Anonymous wrote:Well, if I go to the 7 am mass without the singing, I can get out in 45 mins max, but I like it with the music!

My ex-wife liked a pretty evangelical Catholic church - service was easily 1:15 each time. They were super-harsh about the people who slipped out before the blessing and recessional. Wife liked to get there early and then hang out to chat after - so yes, it easily stretched to two hours. Add on getting dressed and commute time.

Anyway, it all depends very much on the particular parish and the commute time and the person involved. I can easily see where someone who hung out for the social coffee and donuts would be taking longer.

Catholics here. I went to an Episcopal service once at the National Cathedral and was left wondering whether it was a Christian service after they actually read a reading from the Koran. I am sorry, but only Christian scripture belongs in an ostensibly Christian Church.

Well, if I go to the 7 am mass without the singing, I can get out in 45 mins max, but I like it with the music!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:3-4 hours? The hell? OP's husband is a man. It takes the average man 15 mins to shower, dress and get out the door. 15 mins to drive there, an hour for mass, 15 mins to drive back. If OP and her husband can't negotiate two hours of free time for each of them per week, they have bigger issues than a spiritual disagreement.

I think the OP said it was taking him longer than this, but I agree that men don't generally take as long and that they should both negotiate a couple of hours of free time for each during the week.

+1

Anonymous wrote:3-4 hours? The hell? OP's husband is a man. It takes the average man 15 mins to shower, dress and get out the door. 15 mins to drive there, an hour for mass, 15 mins to drive back. If OP and her husband can't negotiate two hours of free time for each of them per week, they have bigger issues than a spiritual disagreement.

I think the OP said it was taking him longer than this, but I agree that men don't generally take as long and that they should both negotiate a couple of hours of free time for each during the week.

3-4 hours? The hell? OP's husband is a man. It takes the average man 15 mins to shower, dress and get out the door. 15 mins to drive there, an hour for mass, 15 mins to drive back. If OP and her husband can't negotiate two hours of free time for each of them per week, they have bigger issues than a spiritual disagreement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH is not imposing his need for spiritual life on his DW. It is the same as if he chose to go to the gym on Sunday morning. I don't understand why OP and some of the other PPs think this is such a big deal.

BTW, the Pope has recently made some very clear statements that God will bring all people of good conscience into Heaven, if God chooses, and that Catholics should not question who is saved.

Completely agree in this case it is more like going to the gym.

The pope is pissing off the reactionary anti-VC-II crowd, esp. the US Conference of Bishops...yes, atheists like me can receive salvation too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The golf analogy is irrelevant. This is about your fundamental belief-system, the way you see the world, your values. Golf (hopefully), isn't.

And a game of golf does not take 45 minutes to an hour to complete.

Nope, it's not irrelevant - have you not seen Caddyshack? There are people who grok - make their entire way of thinking/being an analogy of - things like golf (or football). Yes, sports as source of life parables is dubious, but frankly, so is a lot of the "wisdom" of hallucinating desert nomads from 5000 years ago.

Also: yes, by the time you get up, get dressed for, drive to mass, stay for the whole ceremony and then get back out, it could easily be a 3-4 hour escapade. Sure there are lots of in-and-out (leave after communion) Catholics who are done in 45 minutes, but my wife used to spend almost four hours from the time she started getting ready to go, until she'd gotten home again. She tended to go to Sat. evening mass, so we could go out afterwards but if she went to the 11AM mass she'd be getting ready at 9:30 and not be home until 1:30 - she went to a parish where they sang at every single opportunity and the priests were fond of long homilies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH is not imposing his need for spiritual life on his DW. It is the same as if he chose to go to the gym on Sunday morning. I don't understand why OP and some of the other PPs think this is such a big deal.

Because they are intolerant, controlling and close-minded and cannot abide that anybody should be different from them. Their way or the highway. They are Right and Elect and everybody else is Wrong and damned. Yeah they are secular, but they are still acting like Puritan fanatics.

The IRONY! This is exactly what the Catholic Church says! This is why I left the Catholic Church! I find it hard to believe OP's DH couldn't find a church that was more respectful of differing beliefs. My DH is Catholic but understood why I couldn't be married by a Catholic priest. We attend a Unitarian Universalist church which nicely accommodates and respects our beliefs.

BTW, the Pope has recently made some very clear statements that God will bring all people of good conscience into Heaven, if God chooses, and that Catholics should not question who is saved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH is not imposing his need for spiritual life on his DW. It is the same as if he chose to go to the gym on Sunday morning. I don't understand why OP and some of the other PPs think this is such a big deal.

Because they are intolerant, controlling and close-minded and cannot abide that anybody should be different from them. Their way or the highway. They are Right and Elect and everybody else is Wrong and damned. Yeah they are secular, but they are still acting like Puritan fanatics.

The IRONY! This is exactly what the Catholic Church says! This is why I left the Catholic Church! I find it hard to believe OP's DH couldn't find a church that was more respectful of differing beliefs. My DH is Catholic but understood why I couldn't be married by a Catholic priest. We attend a Unitarian Universalist church which nicely accommodates and respects our beliefs.

UU and Catholicism are opposite ends of the liberal/conservative pole for religious and spiritual beliefs. That's cool that your family found UU to work for it, but lots of Catholics aren't going to be happy in a UU congregation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is kind of ridiculous and the questions about whether the RCC is repressive or not are missing the mark. Rather than strippers and coke, the better comparison would be:

What if her husband suddenly took up golf and was gone every week all through the middle of the day on Sunday? He's checking out on her and on the family during what has up until now been family time. Just guessing that weekend days are the main time they have to spend together as a family.

People who are making excuses because it's "religion" and therefore gets a pass need to think twice. You can have your faith in your belief and draw your spiritual sustenance from that - others might draw their spiritual sustenance from walking 18 holes in the great outdoors and achieving meditative Zen on the course.

This isn't about religion - this is about time the husband is spending on himself and taking away from the family. Personally, I think that's OK - it's good for everyone: kids, parents, etc. - have individual interests outside the home. The OP ought to both get off the anti-religion and also think about letting the husband do some of this - and maybe also taking up her own independent activities (while hubby stays home and runs the house).

The golf analogy is irrelevant. This is about your fundamental belief-system, the way you see the world, your values. Golf (hopefully), isn't.

And a game of golf does not take 45 minutes to an hour to complete.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, because holding up a candle and a bible is like being in the Marines (there is also a question of standards being used in the Marines issue). Hahaha. You're really sexist. At least admit it.

Can a 1130 lb woman carry who 210 lb wounded comrade off the battlefield? If she can't, she doesn't belong there where she is is more harm than help. Here's another where they don't belong if they can't pack the baggage:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2013/11/11/fdny-refuses-to-fire-female-firefighter-who-failed-fitness-test-n1744523

Some can. I've seen women do amazing things in Crossfit.

Anonymous wrote:I think this is a game changer. My DH and I grew up Catholic. I no longer consider myself Catholic. My DH and went into the marriage with our eyes open. We talked extensively about it and it was a deliberate decision not to marry in the Catholic Church. If he decided to return to the Catholic Church, we'd have to do some seriously counseling. It's not 'church' I have an issue with, it's the Catholic Church. I'd need to undestand why he needed Catholicism and how both of our needs could be met.

I would not allow him to take our children. I understand other people are okay with it but I would never allow my kids to be in an environment where discrimination against women and girls is supported. The church allows the prohibition of altar girls and that alone would be enough for me. My DDs are just as worthy as my DSs.

Really, you're not up to speed on the church. Many, many parishes have female altar servers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, why don't you and the kids go with dh to church, before you decide it's so horrible??? At least try it.

Instead, go with DH to mass on a Saturday evening, keep the kids at home, get a sitter, go to dinner afterward and discuss your concerns between the two of you. Catholicism is a big, big commitment, and a lot of work, which is one of the reasons that I left.

I wouldn't say that it is a big commitment and a lot of work. I'm no longer Catholic but when I was I just went when I felt like it.

+1. You people are hilarious. The church doesn't threaten or harass you if you don't come to Mass.

But, if you don't go to mass and follow Catholic tenents then the church doesn't consider you Catholic and you're not allowed to fully participate. I don't get why people think they're Catholic if they don't follow the teachings of the church.

This isn't quite right. I hadn't gone to Mass for years and was married in a church outside of Catholicism. The church wouldn't recognize my marriage, when I wanted to go back, because "as a Catholic" I had an obligation to marry in church, even if I was a lapsed Catholic.

According the priest, I was baptized, had my first confession, had my first communion and was confirmed, so I'm a Catholic. I'm just a lapsed Catholic.

They were also perfectly willing to bury my father, with a full funeral Mass, even though he hadn't been to Mass in an age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would not allow him to take our children. I understand other people are okay with it but I would never allow my kids to be in an environment where discrimination against women and girls is supported. The church allows the prohibition of altar girls and that alone would be enough for me. My DDs are just as worthy as my DSs.

+10000000000

My DH and I were both raises Catholic and turned away from the Church for these and other reasons. I miss the rituals more than he does, but I'd never go back, and I would have a really hard time staying married to someone who did, since it would reflect a fundamental shift in his values. I never want my son to worship in a Church that raises men above women (except for a mythical pure virgin venerated above all except God).

My ex-wife was a Catholic and the priest damn near refused to marry us because I laughed and then refused to convert when he asked when I'd be converting. I doubled down and said there was no way in hell I was going to raise children as Catholics. I let him know I'd never interfere with my wife's participation but that if children were raised in any church it would be the Episcopal (pope-free catholic lite) and they'd be free to make up their own minds at 18 when they were 'adults' and capable of independent critical thinking. Fortunately, having children was not an issue (we were infertile). Real Catholics take it pretty seriously, but we were able to reach reasonable adult compromises. Religion was never an issue for us (I was raised episcopal but am basically an atheist).

I later dated a girl from a family of talibangelical crazies - damn near never went to church, but always had stupid TeeeVeee preachers/fleecers on. I was a complete moron for not recognizing this made us fundamentally imcompatible. My GF had a vague, generally ill-informed (made up as she went along) notion of faith and theology. This is fine - in fact, all religion is the same in reality, some have just been around longer and have acquired legitimacy by virtue of longevity - we are witnessing the LDS make the transition right now from quack cult to "real religion" but it's no different from Scientology or Raelism. But what wasn't fine was that this represented a HUGE difference in our values and underlying way of seeing the world. It wasn't that we had arguments over transubstantiation or something - she had no clue what those things were - but that our whole way of seeing the world was in conflict.

Yes, religion is and should be a dealbreaker - if you have strong convictions (spiritual, religious or otherwise), either of you, which are in conflict with the other, then you should just back away. OP can't really do that now, but so long as hubby isn't shoving it down your throat, just make him balance his alone time with some alone time for you. I think the OP is less pissed about Catholic theology and dogma (and however repressive/regressive it is/isn't) than about her hubby using this as a "socially acceptable" excuse to basically skip out for a huge chunk of Sunday and ditch her with the kids.