Daycare as grave matter

[phil19034]

he did seem to be excessively dismissive of people’s feelings.
I don’t think we should just go around stating to people whatever is true and think it’s ok to state it because it is true and disregard their feelings/the effect.
This to me seems a bit uncharitable.

I don’t think he was dismissing anyone feelings or telling people to dismiss the feelings of their spouse.

I think he was telling each of us to individually dismiss our own feelings. To try to push through our feelings out of sacrificial love for our spouse.

But NOT for us to dismiss our spouse’s feelings

 

[pensmama87]

Yes.

I used to turn down my husband a LOT. Not out of any particular malice, I just “didn’t feel like it.” I felt like I had to already “be in the mood” to go ahead with it. And since I have been pregnant and/or breastfeeding for the entirety of our marriage, I wasn’t exactly chomping at the bit…ever. For my husband this was really hard. It’s not that he’s an uncontrollable fiend, but physical touch is his love language and he felt rejected and unloved, even though I wasn’t trying to say that to him at all!

So I endeavored to say yes more often, and to initiate on my own too even if sometimes I just wanted to curl up with a book. And I’ll tell you what, everything about our marriage has improved. I’ve never felt like I just had to “get on with it,” and we both feel connected. He’s more inclined to love me in the way I need, which inclines me more to love him the way he needs, and it builds and builds.

But it can also spiral the other way. Waiting for one spouse to do his or her part before you do yours is a breeding ground for resentment.

 

[phil19034]

Yes.

I used to turn down my husband a LOT. Not out of any particular malice, I just “didn’t feel like it.” I felt like I had to already “be in the mood” to go ahead with it. And since I have been pregnant and/or breastfeeding for the entirety of our marriage, I wasn’t exactly chomping at the bit…ever. For my husband this was really hard. It’s not that he’s an uncontrollable fiend, but physical touch is his love language and he felt rejected and unloved, even though I wasn’t trying to say that to him at all!

So I endeavored to say yes more often, and to initiate on my own too even if sometimes I just wanted to curl up with a book. And I’ll tell you what, everything about our marriage has improved. I’ve never felt like I just had to “get on with it,” and we both feel connected. He’s more inclined to love me in the way I need, which inclines me more to love him the way he needs, and it builds and builds.

But it can also spiral the other way. Waiting for one spouse to do his or her part before you do yours is a breeding ground for resentment.

Amen! Preach it, sister!!!

 

[Xantippe]

It’s a fascinating read. I just think that “working moms” is a redundancy. When I think of a mom in 1860, believe me, she was working her butt off from 5am until twilight. To this day, moms work hard, in and out of the home.

I’m not nitpicking you personally, but this otherwise interesting article could have worded it better.

Yes. True story–my great-grandma apparently tethered my toddler great-auntie to a clothesline so she could play outside safely, given that their house was near a road (this would have probably been in the 1920s, but my part of the country was frontier-ish later than most). I presume that was so great-grandma could get on with her chores…

We can’t assume that 1860s moms (especially poorer 1860s moms) had childcare methods that we would approve of.

 

[somecanadian]

I listened. I understood him to be saying that a wife should not refuse if she has a headache or she risks welcoming demons into the marriage.

As stated another poster explained that the Father clarifies LATER in the talk but I only listened that far before turning him off because I was deeply disturbed and offended.

 

[Xantippe]

~At 21.15 the Father is quite cutting when referring to men who refuse their wives sex stating “what sort of man is that?”

Yeah–like you can shame a guy into performance.

That’s not how it works.

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.

Yeah. 1 Corinthians 7 is in the Bible, but it’s not the only thing in the Bible. There’s other stuff there, too.

 

[Xantippe]

This has been something I’m curious about for quite some time now. If a person doesn’t want to have sex but forces herself/himself to do it in fear of hell…

I don’t know. It’s really uncomfortable to think about. Marriage looks unattractive as I get older, lol!

And isn’t that a nice thing for the husband–that his wife agrees to sex not because she is interested or wants to do something nice for him, but because Father says…

EWWW.

I know some husbands believe that sex automatically produces emotional closeness–but what if that is completely one-sided feeling, and the wife feels like some sort of sex appliance but is just submitting because (again) Father says? Sex obviously does not always produce enduring emotional closeness–or otherwise everybody would be happily married to the first person they ever had sex with.

The good news is that Not All Men Are Like That. This is reasonable stuff to talk about in engagement/before engagement. I think it should actually be easy to see this particular entitled attitude from a mile away, especially if the issues are discussed.

The attitude toward NFP is probably a tell-tale sign, come to think of it. A person who thinks that his sexual desires are literally a divine decree is not going to be very happy about NFP–even in theory.

 

[tafan2]

I disagree with this statement. Catholic moral teaching focuses on individual acts, not patterns. Sins are acts, not patterns of behavior. If a person requests sex from a spouse and is unreasonably denied, that individual act is a sin against chastity. Certainly if it only happens once, parvity of matter comes into play and it is not a grave sin. Now, let me be clear, illness (including real headaches) and fatique are reasonable causes to say no ( and there are many others). But simply “not being in the mood” is not a reasonable cause, IMO. As I get older, I think not being in the mood happens to me more often than my wife, btw. But it’s amazing how the mood developes when you go ahead and the ball gets rolling.

I will also add, there is nothing wrong with saying “honey, how about in the morning?” as response, in many instances (but not always)

But I definitely think each and every uneasonable denial of sex to one’s spouse is a sin at some level. The couple will, in a loving relationship, develope a good idea between themselves what is reasonable and what is not.

 

[tafan2]

This subject has been discussed many times on this forum. Through the years I have had multiple private messages sent to me in response to my opinion which echo your experience. Simply put, always being willing (again, within reason) to respond to one’s spouse’s amorous advances does nothing but build love in a marraige. We give ourselves completely to our spouses, not just when we are in the mood.
That’s why I said yesterday, proper understanding of the marraige debt is very romantic.

 

[anon64350612]

If you believe that children have a right to be raised by their own parents, then it is not a crazy notion. Parents should be willing to sacrifice unnecessary material goods in order to personally spend the time to raise their children.

Grave necessity is when both parents must work in order to provide basic food and shelter. There is no grave necessity demonstrated when both parents work in order to live in an affluent neighborhood, have expensive cars, and etc. (People will disagree what is sufficient to satisfy basic necessity.)

I think everyone should take the matter of personally raising small children very seriously for the sake of the children’s emotional well being and moral development.

https://pjmedia.com/parenting/susan-l-m-goldberg/2017/11/06/liberal-author-says-shes-blackballed-warning-dangers-early-daycare-n113468

 

[twf]

What’s your position on public and/or Catholic schools? What’s the age cut off for morally sending your children away from the home?

 

[anon64350612]

There are too many facts at play to give you a succinct answer to your questions. Every action should be analyzed as to the object (or end), intention, and circumstances. Father Laux’s book on Catholic Morality is a good place to start.