+St. Raphael, Archangel+
In response to concerns expressed by readers, the following link will provide a refutation of the errors spread by Gerry Matatics for so many years both by his conferences and across the Internet via countless videos. He mainly appeals to those who are not well-educated in the faith and cannot easily spot his errors, particularly the younger generation. In writing this article, we hope that those of good will may better understand that while Matatics presents as Catholic and is the current darling of the LibTrad crowd, they cannot listen to his material and still consider themselves Catholic.His many errors, his relentless self-promotion and his perversion of the pray-at-home position — also his association with a certain destructive sect, as has been noted here before — should give those wishing to preserve their faith every reason to avoid him, as St. John instructs. See the article HERE.
An error concerning the obedience wives owe their husbands, predominant among the recusant sect Matatics founded, however, deserves a separate treatment, and this we present below. As with all rigorist teaching, evidenced by the recusant stand on women wearing pants, they take an exaggerated view of this obedience that is not consistent with Church teaching. And they do not specify precisely how such obedience is to be exercised or under what circumstances. Hopefully what follows will shed some light on this issue.
Obedience and male superiority
The modesty issue has already been addressed in previous blogs, most recently HERE. In order to insist on their Puritanical, Jansenistic idea of modesty, recusants have even lowered themselves to falsifying the meaning of a papal decree on morals. Not surprising, given their total rejection of papal teaching on the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff and their profession of the Feeneyite heresy. But it goes much further than that. They also have entirely misconstrued the Church’s teaching on the obedience a wife owes to her husband and have tried to paint with a broad brush the whole of marital obedience. No mention whatsoever is made of what one is obliged to do when the duties of father and husband are not fulfilled by the man, as often happens for many in these times. Nor do they quote this important teaching from Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubi regarding wifely obedience:
“This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as the 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 a 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. But 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.”
Commenting on the above, Rev. Thomas J. Gerrard, in his 1937 work, Marriage and Parenthood, the Catholic Ideal, writes: “A wife would be acting well within her rights were she to resent any interference in [domestic] matters. Hard and fast rules, however, cannot be laid down. Much depends upon the temperament of individuals and the force of circumstances. If a man has repeatedly failed in business and eventually has to depend on his wife for support, he can hardly expect to have the same authority as one who has shown himself capable of managing his affairs. Again, no obedience is due to him when he is obviously demanding something contrary to divine law. Should a husband require a wife to give up any of her religious duties as a Catholic or ask her to do something which is against any of the Ten Commandments, these are reasons when she not only may, but must disobey.”
Not only failings in business but abandonment of the family by indulging in various addictions that waste the family income, mental illness [where right reason is lacking], or simple habitual neglect of the care of children, spouse and home — all these are treated by theologians as a form of abandonment where the wife must act as the head of the family. And this is only common sense. Fr. Leo J. Kinsella, in his work, The Man for Her, (1957) also writes: “No one can criticize the wife for assuming the matriarchal role if the husband abandons his leadership. Somebody has to run the show. Whatever be the causes and excuses, the utter nonsense of a matriarchal society is the shame of husbands who have abandoned the ramparts.”
Duties of the husband and father
It is a self-evident truth that marriage is a vocation that ties both man and woman to certain duties that must be fulfilled if mortal sin is to be avoided and salvation achieved. For the mother, it is care of the children and the home. For the father, it is the support of the family, the handling of the finances and supervision of the care of the family. Such a vocation cannot be laid aside in pursuit of some other necessary endeavor unless the wife or husband mutually consents and agrees to assume the father’s/mother’s responsibilities. In writing these many years, I have been accused by others of abandoning my wifely and motherly duties, yet I wrote with the full consent of my husband, God rest his soul, and worked full-time as well, once my children were grown, in addition to attending to my duties at home. The pretext that one must “work for the Church in these times,” even with the consent of one’s partner, if it involves the neglect or abandonment of the marriage vocation, is a total rejection of God’s will, since performing one’s freely accepted daily duties in a manner pleasing to God is essential to salvation.
In previous times, with the consent of one’s partner and on the condition the family would be provided for, one would be allowed to enter the religious life. This is impossible today. What is possible is for the father, as head of the family, to engage his wife and children in some worthy apostolate that would help spread the truths of faith or assist other Catholic families. This would fulfill the obligation to defend the faith, engage in a form of Catholic Action, and satisfy one’s desire to assist the Church. The need is great and the possibilities are endless. But the condition is that one work within the boundaries of the faith as defined by the Continual Magisterium, for certainly efforts to enlighten and educate cannot be indulged in unless these boundaries are observed. One cannot publicly defend the faith if it entails any neglect of marital duties or expound on matters that the Church has forbidden us to expound upon. This is especially true, for example, regarding debates with non-Catholics or any treatment of Holy Scripture, done without relying primarily on the opinions of approved Scripture scholars, since only the Roman Pontiffs are allowed to determine their meaning and who is qualified to comment on these sacred truths.
Male superiority can be asserted only when males rise to the heighth of their God-assigned vocations to defend faith and family, attending to ALL the duties of their vocation. The same must be said of women, always considered “the weaker sex.” But too many women today, married to Catholics who fail to support them or lead them, non-practicing Catholics or non-Catholics have been forced to assume the role as head of the family. They therefore cannot fully fulfill their own roles and not enough credit or support has been afforded them. Telling them to obey in everything without making the necessary distinctions is not only an insult to their dignity and intelligence but is a definite prejudice in the favor of domineering, irresponsible men who often unjustly wield the “obedience” weapon to bring wives into submission, and even beat them into submission in certain cases. This we all know. Sympathy also must be extended to men whose wives are unwilling to fulfill their end of the bargain, so in addition to supporting their families these men must also become primary caregivers and maintain the home.
In his work Cana Is Forever, (1949), Rev. Hugo Doyle remarks that the “vocational maturity” necessary to fulfill the duty to support a family begins before marriage: “By vocational maturity is meant simply the know-how and acquisition of a trade, position or profession that will permit the future husband to support a family and the acquisition of vocational knowledge that will permit a young woman to manage a home and wisely govern her children. No wise young man will consider marriage until he has spent at least two years working at his chosen trade, profession or position. Wisdom also demands that savings ought to have been laid away against the wedding day as well as a permanent assured monthly salary income… No fear is so haunting, so destructive as that which results from economic insecurity. Love and an empty stomach are poor companions. Too, any young woman who considers marriage, yet possesses no skill in homemaking, cooking and housekeeping, is one who is asking for trouble.”
Types of help for marriage partners
Fr. Doyle also points out the different types of help needed for a successful marriage: “Such help must extend to the spiritual, moral, physical, economic and domestic life of the other mate. Spiritual help takes in everything that would assist the other partner to save his or her soul. This implies encouragement by word and example in such things as family prayers,… keeping the commandments of God and the precepts of the Church along with the faithful observance of many duties implied in this state of life. Every husband and wife must strive to make God the central figure of the whole family program. Salvation of one’s soul, the soul of one’s partner and the children must be a chief concern of married life, for our Lord said: “What doth it profit a man if he gained the whole world and suffered the loss of his soul? Moral help is equally important. A married person must strive to diffuse around the home an atmosphere of cheerfulness, piety truthfulness, generosity and magnanimity. This is not so much a matter of great talent as it is a matter of great effort. There is an obligation on the part of every husband and wife to point out the moral faults of one another, pointing them out tenderly, humbly, sadly yet with such plainness as not to have to repeat it over and over again. Wives can do so much to help an erring husband.”
Fr. Doyle then offers an interesting reason on why husbands fail to fulfill their duties, which could also apply to wives, for various reasons: “If a husband is not chivalrous or is selfish, shiftless and lacking in consideration, it is generally the fault of the wife. In such cases it will be found that the wife does not demand and insist upon attention, consideration and help. Sir James MacKintosh paid a wonderful tribute to the helpfulness of his wife when he wrote: ‘She gently reclaimed me from dissipation, she propped up my weak and irresolute nature, she urged my indolence to all the exertions that have been useful or credible to me, and she was perpetually at hand to admonish my heedlessness and improvidence.’ For every man who can rightfully claim that a woman ruined his life, there are 10,000 others who could never have succeeded in any career — including marriage — except for the help and guidance of a wife.” Doyle then goes on to warn against the dangers of nagging.
“Physical help is as real and accessible for a happy marriage as any one of the other aides. Adam’s proclamation stands today and will until the end of time, ever the same: “For therefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be two in one flesh.’ The obligation to help one another to bear the burden of human nature is clear from those words and must be clearly understood as such if the ends of marriage are to be obtained. Pope Pius XI, in the encyclical Casti connubii, after confirming the primary end of matrimony to be the procreation of children, goes on to say that, ‘In matrimony as well as in use of matrimonial rights, there are secondary ends such as mutual aid, the cultivating of a mutual love and the quieting of concupiscence, which to husband and wife are not forbidden, so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.’
“Economic help is an important factor in the matter of marital success. The satisfaction the family needs and feels in its home life may be vitally influenced by the amount of income. Without an adequate income to provide the family with the needs and comforts demanded by the normal standards of good living makes for the distressful feeling of insecurity. Recent trends toward higher living costs have had drastic effects on those whose salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living. As a result of this, wives sought elimination of the problem by going back to work. In seeking the resolution of one problem, many have raised newer and greater problems such as neglect of the family to such an extent that juvenile delinquency is on the upgrade, divorces have increased and are blamed upon the arrogance of the working wife and upon her lessening domestic tranquility due to over fatigue, nervousness and irritability.” And woe to the man, the head of the family, if by his failure to support them, the wife is forced to work outside the home. There are situations, of course where the husband is unable to work owing to extended illness or some other problem, and the wife would have to pitch in.
Regarding domestic help, Doyle writes: “Teamwork in the home requires a division of the chores and a well-defined division work as well as pleasures, and ought to be shared. If the wife remains in the home, then she should, with a little bit of planning, be able to look after the whole matter of meals and housework… In a home where both husband and wife work, then the division of the housework ought to be settled upon and faithfully executed. The woman who complains that her husband never helps with the work or the children in most cases has only herself to blame…” But he also reminds husbands: “A cardinal rule to follow during the adjustment period and throughout life is for the husband to strive always to make his wife proud she is his wife and for the wife, on the other hand, to make the husband proud of her and proud of himself. Nothing can kill respect so completely as for a husband to habitually berate women as inferior, weaker and less efficient than men. It’s never very flattering to a wife to hear her husband scoff at say ‘women drivers’ and blame them for most of the traffic snarls and fatalities. In addition, the records do not bear this statement out. Never do anything that would induce an inferiority complex. Without a feeling of equality, of partnership, of really belonging, no married person can be happy.” And this explains much of the unhappiness in some marriages today. (End of Fr. Doyle quotes)
Conclusion
As one Christian author has noted, overemphasis on obedience by the woman partner arises from: “…[a] misuse of the biblical ideal of submission,” which instead should be a “healthy relationship of mutual submission,” the Christian ideal. The author then notes that true Christian love, “is based on a deep, mutual respect as the guiding principle behind all decisions, actions, and plans.” And this is indeed the Catholic ideal. All the theological works on marriage encourage the mutual love and cooperation of the partners, not the lording over of authority by the husband and father. The husband has the right to make the final decision in important matters, if he is indeed fulfilling all his other duties. And each partner has the duty and the obligation to abide by Church teaching in all things.
Commenting on 1 Peter 3: 1-8, “Let wives be subject to their husbands…” Rev. Leo Haydock notes that through their modesty and submissive dispositions, not refusing the husband’s lawful requests or the marriage rights, they can gain the conversion of their men, thereby caring for “the hidden man.” He then writes: “[St. Paul’s] advice to husbands: 1) to carry themselves towards their wives with knowledge, prudence and discretion; 2) not in any imperious manner but treating their wives with respect and honor though the wife be the weaker vessel both in body and mind; 3) considering themselves and their wives to be joint heirs with them of God’s graces and favors, both in this world and the next; 4) that their prayers and duty to God be not hindered, neither by too great a fondness and compliance nor by disagreements and dissensions.”
The extension of education opportunities to women in modern times may have strengthened her intellectually, but in the train of that education came the curse of feminism. Add to this Satan’s terrible campaign to feminize men and we see what has occasioned the ruination of marriage and the home today. O Holy Family, make our families like unto thine!
“If a man has repeatedly failed in business and eventually has to depend on his wife for support, he can hardly expect to have the same authority as one who has shown himself capable of managing his affairs.”
Business skills as a source of authority?
I think just the opposite as often in this world ruled by the Devil in order to be successful in business people need to sin. Let’s remember the father of St. Bernadette (business failures until the poorest condition).
I don’t think this priest’s observation was meant to impugn authority. What I think this means is that when there is failure on the part of the husband of this type, he cannot object or oppose her if the wife takes over the financial side of things in order to save the family from total financial ruin.
This would not mean that the husband and father abdicates his authority in other areas. Especially 100 years ago, some would have opposed the woman intervening in any way, but this is not logical. She wouldn’t be helping her husband and the entire family if she did not intervene when she could. And in that particular sphere she would rule over finances which is usually the husband’s job.