NFL Kicker Harrison Butker’s unhinged commencement speech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's just speaking his truth. Irrelevant to nonCatholics.

This^. I don't agree with him but that's what his religion teaches, women are to be protected and provided for so they can birth and raise next generation of Catholics. His mom was a full time academic and a part time mom academic while his wife is a 24/7 mom so he saw both sides.

No. That is NOT what his religion teaches. Did u even read his speech? Do you know that Catholic faith?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NFL was quicker to condemn Butker for being a Christian than it was to condemn Ray Rice for caving in his fiancee’s head on camera and and then dragging her lifeless body through the hall.

They’ve gotten much quicker at responding to abuse towards women. Glad they recognize that this was abusive as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$50 says Butker is in the closet

There is a rumor going around about his college years and his involvement with a male cheerleader.

When someone is this unhinged, they’re usually compensating for something.

No one in a happy relationship would go out there and say this stuff.

I’ve got money on him either being out of the closet or dating a teenager in the next 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NFL was quicker to condemn Butker for being a Christian than it was to condemn Ray Rice for caving in his fiancee’s head on camera and and then dragging her lifeless body through the hall.

They didn’t exactly need to wait for a team of lawyers to determine that Butker is a moron…he said all of that on camera on his own.

[Anonymous]

The guy is a misogynistic "traditionalist". Most of the Christian moms I know worked. Some out of necessity, and some because they wanted to do something other than just be a mom (like me). I enjoyed using my brain at work. I feel I got dumber when I was as a sahm for 2 years. It's supposedly a sin to not use the gifts God has given you, and if God made me good at what I do, then I'd be sinning by not using my gifts (according to traditionalists).

And the whole thing about dads being present.. that's not a new thing. Anyone remember the Million Man March? Only men need a march or a football player to remind them to parent their kids.

[Anonymous]

The whole speech is clear one what he’s saying about the topic and he’s holding himself or the same standard as his wife on their vocational roles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's just speaking his truth. Irrelevant to nonCatholics.

This^. I don't agree with him but that's what his religion teaches, women are to be protected and provided for so they can birth and raise next generation of Catholics. His mom was a full time academic and a part time mom academic while his wife is a 24/7 mom so he saw both sides.

No. That is NOT what his religion teaches. Did u even read his speech? Do you know that Catholic faith?

I mean…does anyone, really? It’s so riddled with inconsistencies and fantastical thought how can anyone have a real academic conversation about it with any real seriousness?

I mean if we about something tangible that’s in the observable world like a math problem, yes we can all agree that 4+4=8. We know that’s true.

What no one can agree one are the vagueries of Christianity. We would be arguing about a book from 2000 years ago translated multiple times. Like it’s all nonsense. It’s annoying you all try to make everyone believe it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole speech is clear one what he’s saying about the topic and he’s holding himself or the same standard as his wife on their vocational roles.

“Vocational roles” lol. TLDR Basically that the man is head of house, woman makes kids and is subservient, and shouldn’t work, badda bing badda bam and that’s all folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's just speaking his truth. Irrelevant to nonCatholics.

This^. I don't agree with him but that's what his religion teaches, women are to be protected and provided for so they can birth and raise next generation of Catholics. His mom was a full time academic and a part time mom academic while his wife is a 24/7 mom so he saw both sides.

No. That is NOT what his religion teaches. Did u even read his speech? Do you know that Catholic faith?

I mean…does anyone, really? It’s so riddled with inconsistencies and fantastical thought how can anyone have a real academic conversation about it with any real seriousness?

I mean if we about something tangible that’s in the observable world like a math problem, yes we can all agree that 4+4=8. We know that’s true.

What no one can agree one are the vagueries of Christianity. We would be arguing about a book from 2000 years ago translated multiple times. Like it’s all nonsense. It’s annoying you all try to make everyone believe it.

Yes many of us have been educated formally for decades, and at home. We read the Bible and the catechism and much of Vatican 2 and discuss it at dinner and read the Catholic standard and American etc.

There is nothing vague about how wrong he is.

Every Catholic knows our biggest calling is to serve God not our husbands or wives. That is indisputable.

Right from the jump he is wrong.

You can argue all day long about IVF, etc It was never covered in the Bible, and it was only law made by men.

Also he say natural planning is unnatural. What he saying is that he doesn’t want his wife to turn him down for sex because she’s ovulating. That is 100,000% Not a teaching of the Catholic Church. It’s clear in Vatican 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole speech is clear one what he’s saying about the topic and he’s holding himself or the same standard as his wife on their vocational roles.

No he’s not. He is disputing 2 whole sections of Humanae Vitae.

He disputes that a woman has the moral right to say no to her husband when he want sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"his and his family’s success is a result of his wife’s focus on being a wife and mother, claiming that “her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother.”

He can focus on a crazy demanding career because she takes care of home and family so yes, his wife is a partner in his success. Imagine how difficult his life would be managing home, babies and a demanding career involving practice, travel, promotions, interviews etc and trying to set up investments for post NFL life?

Her vocation life started means before that she was a young student and then took over responsibility to build and manage a household and raise kids with her husband.

[Anonymous]

However, he was preaching to the choir there. Non-catholics need to pay no attention nor need to agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole speech is clear one what he’s saying about the topic and he’s holding himself or the same standard as his wife on their vocational roles.

No he’s not. He is disputing 2 whole sections of Humanae Vitae.

He disputes that a woman has the moral right to say no to her husband when he want sex.

You are putting words in his mouth. We don't need to agree with him but also don't need to twist his words to prove him worse than he was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole speech is clear one what he’s saying about the topic and he’s holding himself or the same standard as his wife on their vocational roles.

“Vocational roles” lol. TLDR Basically that the man is head of house, woman makes kids and is subservient, and shouldn’t work, badda bing badda bam and that’s all folks.

That's not what he is saying at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole speech is clear one what he’s saying about the topic and he’s holding himself or the same standard as his wife on their vocational roles.

No he’s not. He is disputing 2 whole sections of Humanae Vitae.

He disputes that a woman has the moral right to say no to her husband when he want sex.

You are putting words in his mouth. We don't need to agree with him but also don't need to twist his words to prove him worse than he was.

I’m not, read the speech, here is the thing. You’re not even educated enough on Catholic doctrine to understand the speech.

Why are you even commenting when your not a Catholic and don’t understand the speech and how he has denigrated its teaching?