Author Topic: America and courting 18-year-old virgins (Read 62913 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #540 on:** March 26, 2011, 11:59:52 PM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Is it even possible for a single man to speak to a single woman "platonically"?

Even if it were, is it possible for Tele to speak to this girl "platonically"?

The mission priest said it would be okay to talk to her platonically. I suggested that would be difficult.

Anyway, it's certainly possible to talk to a girl you like without talking of love.

Caminus · « **Reply #541 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:04:01 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Caminus
Spouting off against priests and fathers and getting historically and canonically dogmatic over a girl is simply foolish.

I agree it was foolish to quote Catholic teachings and expect them to follow those teachings when they don't really care to follow them.

As I said, there is no "catholic doctrine" regarding this matter. There is local custom and general principles without any concrete, ready-made answers. By thinking that they have offended against dogma only makes you look more foolish.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #542 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:08:04 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

As I said, there is no "catholic doctrine" regarding this matter.

There are certainly Catholic teachings that pertain to it. As Leo XIII said - the Church has limited the authority of fathers and he said it is a great blessing that it has done so. How can it possibly be justifiable to threaten to kick me out for merely contacting an adult girl without the father's consent? How can it be "society praxis" as he said that one must have the father's consent?

Quote

There is local custom and general principles without any concrete, ready-made answers. By thinking that they have offended against dogma only makes you look more foolish.

Foolish in thinking they will listen to arguments. What a surprise Caminus you're resorting to your usual debating tactics of trying to muddy things.

I told the priest - if you're really Catholic you would teach what St. Thomas teaches in a sermon - instead of saying things that lead nearly all the parishioners and SSPX forum members I've talked to to believe that a father's consent is necessary.

There's a reason they have typically have mistaken ideas about it. I've heard sermons myself, saying "you do not take out a girl without the father's permission"

Well - the typical parishioner listening to that will think it's based on some principle of morality that makes a father's consent necessary. They won't assume it's the society giving a diktat to try to impose its will on people - it pretty much contradicts Catholic teaching in what it doesn't say.

Caminus · « **Reply #543 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:15:50 AM »

Quote

if you're really Catholic you would teach

Ah, no wonder why you were kicked out. I would have grabbed you by the scruff and led you out myself if I were there. You simply have no clue as to what you are talking about. You'd make a great SV.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #544 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:19:09 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Ah, no wonder why you were kicked out. I would have grabbed you by the scruff and led you out myself if I were there. You simply have no clue as to what you are talking about. You'd make a great SV.

Proves my point Caminus - the SSPX is obscurantist. When it comes to problems like sedevacantism they don't want people to think about it.

They don't care that children and parents believe that the Church teaches a father's consent is necessary. They have no desire to disabuse of them of the notion, on the contrary, they say things to make people think it.

Matthew · « **Reply #545 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:21:14 AM »

Tele, if your intentions with this young lady were/are honorable, you'd be the only one in a situation like this, as you describe it.

A man who won't honor the father of his "love", in most cases, is not an honorable man.

If I learned that my daughter was sneaking off to meet/be with some young scoundrel, I would *not* assume the scoundrel's intentions were "life-long Catholic marriage". More like a one-night stand!

I realize you might be the one exception -- but there's only one of you! I don't think we'd ever encounter another.

Part of honor is knowing when to "take a hit" for the sake of honor.

Caminus · « **Reply #546 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:25:07 AM »

Quote

There are certainly Catholic teachings that pertain to it. As Leo XIII said - the Church has limited the authority of fathers and he said it is a great blessing that it has done so.

Take this for instance. You extract one sentence from an encyclical that makes a general statement without any explanation or examples to show forth his meaning. What precisely did he mean by this? Do you know? Or are you just using this vague, undefined statement to suit your own purposes? The fact of the matter is that you simply don't know what precisely he meant by this statement. But you do not fear to contort it to your liking and use it to trample on other people. You demand respect for your reputation but you do not bat an eye at dragging others' through the mud.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #547 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:30:38 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Tele, if your intentions with this young lady were/are honorable, you'd be the only one in a situation like this, as you describe it.

A man who won't honor the father of his "love", in most cases, is not an honorable man.

Sorry Matthew, but there's a principle of freedom at stake. Trying to make the father the arbiter and stating that a man should humbly submit to what he "counsels" or threatens is simply not the principle St. Thomas enunciated. Doubtless there have been many theologians who are troubled by freedom to marry in that it seems it might be going against the 4th Commandment and so they encourage children to listen to "counsel" in such a way as to make it seem like the "counsel" the parents are giving is a positive command that they'd better follow - but what they end up saying is that claiming one's right is somehow evil for doing so because we're just supposed to put our faith in the judgment of parents. Well, it's not parents' decision.

Quote

If I learned that my daughter was sneaking off to meet/be with some young scoundrel, I would *not* assume the scoundrel's intentions were "life-long Catholic marriage". More like a one-night stand!

I realize you might be the one exception -- but there's only one of you! I don't think we'd ever encounter another.

Part of honor is knowing when to "take a hit" for the sake of honor.

I don't think there was any real fear that I was a threat to these girls chastity. The objections were based on age difference - I have no right to pursue a girl because they think I'm too old - well, sorry - they have no right to impose that on me and have me kicked out of church for it.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #548 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:32:40 AM »

Quote from: Caminus

Take this for instance. You extract one sentence from an encyclical that makes a general statement without any explanation or examples to show forth his meaning. What precisely did he mean by this? Do you know? Or are you just using this vague, undefined statement to suit your own purposes? The fact of the matter is that you simply don't know what precisely he meant by this statement. But you do not fear to contort it to your liking and use it to trample on other people. You demand respect for your reputation but you do not bat an eye at dragging others' through the mud.

Historically the Church very often granted dispensations of the banns and even secret marriages to young people who wished to marry against the wishes of their parents. When parents attempted to disinherit young people who married against their wishes these attempts were often overturned.

Matthew · « **Reply #549 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:35:53 AM »

Yes, you were kicked out because you were considered "too old" by the father...

And John Jones was fired because a clique of a few co-workers conspired to get him fired.

Either way, an injustice was done, and there's not a whole lot that you (or John Jones) can do about it. The boss certainly has the right to fire who he chooses -- it just so happens that John Jones wouldn't have been fired without the machinations of his 3 unscrupulous co-workers.

The fact that injustice was committed doesn't invalidate all the principles involved.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Your situation is almost EXACTLY like a grieving father who is campaigning for a complete ban on handguns because his 5 year old was shot to death.

In both cases, it wasn't the principle that was at fault (fathers having authority over their daughters, the right to keep and bear arms) but rather an individual who committed a sin (the father having you booted from church, the man who murdered the 5 year old)

You're about as biased/personal. It's as obvious as the nose on your face you're only upset about this because it affected you personally. I've seen this for months, ever since I can remember you being on CI.

Any attempts to make this a detached, dogmatic controversy rings extremely hollow. You clearly identify PERSONALLY with the "suitor" that is potentially to be rejected by a girl's father. So of course you're against fathers being able to have any say.

I feel funny even typing that -- what's next? In other news, The sky is blue, and water is wet.

Matthew

Telesphorus · « **Reply #550 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:39:20 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Your situation is almost EXACTLY like a grieving father who is campaigning for a complete ban on handguns because his 5 year old was shot to death.

You're about as biased/personal.

I don't understand the analogy Matthew. I think Catholic priests should educate people about the Catholic teachings on freedom to marry - and should work to resist feminist ideas about college, age differences, and early marriage.

They shouldn't threaten to ban people for doing something they have no right to forbid. They have no right to make my speaking to an adult woman contingent on the father's permission.

MaterDominici · « **Reply #551 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:44:21 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Historically the Church very often granted dispensations of the banns and even secret marriages to young people who wished to marry against the wishes of their parents. When parents attempted to disinherit young people who married against their wishes these attempts were often overturned.

Tele, when and where was this common?
I understand the exact opposite has also been true... priests extremely reluctant to wed a couple without parental consent and laws that automatically exclude such a couple from receiving their inheritance.
I'd imagine historically it's gone both ways.

Matthew · « **Reply #552 on:** March 27, 2011, 12:44:23 AM »

Marriage is so much more than just the honeymoon.

What else can I say?

Discord amongst families must be avoided as much as is possible, as it is a cause of great evils. It's up there with divorce on what it does to the children.

Do you think this Mr. Puerto Rican would be a good father-in-law if you managed to court/marry his daughter while he boils with rage? Do you really think that would be a good thing?

Yes, a good thing for a period of 1-2 weeks after the marriage. Yes, honeymoons are nice. But after that, it would be absolutely awful.

It's as if you're just looking forward to the licit pleasure of the honeymoon, and don't care much what happens after that.

Not saying you are literally, but I really can't see that you've given married life after the honeymoon much thought.

Do you know that women are very strongly attached to family? That they would severely resent a husband who costs her her family? That the husband can't be a replacement for her family? That women need a social network even more than men do? Etc.

Matthew

Telesphorus · « **Reply #553 on:** March 27, 2011, 08:22:10 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Not saying you are literally, but I really can't see that you've given married life after the honeymoon much thought.

Not true, I want to have a large family, I want the right mother for my family. That's why I want a young woman, not a career woman.

Quote

Do you know that women are very strongly attached to family? That they would severely resent a husband who costs her her family? That the husband can't be a replacement for her family? That women need a social network even more than men do? Etc.

Matthew

As soon as the first baby came along the family would be right back in the thick of things, I'm sure.

Another thing - I've noticed a lot of Trad Catholics married men have to put up with meddlesome father-in-laws who interfere with the running of the house. Everything in this society is stacked against the husband - even among religious groups. This society is thoroughly, thoroughly henpecked.

And once we get a enough roosters from South of the border it will be the worst of both worlds.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #554 on:** March 27, 2011, 08:30:04 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

Quote from: Telesphorus
Historically the Church very often granted dispensations of the banns and even secret marriages to young people who wished to marry against the wishes of their parents. When parents attempted to disinherit young people who married against their wishes these attempts were often overturned.

Tele, when and where was this common?
I understand the exact opposite has also been true... priests extremely reluctant to wed a couple without parental consent and laws that automatically exclude such a couple from receiving their inheritance.
I'd imagine historically it's gone both ways.

Did you look at the book link I posted?

To Love Honor and Obey in Colonial Mexico