Daycare as grave matter

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alot of comments on here are completely unfair to this priest because many people aren’t listening to the whole talk and/or they are judging him by one sentence in one talk.
If they listened to this priests other talks they would know he almost always has a question and answer session after, which may have been left out of this video and may have addressed these concerns and exaggerations people are making against him.
Also he is a priest who has had extensive and rigorous training before being ordained.
 
Last edited:
Sounded like he said that to me but Phil is kindly explaining where the disconnect is.
 
Yes. His talks are actually very good. He is very intelligent and you have to listen to the whole talk and connect it with his other talks of similar subject
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
he specifically qualified it as a non-scientific study, just a commonality seen by a psychologist.
Click to expand...
Then why even say it, it’s poor anecdotal evidence…at best and he did no fact checking. Hearing that he’s American/in the US he should know (for a PhD level speech) that saying daycares are “30-1” is erroneous information being used to sway individuals to his bias.
 
You’ve been defending the idea that a woman should not refuse to have sex if she is tired, or has a headache, or just isn’t in the mood.

If she’s only saying yes because she’s been taught she cannot say no, she’s being forced. Please don’t try to whitewash the situation into something else.
 
Last edited:
Close friends of mine separated last December after a decade of marriage. In conversations since, it’s come up that resentment had been building and building in the wife for years as she was told she was expected to have sex every second night on the dot and that this was her duty as a wife. She came to feel dehumanized and objectified.
 
That’s abuse. Plain and simple. I hope they can seek counseling and reconcile. But that demand cannot be condoned
 
Last edited:
This whole conversation started because of comments taken out of context in a talk by a Catholic priest.
Using similar words of yours, said in another thread about another priest: shouldn’t we realize that priests go through very extensive and rigorous training before becoming ordained.
Well a very intelligent trained priest is giving advice.

My comments were never about a husband insisting when a wife was tired or had a headache but rather as either spouse using that as a frequent excuse.
 
This conversation is now bringing me to the point where it is harmful to my faith and to my continued devotion, so I am walking away.
 
But he literally said saying you have a headache isn’t good enough
 
Personally I can’t imagine any good men that would still want to have sex with their wife if she didn’t feel like it.
I have read that it’s Christian teaching to not hold back on sex-but couldn’t this in a way be a form of emotional manipulation and wouldn’t the potential outcome be the wife feeling resentment or some other negative feeling towards the husband and marriage?

I do believe if it’s a long standing problem then the wife (or husband) does have a responsibility to seek medical or herbal treatment and try treatments to improve their interest/hormone levels.

Generally though,I can’t imagine which man would still want to have sex if she didn’t,and unfortunately this teaching imo has great potential for abuse as the type of man that would still want to is usually one who already feels entitled/twists the meaning of the passage for his own gain.
 
So, there has been a definite missing of what Father is saying here. There is absolutely nothing in what Father said, nor I, nor anyone defending the video about a husband insisting on having intimacy after a wife tells him she doesn’t want to, doesn’t feel like it or has a headache but the talk is about the importance of doing spiritual warfare for your marriage and part of the talk deals with intimacy and its importance in marriage. Again, never does Father say a husband can insist on intimacy with his wife and neither did I. That idea was started and snowballed by those who admitted they did not even listen to the video.

I’m sorry I know that somehow, someway what I just said will probably get picked at and attacked but, in all charity, I do not want to be a part of this thread any longer because of the disrespect seen. As I said many posters stated they did not even listen to the video yet attacked the priest, taking things out of context. I want no part of that or anymore of this thread.

God bless.
 
Last edited:
Sorry @magdalenarita if I personally said anything that gave the impression of being disrespectful.
I was not meaning to refer to you specifically but just a general conversation about Catholic beliefs about sex/refusal of sex in marriage as I had heard this discussed in different threads prior to this one.
 
Last edited:
I am up to watching 23.00 of the Father’s video on the matter.
The way I see it:

His positives:
~Excellent and important general teaching about how demons try to put wedges/divisions between couples in marriage and also use people’s hurt feelings to the “demons advantage”
~Great sense of humour

Negatives:
~The father seems to have a bit of inflexible and un-nuanced thinking.
For example instead of just down playing emotional responses to arguments etc in marriage he can actually be quite cutting and dismissive of them (emotional responses).
~Terms like “debt” and “obligation” might have been used traditionally,but today they can seem inappropriate or (create potential for misunderstanding) when used to refer to marriage.
Marriage and love making should be loving and from joy and desire and not from a “business like” mentality of debt and obligations.
I do think sex in marriage is a necessity but words like “duty” should be avoided.
~At 21.15 the Father is quite cutting when referring to men who refuse their wives sex stating “what sort of man is that?”
This might be fine when talking to a friend in your lounge room but for a Father to say this publicly to an audience,I think he could have chosen his words a bit more carefully.

The father has many good things too,but he can come off a bit fundamentalist and harsh and seems to believe that spouses are obligated to have sex as long as the request isn’t unreasonable (like on the bus).

Personally,I can’t think of any good (Christian or otherwise) men that would still want to have sex with a wife that didn’t want to.
Sure,if the spouse just said they weren’t really in the mood then the other one might be like “let’s see if we can change that” lol,but if they really seriously didn’t want to have sex,then I can’t imagine any respectful man who would keep trying to push it on to them or try to play emotional manipulation games that it was owed to him in the marriage.

The father talks about spouses owning each other’s bodies,and while this may be biblical,it’s fraught with potential dangers.
It’s mentalities like this (or the misinterpretation of these kinds of sermons) that are the reasoning behind while some countries didn’t have marital rape as being illegal until fairly recently.
 
Last edited:
I think kindy is different from daycare though? I went to kindergarten for maybe 2 half-days a week from the age of 4.5 yrs to 5.5 yrs. That’s what I thought kindergarten was, whereas I think of daycare as being a nine-to-five, five-days setup from the age of about 6 wks. But this was in Australia, so maybe the terms have different meanings elsewhere.
 
I do agree with his view that daycare isn’t ideal and that,at least for the first 4 years,a child is best being with its mother number one,or Aunty or grandparents preferrably to daycare.
At the same time,priests need to be “sensitive” to not place this solely on the weight of mothers shoulders but instead come up with solutions to make the cost of living more reasonable so that women don’t need to work (full time) from necessity.
Creating a “mother supportive” country with jobs that are able to be part time roles would,imo,go a long way.

It’s true that some women work full time because they are just too career driven or materialistic,but a great many others work full time purely from financially necessity.
The Fathers solution is that the husband works two or three jobs,but is good either,because children need to see their fathers too and learn from them?

In my view,corporations ect do a “low level” exploitation of employees in the first world countries too in the sense that they dictate workplace conditions to maximise their own profit.
They will not give women flexible work hours or part time jobs and the majority of roles will be full time and if a mother can’t commit to this,then the employers know there will always be “another monkey” who can.
This to me is part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top