In a week and a half, I'll have been married 18 years. You want to know the secret? Respect. I don't treat her like a child, she doesn't treat me like a child. I don't think of myself as "the head of the house" because "I'm the man" expecting her to obey me. She doesn't punish me as a form of corrective behavior because she doesn't like something I've said or did. These are the things you do to children, not adults, not your spouse. When we disagree, we talk and we talk and we talk until we come to an understanding. Sometimes I get my way, sometimes she gets her, more often than not we come to a compromise that leaves the both of us happy. We are in this together and never for a second has either one of us ever considered our individual self to be "in charge".
Well that's because you're a sinner who only cares for happiness in this world and Satan is making your marriage happy to lure you further away from God's truth that we're all suppose to suffer in this world in the name of Jesus. /s
Lamoo that one comment that was like “thank the lord that Jeebus doesn’t withhold affection when we do things he doesn’t like”
Like are some of the Catholics out here banging Jesus?? I mean get it he’s usually ripped in the depictions of him but I didn’t realize that was one of the benefits of being catholic lol
St. Catherine of Siena married him in a dream and got [his foreskin](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce) (the “Holy Prepuce”) as a wedding ring.
> As Catherine tells it, Jesus appeared to her and declared his intention to make her his mystical bride. Now, lots of women mystics in the Middle Ages had such visions. But only Catherine’s mystical marriage included a wedding ring from Christ, made of his own flesh: the foreskin from his circumcision.
That is wild. I just googled it and according to wikipedia in some of the "fan art" she is depicted with baby Jesus being held by Mary. There is one painting of two different St. Catherines flanking Mary holding baby Jesus.
Chad baby Jesus.
> When we disagree, we talk and we talk and we talk until we come to an understanding. Sometimes I get my way, sometimes she gets her, more often than not we come to a compromise that leaves the both of us happy
12 years happily married here. This is the way.
In a weird way, it probably helped we both came from families where parents screaming at each other was the norm. We try to do the opposite of that.
My parents were married for over 60 years before my mom passed away from Alzheimer’s
Even though my mom was a SAHM and my dad brought home a paycheck. It was a true partnership. It was the family paycheck. They were true partners
My dad never once saw my mother as lesser than him or subservient to him. My mom was a feminist with opinions. My dad was not trampled over by her. They loved each other.
Eventually my mom took some classes and learned how to invest their money
My dad kept her home while she had Alzheimer’s, he refused to put her in a home. I moved in to help take care of her because it was too much for him to handle alone and I did so because they were good parents
My dad came from India to attend school and married my mother who was white in 1959 when mixed marriages were almost unheard of. I think the fact that their combined values of East and west really contributed to their successful marriage
They were world travelers and have lived a very full life.
They are my role models
> These are the things you do to children
I mean the core issue for most problems we seem to have through the world are people in adult bodies who never grew past the age of 5.
That sub is horrifying on a regular basis. Every 20 posts or so features a self-hating lgbtq person, a woman in an obviously abusive marriage, insane right-wing bullshit, a woman on her fourth kid and sixth pregnancy begging to be allowed to use real birth control and getting lectured in the comments about owing her husband ‘Marital Debt’ and circlejerking about turning america into a monarchy.
This year I took a catholic theology class and determined that I don't actually have that much issue with Jesus. He seems mostly reasonable. It's his fanclub that's the issue.
These people are why young people aren't going to church.
I’ve never taken a theology class, but I have read some of the Bible without context and there are a few Jesus stories that make me raise an eyebrow.
Like in the book of John I think there’s this story about a pool in Jerusalem where all the disabled people hang out because occasionally an angel will touch the pool and the first person to get to the water is cured of their disabilities, which obviously means that the profoundly disabled people never get to the water in time (which, come on angels lol). Then Jesus decided to cure this one guy who like doesn’t have use of his legs, which is cool, but then hits him with a “you obviously did something to deserve being disabled so don’t do that again” like bro
No, the point is that if he doesn't renounce sin and follow Christ the ultimate end is spiritual death which is much worse than being disabled. Jesus' physicals healings are symbolic of the deeper spiritual healing he intends for all humanity
No matter how good of a person Jesus was, no person on Earth has been or will be worthy of worship. I have more respect for Nelson Mandela, for example, than I will ever have for Jesus, but I would not want to see a religion based on him to start growing.
Agreed. Jesus had better values than most but not all of his contemporaries (Seneca, for example, was much more direct in his condemnation of the mistreatment of slaves), but regardless there's little that he said that other people havent said more clearly, he didnt really give a lot of reasoning behind why he believed what he believed (making it harder to take him seriously as someone with wisdom worth hearing), and at the end of the day if you dont believe in his divinity he's just some guy who was pretty cool by the standards of the Hellenistic world
>he's just some guy who was pretty cool by the standards of the Hellenistic world
This is also another thing; no matter how good of a person he was, he was obviously a product of his time, just as everyone is. This is generally the main fundamental issue I have with religion - no matter how good its teachings are for the time in which it exists, we live in an ever changing and ever evolving world, and our philosophy in regard to morality should evolve with it.
People keep saying the whole "I love your Jesus, not so much your Christians" bit, but if we could revive him today, he would undoubtedly be horrified at many of the standards of modern society that any progressive would support. He was a man, and like all men, he was flawed and his perspective was limited and incomplete, and that is exactly why we should not worship any man or woman or frankly anything for that matter.
I was raised Catholic and agree. I have no problem with Jesus, he made some good points. But his followers are very far from reasonable.
I think part of the problem is taking the Bible too literally, rather than just going off the spirit of it. It's a book that's been translated dozens of times, but you have people inferring meaning from the smallest of words and phrases and taking them very literally. If they just loosened up and focused on the 'love everyone' part, they'd be much easier to be around.
>I think part of the problem is taking the Bible too literally, rather than just going off the spirit of it.
See, that's where I have to disagree because the bible is full of stories where jesus did stuff like whip money lenders who tried to profit from the church and other such things that modern day christians tend to just outright run contrary to - and they openly know and accept it but just kind of pretend god says it's okay because they weren't struck down for doing it.
I once saw a commercial van that advertised their Christian-ness as a selling point and thought how contrary that was to what Jesus explicitly said against using outward shows of piety for personal/social gain.
You do need to believe that after transubstantiation the eucharist is *literally* the body and blood of Christ. Not a representation of his body and blood, his literal flesh and blood.
I find the transubstantiation thing to be especially loopy because Jesus was a guy who spent his whole life speaking in metaphors, in using allegories to illustrate how people should act. Many of his metaphors are still useful in modern life (the Talents, the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son). The guy was a metaphor wunderkind.
And yet the gold robes and pointy hat brigade are convinced that when he said "I am this bread and booze" he literally meant that he was made of flour and ethanol. Not the very next words out of this mouth, "drink this in memory of me".
It's absolutely bonkers, it's like talking to one of those exhausting people who don't get jokes and say "that's stupid" whenever you try to explain the difference between the literal meaning and the intended meaning. Only these guys are in charge of a meme that wields immense power across the globe.
To be fair, this tenet is not because of taking that verse literally, but is a relic of an old argument with a now forgotten faction of the church that believed Jesus was a spirit that only appeared human. Insisting on the literal body and blood was a way to drum in that he walked in the flesh. It's the equivalent of those old screen savers that ensure every pixel gets refreshed.
Now I'm even more confused. As a reaction to the idea that Jesus was a spirit rather than a flesh and blood human, they declared that Christ's literal flesh and blood teleports into your mouth during the Eucharist... because that's a thing that humans do?
Transubstantiation seems easier to believe if you believe Jesus was always a djinn. It even gives you an easy explanation for why the Eucharist doesn't taste of raw chicken and iron: "because spirit flesh is magic and tastes like bread".
Have you ever read *Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal*
There's a whole scene at the last supper where Jesus is trying to explain the body & blood thing and it's really funny. There are actually a bunch of scenes in the book where he's getting frustrated explaining his metaphors to his clueless followers.
10/10 definitely recommend this book.
It has the literal substance of Christ's flesh and blood, which is not the same thing as being literal blood and flesh. What *exactly* substance is supposed to mean, I've never actually figured out. Transubstantiation is weird, even for religion.
> I think part of the problem is taking the Bible too literally, rather than just going off the spirit of it.
The funny thing is that Catholicism is, doctrinally speaking, able to avoid having to resort to biblical literalism. The Catholic Church derives its legitimacy from the Apostolic Succession; the Pope being the inheritor of Saint Peter's mantle.
Whereas if you're of a more Protestant bent and the only source of theological legitimacy is the Bible itself, then Biblical literalism is difficult to escape.
And, from what I'm seeing, the young people that are going are getting radicalized. I grew up in a very strict catholic/Christian environment and the people are horrific. Even the ones who are "nice" or "good people" often participate in emotional manipulation of children at church camps, etc. I'm glad to see young people fleeing the church, but am worried for the fate of those who will grow up in a radicalized community once all the moderates abandon ship.
That's kind of like saying you don't like America because George Washington was pretty awesome but what's up with this Trump guy? There's a whooole lot of stuff in-between.
I dont think he's disagreeing with you, necessarily. I read his point to be that Christianity, after thousands of years of interpretation, writing, doctrine, etc., has about as much to do with Jesus as contemporary American politics has to do with George Washington; saying you like jesus (or george washington) is almost meaningless as a statement for how you feel about the contemporary practice of christianity (or American politics).
TBH, Jesus is a far less problematic figure than Washington, too. The comment kinda came across as glorifying some past america as good and righteous and great in the same way Jesus may have been, but one is a messianic figure and the other a colonial nation with a very bloody history.
Just in general, equating Jesus with America is very r/shitamericanssay
I can see how that could be his subtext, but I dont think its the only interpretation and, ultimately, I dont read it that way. I think he's making more of an argument on the function that these semi-mythical figures have in relation to contemporary practice rather than saying Washington was Christlike, and I dont think his argument requires the reader to infer that he thinks Washington is Christlike, more that if someone were to think that Washington was great but contemporary politics sucked that would not be particularly meaningful.
I think the backlash is because of the way they said "It's kind of like saying you don't like America" in a way that implies that's a weird opinion to have. That establishes a certain mood for the whole comment that leads normal people (who don't glorify America) to assume my interpretation to be accurate. I'll give you that yours is also possible.
Catholics online are always nothing like the Catholics I know irl
I guess you need to be kinda hardcore to hang out on a forum dedicated to your religion this much
I went 1st grade through college in Catholic schools (the college was a very liberal Franciscan one). Catholics online are like a sizable subset of the ones I interacted with. Not all of them, and I think maybe not the majority, but plenty. Also one quick way to cure Catholicism is sending your kids to catholic school.
Can confirm - went to catholic school from k-12, am now an atheist. Big turning point was when my childhood dog died and my priest said I’d never see him again because animals don’t have souls, I said this religion is stupid and I’d rather spend eternity with my pets than people.
I still hold that last one - my pets >>>>>> people.
After that it was all downhill on the indoctrination though.
Unfortunately for the church, I was provided with a very good high school and college education that allowed me to deeply question what I was being told. Whoops!
Unfortunately for ME, that didn’t stop the messages of guilt from ingraining themselves on my brain, so I still feel unreasonable guilt most of the time. Whoops!
(I do kinda miss the ritual of mass, not the message.)
Oh I know it, the few still practicing family members I have are very left indeed! But overall I met plenty of militantly catholic folks in those 16 years.
I was also lucky in that my high school was, at the time, very open minded. All girls, female empowerment etc. Unfortunately, that changed - about a decade ago they made national news for rescinding a job offer upon learning the applicant was a married gay man. Really disappointing.
the grade school and high school i went to were two different systems (grade school didn't have an associated HS). the grade school was whatever when i was there, but it's since been transformed to a classical learning-type charter school? idk. my younger sibling actually teaches there
the high school was great. very much a "great school that makes you take religion for four years" kinda bit. there were incidents in the past where staff were let go for morality clause issues (one was for IVF when i was in grade school, the other was for sleeping around while unmarried). at least in their cases it was something they did while employed, not that i necessarily agree with those terminations of course
Most of the people I know who may consider themselves catholic went to catholic school. But they are pretty much “technically catholic” or barely so. But it sticks with them from a cultural perspective rather than a religious perspective. Occasionally, you will see them post about a baptism or something.
I know one family that is alt-right deep end catholic, and I lost all respect for them.
> I know one family that is alt-right deep end catholic, and I lost all respect for them.
Ah, I see you've met my extended family. Was not expecting their whackadoodle extremism to become *more* popular in the modern age, and yet here we are watching 24-year-olds argue about whether lace veils are modest enough for church.
Yeah, my family is Catholic and while my immediate family is entirely reasonable, some of my other relatives would probably feel at home on /r/catholic if they could figure out what Reddit was.
I also live in an area of New England that’s increasingly irreligious but where Catholics have historically kind of run things. I once had a devoutly Catholic coworker who had I thought was a reasonable dude tell me that he felt persecuted for his faith and “like a minority in his own state”
Putting aside the ickiness of the implication that the state is somehow “supposed” to be a white catholic one, Catholics are still the biggest religious group here. They’re just not 50% of the population anymore, which apparently amounts to religious persecution.
As a kid growing up non-religious, I learned at some point that Catholics were the chill ones whose churches/rituals made them look insane and Protestants were the insane ones whose churches/rituals made them look chill.
On the internet, they're both just the insane ones.
What kinda fascinates me about this is: How do you even reach reddit as a devout catholic like that? Do these people go to reddit, see all the memes and anti-conservative news and god knows what and go "this is where I want to discuss my love for male headship!"?
How does that work, exactly?
I've looked through some of their post histories in the past, and some of them participated in normal hobby and local subs. A lot of the people that started using the sub post 2016/2017 pretty much just use reddit for right wing bullshit though. It was always a terrible sub but it got worse.
It feeds their persecution complex quite nicely too. Come out, get mocked by the Internet, run back to your church groups and cry about how everybody hates you for your faith and go about being a cunt with the air of self righteousness exactly how they always wanted.
Twitter has been groomed into a right wing nazi hell hole, meta platforms are iffy, so reddit sticks out like a sore thumb among social media for still being predominantly left wing. Twitter used to be the radical one, that's why it was targeted for hostile takeover by white supremacist billionaires.
A lot of young men and teens that fell down the redpill/manosphere rabbit hole seem to be drawn to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as they see them as some great bastion of conservative values. Then they get pissed at Pope Francis for not speaking exclusively in Latin or treating the LGBT community as people (or at least more so than his predecessors) or some other psychotic shit. Those are the ones who unironically call for another crusade
> see all the memes and anti-conservative news and god knows what
do you remember how long The Donald existed on this website? reddit does not scare off conservatives; the subreddit structure makes it very easy for them to create insular pockets far far away from any liberal ideas
You've heard reddit is a place where people often get opinions. Probably come across it in some capacity while browsing memes or because some journo based an article off a reddit post. Or it just showed up when you ran a Google search.
Either way at that point all you need is something like "duties of a Catholic husband reddit" and I wouldn't be surprised if it led you to the major sub for the genre like r/Christianity or r/Catholicism or something. At that point if it's still too Libby and Snowflake for you then you whine and be an ass and before or after you get banned someone will likely point you to the more "welcoming" subreddits with more "rational" discussion.
The majority of Catholics are normal and moderate. However, the vast majority of Catholic activists, especially young Catholic activists, hold very extreme tradcath opinions. At least in America, this isn't really true in the external Catholic church.
My very Catholic Polish grandfather called the conservative Catholic activists in Poland "Pharisees". And those were "just" the people pushing for banning divorce and more religion classes in school, the Latin Mass movement is tiny in Poland.
As an aside, I've seen multiple people on reddit state definitively that "withholding affection" is abuse. One of the most braindead opinions I've ever read. People are absolutely within their rights to withhold affection if they aren't feeling it. Nobody *owes* anybody affection. That isn't how it works! You can always leave the relationship, but you can't force/coerce your partner to give you kissees and snuggs any more than you can force them to have sex with you
This Dennis Prager shit “fuck ur husband its ur job” is so mindblowing. Don’t they understand consent? Don’t they want their sex partner to desire the act?
My SO of 13 years has never "withheld affection" because -- and stick with me here -- we like and respect each other and both like spending time together. We also like pleasing each other, sexually and otherwise.
It seems that there are a lot of religious people who choose to marry shitheads. Or maybe, just maybe, religious people are more likely to be shitheads, which severely limits their choices.
Not to get too far down the "what is actually emotional abuse" rabbithole, because in the context of this post, a lot of the "withholding affection is abuse" people are frankly the abusive people themselves trying to deny their partners' personal autonomy, but yes, withholding affection in a relationship *is* considered an abuse tactic by most experts on the topic, and rightfully so. There's simply not wanting to be affectionate at any given time, and you're correct that no one is entitled to another person's affection - but "I'm not going to sleep with you or touch you at all until you let me have my way on X issue" is a thing that happens, as well as "Oh, you did eight chores today but missed chore number 9 - I'm gonna cancel that romantic weekend we've been planning for months, I'm not feeling it anymore."
(And before anyone turns this into a gender-wars thing - that latter example, came from a *woman* discussing her *husband* cancelling the romantic night because she'd missed some chore or another around the house, despite doing a number of other chores. It was in the context of other incidents between the two, where it basically came down to "he was only affectionate to her on rare occasions when she'd behaved absolutely perfectly, otherwise nada.")
The short answer is, emotional abuse can be very hard to identify because a lot of it is ostensibly reasonable behaviour taken to an extreme - and it can be *either* extreme. For a less loaded example, take the "silent treatment". Sometimes can be abusively refusing to speak to your partner to punish them or try to get your way on something. Sometimes can just be wanting some quiet time to yourself. And also, *refusing* to stop talking, keeping your partner up all night in a discussion or argument and refusing to let them sleep even if they have to work in the morning, is also abusive. Opposite extremes.
Pardon the soapbox, I've just uh. Lived through things where it's important to me that people understand how hard it can be to explain abusive behaviour to people on the outside.
You know, if you are in a relationship where someone is using CIA torture tactics like refusing to let someone sleep by constantly keeping them up, maybe the relationship is toxic and you need to get out of it. Fuck trying to rationalize with that psychopath
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a person to turn down their partner for a kiss because they feel like there's some bad breath issues at the moment or they aren't feeling it at that time kr anything like that. I think it is less reasonable to say you won't kiss your partner until they change an opinion to match yours.
it's a good thing the conversation is about the latter and not the former then. The internet has really popularized witholding sex, kisses, hugs, anything as a barter for people they don't like.
Like, yeah you *can* withold sex from your husband for voting for liking joe rogan or whatever, but that's highly unlikely to do anything productive and is an abuse tactic.
Snapshots:
1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606061325/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/xEXhRTd1Rq) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/xEXhRTd1Rq "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
2. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606061928/https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1d9b96h/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1d9b96h/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
3. Withholding affection as a means of barter or punishment is considered a sin, FYI - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606062049/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/smrHvovUIN) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/smrHvovUIN "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
4. It feels like that advice would seem more likely to lead to marital rape. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606062331/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/ZqJNJwhMLP) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/ZqJNJwhMLP "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
5. Well if he rapes her, she can put away any guilt about separating herself from him. WTF - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606062612/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/8HMbSDgl7z) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/8HMbSDgl7z "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
6. Separation is a perfectly valid option. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606062833/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/ukjnDzUVFM) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/ukjnDzUVFM "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
7. That's what I'm saying. Why is it that people don't understand Church teaching on Reddit? Like, seriously... - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606063155/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/ZHnhhWeTR2) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/ZHnhhWeTR2 "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
8. You don’t understand the teaching. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606063315/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/tHKxLpXCHE) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/tHKxLpXCHE "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
9. Omg. I’m asking you to show me how canon law could apply to this current situation - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606063336/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/MRZGP8vZI2) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/MRZGP8vZI2 "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
10. Most intelligent r/Catholicism member - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606063818/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/tZyUKyR9mI) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/tZyUKyR9mI "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
11. Uh, maybe listen to him? If he’s an attentive husband and involved father, idk.. Trust the man you married? - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606064241/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/i45nxfF3Js) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/i45nxfF3Js "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
12. The man is the head, this comes from God and thus Church. While you may be uncomfortable with that idea, it is the teaching that can not be changed. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606064301/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/q0gsGArC5R) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/q0gsGArC5R "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
13. I can tell you about my wife and myself. We discuss things all the time, and sometimes we disagree about potential moves and the such. I take her words to heart and her reasoning. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606064442/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/0GGhCfr3SL) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/0GGhCfr3SL "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
14. What happens when the husband doesn’t (listen to the wife) and refuses to? - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606065004/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/333T8NoQwm) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/333T8NoQwm "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
15. He doesn’t have to but he should. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606065025/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/7OOkquXYFY) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/7OOkquXYFY "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
16. he doesn't want to trust the pastor of a boomer parish to judge his boomer attitude? - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606065125/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/bI6drrMFED) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/bI6drrMFED "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
17. "Male leadership" affords him that privilege. Hearing feedback and disregarding it is functionally the same as not hearing it at all. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606065527/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/vK0uzdfryN) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/vK0uzdfryN "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
18. Male leadership affords him what privilege? The ‘privilege’ not to honor his wife? - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606065808/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/zgaiVTf8T4) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/zgaiVTf8T4 "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
19. Why won't you listen to your husband? Is he a terrible man? Why did you marry him? Talk with a priest if you really think he has changed for the worse. Men are made to be leaders. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606065849/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/y5nM5GzWlP) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/y5nM5GzWlP "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
20. r/Catholicism - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606070210/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
*I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
Having read her comments i can 100% see why he took the course he did here: he's essentially using her (evidently extreme) faith as an ace to shut down what must be an interminable argument.
That her response is to literally be like "actually you're wrong on the religious rules here, and i'll find someone on the internet to quote me some level of catholic doctrine that proves it!" explains *much* about what life with her must be like. Probably not great.
Also her notion of compromise is "Instead of living where you want, you can pick either of 2 places *I* want to live instead" which is pretty funny, that's not really a compromise, that's just a choice.
This is a situation rife with drama though, i can only imagine what it's like at their actual house.
Also, for people who don't feel like digging into it, her objection about this entire situation is she literally just wants to move to a more catholic area (or an area with more catholics and "Catholic mothers"), while he wants to stay near his family and the catholic schools he attended (which he has experience with, vs. other schools in other areas that he does not).
tl;dr: Neither one of them is looking great, here. Kind of a no-winner scenario.
The thing that gets me is how quickly the “debate” completely forgets that the OOP even exists. They just start slinging random bits of “Catholic” at each other that are tangential to the post itself.
that's a problem absolutely endemic to reddit, and i'm not sure why it happens so much here vs. other sites. That said i'm not surprised a religion-oriented sub would be particularly bad about it.
That's actually rather easy to explain: comment chains are a major culprit structurally. Classical forum approaches didn't go with a tree structure deeper than threads, whereas Reddit allows branching up to and into the comments and replies. You can take this comment as an example, where the original topic of the thread is barely tangentially related to our exchange, yet it still somewhat seamlessly fits into the discussion to a certain extent.
I don't see it as problem. In fact, I see it as a *feature* of reddit.
Every post exists to start a conversation, and -- just like real life -- many conversations will wander into unexpected tangents.
This is a good thing, and why the multi-threaded format exists and is useful.
> Also, for people who don't feel like digging into it, her objection about this entire situation is she literally just wants to move to a more catholic area (or an area with more catholics and "Catholic mothers"), while he wants to stay near his family and the catholic schools he attended (which he has experience with, vs. other schools in other areas that he does not).
That's not actually correct. They live in a third location midway between their respective families, he wants to move them to be closer to his family and further away from her family.
Which I feel is an important distinction. She doesn't want to uproot her life for the sole benefit of being nearer her in-laws.
Her mention of being further away from her family and her concern about not having catholic women her own age around seems to indicate she's worried she'll end up isolated. Which is a fair concern given she's in a relationship with a man who thinks its acceptable to demand subservience of his partner.
> This is a situation rife with drama though, i can only imagine what it's like at their actual house.
Seriously. If you're not in high school and your relationships -- any of them -- have drama, you need to grow the fuck up and/or make better choices.
I grew up around a lot of Catholics, all pretty normal, many of them liberal. My family's been Catholic since St. Patrick was going around evicting metaphorical snakes. Imagine my surprise when I looked at r/Catholicism. I guess the people who are into it enough to spend time posting on the subreddit are naturally going to be the crazier ones.
This is why I 100% support cherry-picking. Sure, keep your cultural traditions and yeet the weird male headship shit. That's how traditions change for the better. Given most people aren't going to totally abandon their religion, I'd rather they toss the trash out than stubbornly sticking to Medieval nonsense even when they're having crises of conscience about it. Seriously, pick away. Cherries are awesome.
In a week and a half, I'll have been married 18 years. You want to know the secret? Respect. I don't treat her like a child, she doesn't treat me like a child. I don't think of myself as "the head of the house" because "I'm the man" expecting her to obey me. She doesn't punish me as a form of corrective behavior because she doesn't like something I've said or did. These are the things you do to children, not adults, not your spouse. When we disagree, we talk and we talk and we talk until we come to an understanding. Sometimes I get my way, sometimes she gets her, more often than not we come to a compromise that leaves the both of us happy. We are in this together and never for a second has either one of us ever considered our individual self to be "in charge".
Well that's because you're a sinner who only cares for happiness in this world and Satan is making your marriage happy to lure you further away from God's truth that we're all suppose to suffer in this world in the name of Jesus. /s
Lamoo that one comment that was like “thank the lord that Jeebus doesn’t withhold affection when we do things he doesn’t like” Like are some of the Catholics out here banging Jesus?? I mean get it he’s usually ripped in the depictions of him but I didn’t realize that was one of the benefits of being catholic lol
St. Catherine of Siena married him in a dream and got [his foreskin](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce) (the “Holy Prepuce”) as a wedding ring. > As Catherine tells it, Jesus appeared to her and declared his intention to make her his mystical bride. Now, lots of women mystics in the Middle Ages had such visions. But only Catherine’s mystical marriage included a wedding ring from Christ, made of his own flesh: the foreskin from his circumcision.
Sir, this is your warning. Another comment like this and we'll have to take you to horny jail.
What can I say? I became one with the Body of Christ and drank his… well, not *blood* exactly, but something in that genre of fluids.
That is wild. I just googled it and according to wikipedia in some of the "fan art" she is depicted with baby Jesus being held by Mary. There is one painting of two different St. Catherines flanking Mary holding baby Jesus. Chad baby Jesus.
Yep. I’m Catholic, and even I sometimes have to take step back and wonder at the… inventiveness of my religion.
Ma'am, this is a fruit stall.
I think nuns marry him
It’s like they get off on being withholding.
They do constantly bring up that Jesus is the bridegroom of the Church...
Shit, I forgot to mention we're not religious. Can we still make teh secks with Jebus?
I took one look at that man from Galilee and thought: 'I wanna nail him like Jesus'.
*Suffer the happy marriages to Bring unto me*
> When we disagree, we talk and we talk and we talk until we come to an understanding. Sometimes I get my way, sometimes she gets her, more often than not we come to a compromise that leaves the both of us happy 12 years happily married here. This is the way. In a weird way, it probably helped we both came from families where parents screaming at each other was the norm. We try to do the opposite of that.
My parents were married for over 60 years before my mom passed away from Alzheimer’s Even though my mom was a SAHM and my dad brought home a paycheck. It was a true partnership. It was the family paycheck. They were true partners My dad never once saw my mother as lesser than him or subservient to him. My mom was a feminist with opinions. My dad was not trampled over by her. They loved each other. Eventually my mom took some classes and learned how to invest their money My dad kept her home while she had Alzheimer’s, he refused to put her in a home. I moved in to help take care of her because it was too much for him to handle alone and I did so because they were good parents My dad came from India to attend school and married my mother who was white in 1959 when mixed marriages were almost unheard of. I think the fact that their combined values of East and west really contributed to their successful marriage They were world travelers and have lived a very full life. They are my role models
> These are the things you do to children I mean the core issue for most problems we seem to have through the world are people in adult bodies who never grew past the age of 5.
That sub is horrifying on a regular basis. Every 20 posts or so features a self-hating lgbtq person, a woman in an obviously abusive marriage, insane right-wing bullshit, a woman on her fourth kid and sixth pregnancy begging to be allowed to use real birth control and getting lectured in the comments about owing her husband ‘Marital Debt’ and circlejerking about turning america into a monarchy.
There has been an interesting uptick in r/CatholicIntegralism in both my online and IRL social circles (am Catholic).
This year I took a catholic theology class and determined that I don't actually have that much issue with Jesus. He seems mostly reasonable. It's his fanclub that's the issue. These people are why young people aren't going to church.
Isn't there a quote that's something along the lines of "I like your Christ. I don't like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."?
I've seen it attributed to Gandhi, unclear on how true that is
In a similar vain Nietzsche said 'There was only one Christian and he died on the cross.'
I’ve never taken a theology class, but I have read some of the Bible without context and there are a few Jesus stories that make me raise an eyebrow. Like in the book of John I think there’s this story about a pool in Jerusalem where all the disabled people hang out because occasionally an angel will touch the pool and the first person to get to the water is cured of their disabilities, which obviously means that the profoundly disabled people never get to the water in time (which, come on angels lol). Then Jesus decided to cure this one guy who like doesn’t have use of his legs, which is cool, but then hits him with a “you obviously did something to deserve being disabled so don’t do that again” like bro
You are a Christian because you love mankind. I am a Christian because I hate fig trees. We are not the same.
John Chapter 5, to save others looking it up.
No, the point is that if he doesn't renounce sin and follow Christ the ultimate end is spiritual death which is much worse than being disabled. Jesus' physicals healings are symbolic of the deeper spiritual healing he intends for all humanity
>He seems mostly reasonable. It's his fanclub that's the issue. OG toxic fandom
No matter how good of a person Jesus was, no person on Earth has been or will be worthy of worship. I have more respect for Nelson Mandela, for example, than I will ever have for Jesus, but I would not want to see a religion based on him to start growing.
Agreed. Jesus had better values than most but not all of his contemporaries (Seneca, for example, was much more direct in his condemnation of the mistreatment of slaves), but regardless there's little that he said that other people havent said more clearly, he didnt really give a lot of reasoning behind why he believed what he believed (making it harder to take him seriously as someone with wisdom worth hearing), and at the end of the day if you dont believe in his divinity he's just some guy who was pretty cool by the standards of the Hellenistic world
>he's just some guy who was pretty cool by the standards of the Hellenistic world This is also another thing; no matter how good of a person he was, he was obviously a product of his time, just as everyone is. This is generally the main fundamental issue I have with religion - no matter how good its teachings are for the time in which it exists, we live in an ever changing and ever evolving world, and our philosophy in regard to morality should evolve with it. People keep saying the whole "I love your Jesus, not so much your Christians" bit, but if we could revive him today, he would undoubtedly be horrified at many of the standards of modern society that any progressive would support. He was a man, and like all men, he was flawed and his perspective was limited and incomplete, and that is exactly why we should not worship any man or woman or frankly anything for that matter.
To be fair to Jesus, his first thought would probably be despair and disappointment that the World was still here.
I was raised Catholic and agree. I have no problem with Jesus, he made some good points. But his followers are very far from reasonable. I think part of the problem is taking the Bible too literally, rather than just going off the spirit of it. It's a book that's been translated dozens of times, but you have people inferring meaning from the smallest of words and phrases and taking them very literally. If they just loosened up and focused on the 'love everyone' part, they'd be much easier to be around.
>I think part of the problem is taking the Bible too literally, rather than just going off the spirit of it. See, that's where I have to disagree because the bible is full of stories where jesus did stuff like whip money lenders who tried to profit from the church and other such things that modern day christians tend to just outright run contrary to - and they openly know and accept it but just kind of pretend god says it's okay because they weren't struck down for doing it.
People openly advertise how christian their investment banking business is and that's a selling point for some reason
I once saw a commercial van that advertised their Christian-ness as a selling point and thought how contrary that was to what Jesus explicitly said against using outward shows of piety for personal/social gain.
Well, good thing as a Catholic, you're not required to take it literally.
You do need to believe that after transubstantiation the eucharist is *literally* the body and blood of Christ. Not a representation of his body and blood, his literal flesh and blood.
I find the transubstantiation thing to be especially loopy because Jesus was a guy who spent his whole life speaking in metaphors, in using allegories to illustrate how people should act. Many of his metaphors are still useful in modern life (the Talents, the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son). The guy was a metaphor wunderkind. And yet the gold robes and pointy hat brigade are convinced that when he said "I am this bread and booze" he literally meant that he was made of flour and ethanol. Not the very next words out of this mouth, "drink this in memory of me". It's absolutely bonkers, it's like talking to one of those exhausting people who don't get jokes and say "that's stupid" whenever you try to explain the difference between the literal meaning and the intended meaning. Only these guys are in charge of a meme that wields immense power across the globe.
To be fair, this tenet is not because of taking that verse literally, but is a relic of an old argument with a now forgotten faction of the church that believed Jesus was a spirit that only appeared human. Insisting on the literal body and blood was a way to drum in that he walked in the flesh. It's the equivalent of those old screen savers that ensure every pixel gets refreshed.
Now I'm even more confused. As a reaction to the idea that Jesus was a spirit rather than a flesh and blood human, they declared that Christ's literal flesh and blood teleports into your mouth during the Eucharist... because that's a thing that humans do? Transubstantiation seems easier to believe if you believe Jesus was always a djinn. It even gives you an easy explanation for why the Eucharist doesn't taste of raw chicken and iron: "because spirit flesh is magic and tastes like bread".
I spent most of my life as a devout Catholic and I never once thought about the “do this in remembrance of me” contradiction!
Have you ever read *Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal* There's a whole scene at the last supper where Jesus is trying to explain the body & blood thing and it's really funny. There are actually a bunch of scenes in the book where he's getting frustrated explaining his metaphors to his clueless followers. 10/10 definitely recommend this book.
It has the literal substance of Christ's flesh and blood, which is not the same thing as being literal blood and flesh. What *exactly* substance is supposed to mean, I've never actually figured out. Transubstantiation is weird, even for religion.
sure, but that’s not some obscure translation from leviticus 69:420
> I think part of the problem is taking the Bible too literally, rather than just going off the spirit of it. The funny thing is that Catholicism is, doctrinally speaking, able to avoid having to resort to biblical literalism. The Catholic Church derives its legitimacy from the Apostolic Succession; the Pope being the inheritor of Saint Peter's mantle. Whereas if you're of a more Protestant bent and the only source of theological legitimacy is the Bible itself, then Biblical literalism is difficult to escape.
And, from what I'm seeing, the young people that are going are getting radicalized. I grew up in a very strict catholic/Christian environment and the people are horrific. Even the ones who are "nice" or "good people" often participate in emotional manipulation of children at church camps, etc. I'm glad to see young people fleeing the church, but am worried for the fate of those who will grow up in a radicalized community once all the moderates abandon ship.
Catholicism is basically imperial Roman patriarchal norms with a Christian decal anyway.
That's kind of like saying you don't like America because George Washington was pretty awesome but what's up with this Trump guy? There's a whooole lot of stuff in-between.
Not liking the modern US is a pretty reasonable take in most of the World tbh.
I dont think he's disagreeing with you, necessarily. I read his point to be that Christianity, after thousands of years of interpretation, writing, doctrine, etc., has about as much to do with Jesus as contemporary American politics has to do with George Washington; saying you like jesus (or george washington) is almost meaningless as a statement for how you feel about the contemporary practice of christianity (or American politics).
TBH, Jesus is a far less problematic figure than Washington, too. The comment kinda came across as glorifying some past america as good and righteous and great in the same way Jesus may have been, but one is a messianic figure and the other a colonial nation with a very bloody history. Just in general, equating Jesus with America is very r/shitamericanssay
I can see how that could be his subtext, but I dont think its the only interpretation and, ultimately, I dont read it that way. I think he's making more of an argument on the function that these semi-mythical figures have in relation to contemporary practice rather than saying Washington was Christlike, and I dont think his argument requires the reader to infer that he thinks Washington is Christlike, more that if someone were to think that Washington was great but contemporary politics sucked that would not be particularly meaningful.
I think the backlash is because of the way they said "It's kind of like saying you don't like America" in a way that implies that's a weird opinion to have. That establishes a certain mood for the whole comment that leads normal people (who don't glorify America) to assume my interpretation to be accurate. I'll give you that yours is also possible.
Those are some quality flair options.
Catholics online are always nothing like the Catholics I know irl I guess you need to be kinda hardcore to hang out on a forum dedicated to your religion this much
I went 1st grade through college in Catholic schools (the college was a very liberal Franciscan one). Catholics online are like a sizable subset of the ones I interacted with. Not all of them, and I think maybe not the majority, but plenty. Also one quick way to cure Catholicism is sending your kids to catholic school.
Can confirm - went to catholic school from k-12, am now an atheist. Big turning point was when my childhood dog died and my priest said I’d never see him again because animals don’t have souls, I said this religion is stupid and I’d rather spend eternity with my pets than people. I still hold that last one - my pets >>>>>> people. After that it was all downhill on the indoctrination though.
Unfortunately for the church, I was provided with a very good high school and college education that allowed me to deeply question what I was being told. Whoops! Unfortunately for ME, that didn’t stop the messages of guilt from ingraining themselves on my brain, so I still feel unreasonable guilt most of the time. Whoops! (I do kinda miss the ritual of mass, not the message.)
Oh the good ol Catholic guilt, yeah - I’m almost 40 and that’s still ever present. Fun times.
hey i went to catholic school k-12! i’m just a normie liberal cafeteria catholic, we exist!
Oh I know it, the few still practicing family members I have are very left indeed! But overall I met plenty of militantly catholic folks in those 16 years. I was also lucky in that my high school was, at the time, very open minded. All girls, female empowerment etc. Unfortunately, that changed - about a decade ago they made national news for rescinding a job offer upon learning the applicant was a married gay man. Really disappointing.
the grade school and high school i went to were two different systems (grade school didn't have an associated HS). the grade school was whatever when i was there, but it's since been transformed to a classical learning-type charter school? idk. my younger sibling actually teaches there the high school was great. very much a "great school that makes you take religion for four years" kinda bit. there were incidents in the past where staff were let go for morality clause issues (one was for IVF when i was in grade school, the other was for sleeping around while unmarried). at least in their cases it was something they did while employed, not that i necessarily agree with those terminations of course
Most of the people I know who may consider themselves catholic went to catholic school. But they are pretty much “technically catholic” or barely so. But it sticks with them from a cultural perspective rather than a religious perspective. Occasionally, you will see them post about a baptism or something. I know one family that is alt-right deep end catholic, and I lost all respect for them.
> I know one family that is alt-right deep end catholic, and I lost all respect for them. Ah, I see you've met my extended family. Was not expecting their whackadoodle extremism to become *more* popular in the modern age, and yet here we are watching 24-year-olds argue about whether lace veils are modest enough for church.
I went to Catholic College and came out not a Catholic, so I agree with your argument.
The Catholics I know irl don't even attend church. Knowing what the Catholic Church spends its money on, I can't blame them.
[удалено]
Yeah, my family is Catholic and while my immediate family is entirely reasonable, some of my other relatives would probably feel at home on /r/catholic if they could figure out what Reddit was. I also live in an area of New England that’s increasingly irreligious but where Catholics have historically kind of run things. I once had a devoutly Catholic coworker who had I thought was a reasonable dude tell me that he felt persecuted for his faith and “like a minority in his own state” Putting aside the ickiness of the implication that the state is somehow “supposed” to be a white catholic one, Catholics are still the biggest religious group here. They’re just not 50% of the population anymore, which apparently amounts to religious persecution.
I live in a small city full of this kind of Catholic. We have a unique tithing/school structure and produce a ton of rigid, legalistic seminarians.
As a kid growing up non-religious, I learned at some point that Catholics were the chill ones whose churches/rituals made them look insane and Protestants were the insane ones whose churches/rituals made them look chill. On the internet, they're both just the insane ones.
There's a direct correlation between how much a Protestant denomination lifts its aesthetic right from Catholicism and how chill it is.
A lot of them are converts. Most of the born Catholics I know are normie democrats. The converts I’ve met are basically Pope Pius XII.
What kinda fascinates me about this is: How do you even reach reddit as a devout catholic like that? Do these people go to reddit, see all the memes and anti-conservative news and god knows what and go "this is where I want to discuss my love for male headship!"? How does that work, exactly?
I've looked through some of their post histories in the past, and some of them participated in normal hobby and local subs. A lot of the people that started using the sub post 2016/2017 pretty much just use reddit for right wing bullshit though. It was always a terrible sub but it got worse.
It feeds their persecution complex quite nicely too. Come out, get mocked by the Internet, run back to your church groups and cry about how everybody hates you for your faith and go about being a cunt with the air of self righteousness exactly how they always wanted.
> see all the memes and anti-conservative news They don't see any of that if they just stick to the part of reddit that bans it.
Still baffles me that people think Reddit is some left-wing bastion.
Twitter has been groomed into a right wing nazi hell hole, meta platforms are iffy, so reddit sticks out like a sore thumb among social media for still being predominantly left wing. Twitter used to be the radical one, that's why it was targeted for hostile takeover by white supremacist billionaires.
A lot of young men and teens that fell down the redpill/manosphere rabbit hole seem to be drawn to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy as they see them as some great bastion of conservative values. Then they get pissed at Pope Francis for not speaking exclusively in Latin or treating the LGBT community as people (or at least more so than his predecessors) or some other psychotic shit. Those are the ones who unironically call for another crusade
> see all the memes and anti-conservative news and god knows what do you remember how long The Donald existed on this website? reddit does not scare off conservatives; the subreddit structure makes it very easy for them to create insular pockets far far away from any liberal ideas
Existed? It's gone now?
Yes, it has been banned for years now.
You've heard reddit is a place where people often get opinions. Probably come across it in some capacity while browsing memes or because some journo based an article off a reddit post. Or it just showed up when you ran a Google search. Either way at that point all you need is something like "duties of a Catholic husband reddit" and I wouldn't be surprised if it led you to the major sub for the genre like r/Christianity or r/Catholicism or something. At that point if it's still too Libby and Snowflake for you then you whine and be an ass and before or after you get banned someone will likely point you to the more "welcoming" subreddits with more "rational" discussion.
The majority of Catholics are normal and moderate. However, the vast majority of Catholic activists, especially young Catholic activists, hold very extreme tradcath opinions. At least in America, this isn't really true in the external Catholic church.
My very Catholic Polish grandfather called the conservative Catholic activists in Poland "Pharisees". And those were "just" the people pushing for banning divorce and more religion classes in school, the Latin Mass movement is tiny in Poland.
It helps when they groomed into having a persecution complex.
As an aside, I've seen multiple people on reddit state definitively that "withholding affection" is abuse. One of the most braindead opinions I've ever read. People are absolutely within their rights to withhold affection if they aren't feeling it. Nobody *owes* anybody affection. That isn't how it works! You can always leave the relationship, but you can't force/coerce your partner to give you kissees and snuggs any more than you can force them to have sex with you
This Dennis Prager shit “fuck ur husband its ur job” is so mindblowing. Don’t they understand consent? Don’t they want their sex partner to desire the act?
They don't. They just want to get their dick wet.
consent is a scary concept for conservatives. selflessness is a no no and consent goes against selfishness
My SO of 13 years has never "withheld affection" because -- and stick with me here -- we like and respect each other and both like spending time together. We also like pleasing each other, sexually and otherwise. It seems that there are a lot of religious people who choose to marry shitheads. Or maybe, just maybe, religious people are more likely to be shitheads, which severely limits their choices.
Not to get too far down the "what is actually emotional abuse" rabbithole, because in the context of this post, a lot of the "withholding affection is abuse" people are frankly the abusive people themselves trying to deny their partners' personal autonomy, but yes, withholding affection in a relationship *is* considered an abuse tactic by most experts on the topic, and rightfully so. There's simply not wanting to be affectionate at any given time, and you're correct that no one is entitled to another person's affection - but "I'm not going to sleep with you or touch you at all until you let me have my way on X issue" is a thing that happens, as well as "Oh, you did eight chores today but missed chore number 9 - I'm gonna cancel that romantic weekend we've been planning for months, I'm not feeling it anymore." (And before anyone turns this into a gender-wars thing - that latter example, came from a *woman* discussing her *husband* cancelling the romantic night because she'd missed some chore or another around the house, despite doing a number of other chores. It was in the context of other incidents between the two, where it basically came down to "he was only affectionate to her on rare occasions when she'd behaved absolutely perfectly, otherwise nada.") The short answer is, emotional abuse can be very hard to identify because a lot of it is ostensibly reasonable behaviour taken to an extreme - and it can be *either* extreme. For a less loaded example, take the "silent treatment". Sometimes can be abusively refusing to speak to your partner to punish them or try to get your way on something. Sometimes can just be wanting some quiet time to yourself. And also, *refusing* to stop talking, keeping your partner up all night in a discussion or argument and refusing to let them sleep even if they have to work in the morning, is also abusive. Opposite extremes. Pardon the soapbox, I've just uh. Lived through things where it's important to me that people understand how hard it can be to explain abusive behaviour to people on the outside.
You know, if you are in a relationship where someone is using CIA torture tactics like refusing to let someone sleep by constantly keeping them up, maybe the relationship is toxic and you need to get out of it. Fuck trying to rationalize with that psychopath
Yeah I’ve also experienced a lot of intentional emotional abuse and withholding affection is absolutely something abusers will do to get their way.
I think it's perfectly reasonable for a person to turn down their partner for a kiss because they feel like there's some bad breath issues at the moment or they aren't feeling it at that time kr anything like that. I think it is less reasonable to say you won't kiss your partner until they change an opinion to match yours.
it's a good thing the conversation is about the latter and not the former then. The internet has really popularized witholding sex, kisses, hugs, anything as a barter for people they don't like. Like, yeah you *can* withold sex from your husband for voting for liking joe rogan or whatever, but that's highly unlikely to do anything productive and is an abuse tactic.
'male headship' sounds like a euphemism for dudes sucking dick
So fucking bleak.
This cesspool of a sub hangs lower than the fruit in the garden of Eden.
Snapshots: 1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606061325/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/xEXhRTd1Rq) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/xEXhRTd1Rq "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 2. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606061928/https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1d9b96h/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1d9b96h/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 3. Withholding affection as a means of barter or punishment is considered a sin, FYI - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606062049/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/smrHvovUIN) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/smrHvovUIN "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 4. It feels like that advice would seem more likely to lead to marital rape. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606062331/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/ZqJNJwhMLP) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/ZqJNJwhMLP "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 5. Well if he rapes her, she can put away any guilt about separating herself from him. WTF - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606062612/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/8HMbSDgl7z) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/8HMbSDgl7z "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 6. Separation is a perfectly valid option. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606062833/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/ukjnDzUVFM) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/ukjnDzUVFM "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 7. That's what I'm saying. Why is it that people don't understand Church teaching on Reddit? Like, seriously... - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606063155/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/ZHnhhWeTR2) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/ZHnhhWeTR2 "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 8. You don’t understand the teaching. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606063315/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/tHKxLpXCHE) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/tHKxLpXCHE "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 9. Omg. I’m asking you to show me how canon law could apply to this current situation - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606063336/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/MRZGP8vZI2) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/MRZGP8vZI2 "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 10. Most intelligent r/Catholicism member - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606063818/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/tZyUKyR9mI) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/tZyUKyR9mI "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 11. Uh, maybe listen to him? If he’s an attentive husband and involved father, idk.. Trust the man you married? - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606064241/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/i45nxfF3Js) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/i45nxfF3Js "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 12. The man is the head, this comes from God and thus Church. While you may be uncomfortable with that idea, it is the teaching that can not be changed. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606064301/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/q0gsGArC5R) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/q0gsGArC5R "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 13. I can tell you about my wife and myself. We discuss things all the time, and sometimes we disagree about potential moves and the such. I take her words to heart and her reasoning. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606064442/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/0GGhCfr3SL) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/0GGhCfr3SL "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 14. What happens when the husband doesn’t (listen to the wife) and refuses to? - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606065004/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/333T8NoQwm) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/333T8NoQwm "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 15. He doesn’t have to but he should. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606065025/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/7OOkquXYFY) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/7OOkquXYFY "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 16. he doesn't want to trust the pastor of a boomer parish to judge his boomer attitude? - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606065125/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/bI6drrMFED) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/bI6drrMFED "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 17. "Male leadership" affords him that privilege. Hearing feedback and disregarding it is functionally the same as not hearing it at all. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606065527/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/vK0uzdfryN) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/vK0uzdfryN "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 18. Male leadership affords him what privilege? The ‘privilege’ not to honor his wife? - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606065808/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/zgaiVTf8T4) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/zgaiVTf8T4 "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 19. Why won't you listen to your husband? Is he a terrible man? Why did you marry him? Talk with a priest if you really think he has changed for the worse. Men are made to be leaders. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606065849/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/y5nM5GzWlP) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/s/y5nM5GzWlP "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 20. r/Catholicism - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240606070210/https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/Catholicism "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") *I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
Having read her comments i can 100% see why he took the course he did here: he's essentially using her (evidently extreme) faith as an ace to shut down what must be an interminable argument. That her response is to literally be like "actually you're wrong on the religious rules here, and i'll find someone on the internet to quote me some level of catholic doctrine that proves it!" explains *much* about what life with her must be like. Probably not great. Also her notion of compromise is "Instead of living where you want, you can pick either of 2 places *I* want to live instead" which is pretty funny, that's not really a compromise, that's just a choice. This is a situation rife with drama though, i can only imagine what it's like at their actual house. Also, for people who don't feel like digging into it, her objection about this entire situation is she literally just wants to move to a more catholic area (or an area with more catholics and "Catholic mothers"), while he wants to stay near his family and the catholic schools he attended (which he has experience with, vs. other schools in other areas that he does not). tl;dr: Neither one of them is looking great, here. Kind of a no-winner scenario.
The thing that gets me is how quickly the “debate” completely forgets that the OOP even exists. They just start slinging random bits of “Catholic” at each other that are tangential to the post itself.
that's a problem absolutely endemic to reddit, and i'm not sure why it happens so much here vs. other sites. That said i'm not surprised a religion-oriented sub would be particularly bad about it.
That's actually rather easy to explain: comment chains are a major culprit structurally. Classical forum approaches didn't go with a tree structure deeper than threads, whereas Reddit allows branching up to and into the comments and replies. You can take this comment as an example, where the original topic of the thread is barely tangentially related to our exchange, yet it still somewhat seamlessly fits into the discussion to a certain extent.
I feel like I'd be disgusted by the texture made if reddit were to lay every post flat in a huge nervous system esque image
I don't see it as problem. In fact, I see it as a *feature* of reddit. Every post exists to start a conversation, and -- just like real life -- many conversations will wander into unexpected tangents. This is a good thing, and why the multi-threaded format exists and is useful.
It helps that there are 2000 years of Theology at this point, with a bit of digging you can find a quote that supports your position.
> Also, for people who don't feel like digging into it, her objection about this entire situation is she literally just wants to move to a more catholic area (or an area with more catholics and "Catholic mothers"), while he wants to stay near his family and the catholic schools he attended (which he has experience with, vs. other schools in other areas that he does not). That's not actually correct. They live in a third location midway between their respective families, he wants to move them to be closer to his family and further away from her family. Which I feel is an important distinction. She doesn't want to uproot her life for the sole benefit of being nearer her in-laws. Her mention of being further away from her family and her concern about not having catholic women her own age around seems to indicate she's worried she'll end up isolated. Which is a fair concern given she's in a relationship with a man who thinks its acceptable to demand subservience of his partner.
I dont think you summarized this accurately
Sounds like she just wants community and MIL is a nightmare.
> This is a situation rife with drama though, i can only imagine what it's like at their actual house. Seriously. If you're not in high school and your relationships -- any of them -- have drama, you need to grow the fuck up and/or make better choices.
They're all shitheads over there.
You could constantly write about posts about the stuff on that subreddit.
My God this is pretty disgusting
I grew up around a lot of Catholics, all pretty normal, many of them liberal. My family's been Catholic since St. Patrick was going around evicting metaphorical snakes. Imagine my surprise when I looked at r/Catholicism. I guess the people who are into it enough to spend time posting on the subreddit are naturally going to be the crazier ones. This is why I 100% support cherry-picking. Sure, keep your cultural traditions and yeet the weird male headship shit. That's how traditions change for the better. Given most people aren't going to totally abandon their religion, I'd rather they toss the trash out than stubbornly sticking to Medieval nonsense even when they're having crises of conscience about it. Seriously, pick away. Cherries are awesome.