangement of the home. While a man has ultimate say,
normally it should be left to the wife since she is the one that has to clean,
take care and use the home to raise the children and to serve her husband.
Often men will ridicule and complain about the wife’s disposition of the home
and this can have a divisive effect within the family.17 The result
being that the wife begins to listen to her husband less or tries to manipulate
him because she wants something for the home or does not want him affecting
things at home. By doing so, she seeks to assume a position of power over her
husband and so the husband himself is the indirect cause of his own loss of his
wife’s lack of submission.
The second
aspect of the office of wife is the obligation to serve the husband. We read in
Genesis that, “for Adam there was not found a helper like himself”18 and so the
commentators throughout history have interpreted this section of Genesis meaning
that woman was made for man. From this is derived the notion that because the
man is the head of the house, it is the place of the woman to serve her
husband. Not as a slave, a minor or an animal, but as someone worthy of the
man’s appreciation because she is flesh of his flesh. St. Thomas makes the
observation that when someone does us a favor, in justice we owe them thanks.19 This means
that when the wife takes care of the home and makes the meals, in justice the
husband owes her gratitude and not ridicule or disrespect.20 Each time he
fails to act in a manner that shows gratitude, he demeans the office of wife
and thereby disrespects the office which God Himself has established; in a
phrase, he sins. But in like manner, whenever we do something for someone and
he shows no appreciation, we begin to lose our appetitive attachment to him and
it can culminate in hatred since the person recognizes that he does not appreciate
us and looks down on us. This aspect results in the wife hating or distrusting
her husband which in turn moves her not to be submissive. In this respect, the
husband has an obligation to show his wife the proper appreciation and to
respect her office as wife in order to preserve his own proper authority. If a
man’s wife is not submissive because he is cruel or disrespecting of her, or
worse yet physically or psychologically abusive, he has only himself to blame.
Therefore, his right to govern can suffer injury from his own hands.
Yet, since
the right to govern is like all rights afforded to a creature, none of them are
absolute and so it is possible for the father to lose his right of governance,
not only temporarily but permanently, e.g. if he were to pose a grave threat to
the spiritual or physical well-being of the children. But like other natural
rights, once the impediment which blocks the exercise of the right is removed,
the husband regains his right of governance. If the husband is incapable of
fulfilling some aspect of the headship of the home, the wife may take over, if
necessary. Here we see the wisdom of the words of Pius XI again:
Again, this
subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to
the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband
neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the
family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established
and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact.21
Only a defect
on the side of the male counter-part allows the wife to assume some
responsibility normally reserved to the husband. By defect here is not meant,
necessarily, a moral defect, e.g. if a husband goes off to war or is killed,
the wife must assume the responsibilities of the husband. But notice that this
is because of some defect which makes it physically or morally impossible for
the male to fulfill his role. I have heard confessions long enough and I
believe I am old enough to say that often women use some slight moral defect on
the side of their husband in order to engage in power grabbing. The assuming of
the responsibility must have a sufficient reason, and the fact that one’s
husband may put his socks on the end of the bed or because he picks his teeth
is not a sufficient reason for his wife to try to take control over the family.
On the other hand, since the male has a grave responsibility as head of the
household, his obligations and responsibilities require an exacting account
before God for their execution. If he fails in his responsibility, he will pay
a greater price than his wife. In this respect, it is easier for a woman to
save her soul than a man, because original sin has left men with the wound of
not wanting to take responsibility, at times, for his family because the task
is arduous. If he does not fulfill his responsibility, it is because he is
succumbing to self-will which does not want to suffer. Yet, women have also
been affected by original sin and since their natural inclination is to be
provided for and protected, then the original sin and actual sin incline women
to reject the providence and protection by trying to assume the position of
command.
Virtue is
that which perfects the inclinations of nature and if a male who is inclined by
nature to assume the headship fails to do so, he will be a vicious man, not
angry or mean necessarily, but a coward and weak. On the other hand, a virtuous
woman will seek a man who will provide and protect her so that she can act
according to the natural law, i.e. a virtuous wife is someone who seeks to aid
her husband so that he can provide for and protect the family the way he
should. Only pride and self-will drives a woman to seek control and in our
culture only pride and self-will causes a man to surrender his authority to his
wife. For it takes a truly humble man to go against the culture and sometimes
even the disordered inclinations of his wife to assume authority because he
will not be loved by this world, and perhaps not even by his wife for doing so.
He will suffer self-will for he will not submit to the divine providential plan
which dictates the structure of the family. The man must also seek meekness so
that he does not go to extremes in his reactions in the governance of his wife
and family, but does so only according to right reason. In the end, the
temporal and spiritual authority of parents is there to build virtue in the
husband and the wife as well as the children. As long as our culture is
dominated by pride and self-will fueled by disordered passions, it will never
enjoy the peace of the rightly ordered family. Feminism must vanish if our
culture is ever to have interior peace again and if true leadership within the
family is to take root.
1 The
Catholic Encyclopedia Dictionary, The Gilmore Society, 1941, p. 82.
2 Para.
8.
3 Romans
13:1f.
4 Matthew
28:18.
5 Leo
XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, para 13.
6 Pius
XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio as quoted in Quas Primas, para. 18 by the same pope
(as found at www.ewtn.com).
7 In
Thomistic terms (see ST I-II, q. 94, a. 2), this inclination is part of the
third category of natural inclination.
8 Ephesians
5:22f.
9 Pius
XI, Casti Connubii, para. 26 (as found at www.ewtn.com).
10 Leo
XIII, Arcanum divinae sapientiae, para. 11 (as found at www.ewtn.com).
11 Here
we are prescinding from the relative merit in which a wife, if more holy, can
merit more, not by virtue of her office as wife but by virtue of her excellence
in grace.
12 This
is one of the reasons why feminists tend to suffer from the passion of anger. Another
reason is that the divinely established structure of the family and society is
built into the natural law which means man will always be inclined to establish
things in that manner. As a result, feminists are constantly frustrated by the
natural inclination in others as it plays itself out in the lives of the
feminists.
13 Pius
XI, Casti Connubii, paras. 26-8.
14 ST
II-II, q. 23, a. 1.
15 De
regimine principum, chpt. 2.
16 The
principle holds true unless the father exhorts the children to do something
sinful.
17 A
woman must use moderation in how she disposes the home by not purchasing
unnecessary items and things of this sort and then the husband will be less
likely to complain. Obviously, if the financial support of the family is coming
from his hard work, he will feel like his hard work is going to waste if the
financial aspect of disposing the home is not moderated. Yet, on the other
hand, husbands have to have sufficient detachment from the fruits of their work
so that they do not become miserly in regards to proper disposition of the
home.
18 Genesis
2:20.
19 ST
II-II, q. 106f.
20 In
the well known track in the Old testament Mulierem Fortem, the proper appreciation
that a man should have for his wife is given foundation in the goodness of the
wife herself, see Proverbs 31:10-31. If a wife is a good wife, then he ought to
appreciate her.
21 Pius
XI, Casti Connubii, para. 28.
