Separate property in marriage?

[Jayne]

You think my defense of women/wive's dignity in marriage, in response to the Gift, is really about me being hyper-sensitive.  I don't.  You think his misogynistic statements are actually Catholic.  I don't.   You think wives don't have a right to share in their husband's income.  I don't.    You think you are justified in manipulatively lying to win forum arguments, thread after thread.  I don't.

You read misogyny into his statements.  It is not there when one takes them at face value. 

You have been unable to show that there is any Catholic teaching that wives have a right to share the husband's income.  This is not surprising since the idea would have been laughed at for most of Catholic history.  A husband has a duty to provide for his wife; this is significantly different.

Pointing out the flaws in your arguments is perfectly honest.  It does not involve any lying or manipulation.

[christulsa]

Philip, 2 ends theology is Church teaching  Rejecting it is a form of heresy.  I hope you're not.  Talk to a priest.  Also, despite what you suggested the other day, the Church has NOT gradually shifted from worship of Christ to Mary. I really hope you don't believe that.

2 primary ends to marriage, in this order (the constant teaching):

1. Procreation

2. Mutual support of spouses.

[christulsa]

You think my defense of women/wive's dignity in marriage, in response to the Gift, is really about me being hyper-sensitive.  I don't.  You think his misogynistic statements are actually Catholic.  I don't.   You think wives don't have a right to share in their husband's income.  I don't.    You think you are justified in manipulatively lying to win forum arguments, thread after thread.  I don't.

You read misogyny into his statements.  It is not there when one takes them at face value. 

You have been unable to show that there is any Catholic teaching that wives have a right to share the husband's income.  This is not surprising since the idea would have been laughed at for most of Catholic history.  A husband has a duty to provide for his wife; this is significantly different.

Pointing out the flaws in your arguments is perfectly honest.  It does not involve any lying or manipulation.

Keep responding to me Jane. I am really sure every one appreciates it.  Just so you know I've been tuning out your posts in this thread pages back.  And reread GoG's posting history since posting here, and then get back to us.  And mark my words, come the day he gets himself finally banned, I won't say a word.  I'll just remember this thread, if that happens.

[Jayne]

Keep responding to me Jane. I am really sure every one appreciates it.  Just so you know I stopped reading your posts in this thread pages back, including the above which I'm not even glancing at..  And reread GoG's posting history since posting here, and then get back to us.  And mark my words, when the day he gets himself finally bannd, I won't say a word.

It is obvious that you have been responding to the content of my posts.  If you are going to keep accusing others of lying, it would be more effective if you told the truth yourself.

People do not typically get banned here merely for being abrasive.  Given how blatantly you are trying to provoke him to go beyond that, I would expect KK to take that into consideration.

Your next flounce from the forum is at least as likely as a ban for GoG.

[christulsa]

Keep responding to me Jane. I am really sure every one appreciates it.  Just so you know I stopped reading your posts in this thread pages back, including the above which I'm not even glancing at..  And reread GoG's posting history since posting here, and then get back to us.  And mark my words, when the day he gets himself finally bannd, I won't say a word.

It is obvious that you have been responding to the content of my posts.  If you are going to keep accusing others of lying, it would be more effective if you told the truth yourself.

People do not typically get banned here merely for being abrasive.  Given how blatantly you are trying to provoke him to go beyond that, I would expect KK to take that into consideration.

Your next flounce from the forum is at least as likely as a ban for GoG.

Not reading anymore your sick, foolish posts, including the above.  As I said, I am shutting your manipulative ass down.  Are you capable of not responding?   I will bet you you are not.

[Philip G.]

The man who complains about woman's usurpation of matrimony by way of the state is the same man who usurps authority invalidating the sacraments of clergy worldwide.  Let's hear it GoG.  Are you a sedevacantist?  Do you believe the novus ordo rites are valid?  Pull the plank out of your eye.

[christulsa]

He is.

He doesn't.

Unlike Michael Wilson, and MANY SVists, who I respect, GoG is an adherent of the "Most Holy Family Monastery" positions.   

(PS I don't think you literally think the Church promotes Mary worship, or flat out reject the recent pre-VII Papal Magisterial documents on the ends of marriage, though what you say seems to me to contradict Church teaching).

[MundaCorMeum]

Children, children.... please quit bickering.  It's Gaudete Sunday, after all!

[Philip G.]

I don't take pleasure in it.  Nor am I on a crusade.

[Non Nobis]

Keep responding to me Jane. I am really sure every one appreciates it.  Just so you know I stopped reading your posts in this thread pages back, including the above which I'm not even glancing at..  And reread GoG's posting history since posting here, and then get back to us.  And mark my words, when the day he gets himself finally bannd, I won't say a word.

It is obvious that you have been responding to the content of my posts.  If you are going to keep accusing others of lying, it would be more effective if you told the truth yourself.

People do not typically get banned here merely for being abrasive.  Given how blatantly you are trying to provoke him to go beyond that, I would expect KK to take that into consideration.

Your next flounce from the forum is at least as likely as a ban for GoG.

Not reading anymore your sick, foolish posts, including the above.  As I said, I am shutting your manipulative ass down.  Are you capable of not responding?   I will bet you you are not.

Christulsa I find you to be such a likeable guy sometimes - like when trying to help Daniel. But this reply to Jayne is ugly.

Don't you kind of flounce when you leave the forum or return e.g. as holographic chris. ?

Don't leave.

[andy]

This thread is a complete mess.

[Philip G.]

At best, and by design, the sacrament of matrimony results in a beautiful equality of the spouses.  At second best, the woman, in whose arena matrimonial affairs primarily reside, will dominate the male for the sake of the children. 

No, this is completely contrary to Catholic belief.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11casti.htm

Casti Connubii

74. The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; [condemned] wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of the children. It must be social, economic, physiological: — physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving her attention chiefly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

75. This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty which belongs to the noble office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.

76. This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life.

Do you want to insist on subjugation in the species of the Eucharist next? 

Just as there are two ends of the priesthood(The separation of the Body and Blood of our Lord in the Eucharist), there is one end of Matrimony(corporal increase). 

As the church has embraced two ends matrimonial theology, doubtful sacraments have abounded.  It is no coincidence. 

[andy]

As far as OP goes, I do not think anybody will tell you what to do. The church will tell you what is a sin but you have to figure out what good you want to do. It is not like there is no support or good advise but you are on your own GoG here. This situation is the taste of the marriage in fact. Facing unknown. Taking risks while balancing to stay prudent. Being open to your spouse weaknesses and imperfections, no matter how good her parents were and upbringing.

Last but not least, you will have to be to your wife and family what Christ is to the Church. Completely forget about yourself while paradoxically make sure your are the boss. It might be that your wife will betray and leave you. Like many people did to Jesus on the cross. Or she will love you beyond anything on this earth for greater God's glory. And you will be the happiest men in the universe.

Having said that, if a men told my daughter on their 3rd date his "real estate plans", she would run run run away from this child.

[GiftOfGod]

Having said that, if a men told my daughter on their 3rd date his "real estate plans", she would run run run away from this child.

If a man didn't know the difference between a singular noun or a plural noun, I'm sure my daughter would run away too.

[andy]

Having said that, if a men told my daughter on their 3rd date his "real estate plans", she would run run run away from this child.

If a man didn't know the difference between a singular noun or a plural noun, I'm sure my daughter would run away too.

You are a prisoner of irrelevant details my friend.  Please thank for reading your post, spending time on this thread and the advice.

.
.
.

Not me (I am just a traveler here) but those other wise forum members who wanted to help you.