Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Raoul76 on March 19, 2011, 02:24:50 PM
-
Yes or no, please.
This is tangentially related to the Fatima thread.
-
Yes. According to the world, America used to be the greatest nation. I am not sure if it still is, though.
I don't think God sees it that way.
-
At the risk of sounding like Bill Clinton, it depends on what you mean by greatest. I am not Myrna, however, so perhaps I should just move along to another thread.
-
There is no place that I would rather be!
-
I don't have to ask Raoul the same question, we all know he thinks France is the greatest, good to know too, that when Raoul gets there the SSPX has a fairly strong presence in France.
-
There are far fewer abortions in the Islamic world. Yeah, I like living here, but America kills too many human beings (both young and old), which few Americans care about.
-
No far from it and it never was.
-
There are far fewer abortions in the Islamic world. Yeah, I like living here, but America kills too many human beings (both young and old), which few Americans care about.
Liberal attitudes and values are making lots of inroads into the Islamic world, but one thing is certain: the people there have a lot further to go before they fall into the mire of these western societies that have made true marriage the exception and fornication the norm.
-
I would say the number one reason Catholics (not counting the crisis - although this reason is one of the reasons for the crisis) have not successfully resisted this culture is that they do not understand that modern institutions are their enemies. They are more interested in helping themselves by working with these institutions than they are in helping each other.
-
Whatever America was, it is so no longer. Now, the humiliation of the Purification shall reduce all to ashes. Godspeed.
-
Myrna said:
There is no place that I would rather be!
Gee, that doesn't sound like a yes or no.
SJB told me on the Fatima page that American patriotism is not the same as Americanism, and that no one is saying that America is the greatest country ever. I wanted to show him just how wrong he is. He has no idea some of the things that I've heard from Catholics in this country.
I believe that Americanism has transmogrified into a new and more subtle form. No one will say, since Leo XIII, that the separation of Church and state is a good thing; but they will proclaim "liberty" and "freedom," and in a suggestive and hypnotic way this could be said to amount to the same thing. It's like a repressed Americanism. Hopefully it avoids heresy, but it still makes me nervous.
Something hit me the other day. This country has good people in it, Catholics with genuine charity, but they hold certain errors on non-dogmatic matters that render them slightly alien to me, and vice versa. The Tea Party mentality that they think is anti-communist, in reality is just the opposite, because if left unchecked it will make us all like the Chinese, serfs to the elite.
There is a mutual respect between these Catholics and myself, for what we have in common -- and sometimes they easily exceed me in terms of spiritual advancement and charity on a person-to-person basis -- but also a mutual unease, due to our very different politics. It is now totally clear to me that I belong in France.
But this repressed Americanism, this John Birch-y kind of atmosphere, may explain why I mistrusted the Fatima secrets. How often have we heard from the likes of the UN about "peace" while at the same time they engage in wars to bring about THEIR kind of peace? It seemed unlikely to me that Mary would sponsor a ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic peace -- that is why I was skeptical of Fatima. I now think I was wrong, because in 1929 consecrating Russia may have changed history, and brought about another kind of peace. But I can see why I was paranoid.
-
Whatever America was, it is so no longer. Now, the humiliation of the Purification shall reduce all to ashes. Godspeed.
There was a man who also built his house on sand. And when the rains came and the winds blew, his house fell, and great was it's crashing.
-
No time like the present.
-
There are far fewer abortions in the Islamic world. Yeah, I like living here, but America kills too many human beings (both young and old), which few Americans care about.
Clarification: Islam says that ensoulment happens after the third month of pregnancy. So it is not such a big deal if you abort piror to ensoulment. Also, they kill a woman who sins and gets pregnant.
Killing an expectant mother is also abortion. isn't it?
BTW, I never advocate america. It was just an explanation.
-
Rauol, just so you know, France is America's competitor in claiming the title of Whore of Babylon, since she is the Eldest Daughter of the Church and currently in apostasy.
Im not denying France's role in the Restoration, but keep in mind, it's a bi-polar nation just like this one.
-
There are far fewer abortions in the Islamic world. Yeah, I like living here, but America kills too many human beings (both young and old), which few Americans care about.
Clarification: Islam says that ensoulment happens after the third month of pregnancy. So it is not such a big deal if you abort piror to ensoulment. Also, they kill a woman who sins and gets pregnant.
Killing an expectant mother is also abortion. isn't it?
BTW, I never advocate america. It was just an explanation.
That is true; however, the "embryo" is still sacred in Islam. In any case, there are far fewer abortions in Islamic countries and abortion laws are more restrictive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
-
The errors of America have spread across Europe as well. It is not just America, it is the whole world which is made drunk with the wine of Babylon, which is 'equality' and 'liberty'.
-
Interesting link while we are on the subject of Countries.
http://apostates.weebly.com/what-exactly-is-sharia-law.html
Also God will punish more severly Countries that He gave the most grace to from the beginning and France is one of them. Just as He will punish humans more severly depending on the grace given to them.
America as you say, Raoul, was always evil, therefore, although we deserve to be punished as everyone for their sins, He will show mercy to America for our Charity in the past. Feeding our enemies as one example.
Go to France Raoul! Seek out the GM, I hope you won't be disappointed, however I believe in this "state of the game", God wants us to remain where He has placed us.
-
We, as a family, contemplated moving to France, due to the large SSPX presence there. I sent an email to the DICI about moving to France at our own expense (basically, we would sell our house and use the money to move) in late November 2010, and in late December 2010 (a full month later), they replied saying that they had no advice for me nor could (or would) they provide me with any POCs in France whom I could discuss the issue with further. (My goal was to find another individual/family who had made this "journey.") Instead, I was referred to the "superior general" in Kansas City, whom I was told was French.
Anyone who thinks that the SSPX is a "cult" should think again. They are hard to get a hold of!
-
Interesting link while we are on the subject of Countries.
http://apostates.weebly.com/what-exactly-is-sharia-law.html
Yuck! What a gross site!! I hope that is not a real hand. In any case, Catholic princes, in the Middle Ages, were guilty of the same atrocities. In this sense, I do agree somewhat with Vatican II's "dignity of man," in that I do feel that "cruel and unusual punishment" should be a thing of the past, although, Popes prior to Vatican II were expressing the same humanity without the accompanying heresies.
-
We, as a family, contemplated moving to France, due to the large SSPX presence there. I sent an email to the DICI about moving to France at our own expense (basically, we would sell our house and use the money to move) in late November 2010, and in late December 2010 (a full month later), they replied saying that they had no advice for me nor could (or would) they provide me with any POCs in France whom I could discuss the issue with further. (My goal was to find another individual/family who had made this "journey.") Instead, I was referred to the "superior general" in Kansas City, whom I was told was French.
Anyone who thinks that the SSPX is a "cult" should think again. They are hard to get a hold of!
Jehanne, they care a lot about money. It's understandable that they wouldn't encourage you to move to France, but the way in which they treat strangers doesn't make them less cultish - quite the opposite. I wasn't able to talk to the priest until I stared down a black man who was in his face at while we were saying the rosary before an abortion clinic. I was attending nearly a year before people started talking to me. In particular some young women took notice of me. When they thought I was well-off some of them were extremely welcoming, the mother of one young woman was waiting for me after church to interview me. Women would come up to me and ask me whether or not I was interested in some widow half-way across the country. Essentially, after ignoring me for a year, they were now acting as though I should immediately take a fancy to their daughter who seemed to be in a rush to be married.
Well. I was stupid, and always admitted my difficulties. I even made the mistake of eventually telling this woman of the girl I did like - the girl who had first paid attention to me - the first girl I was able to introduce myself too (though she was forbidden to speak to me one week later in confession) - after it seemed like the girl who had her mother waiting for me was going to marry someone else. Suddenly this young woman who had been so friendly treated me like some sort of criminal. When my mother came to mass her mother was extremely rude to my mother. The priest, when I tried to talk to him of the way the girls acted towards me he just pretended I was crazy.
Oh yes - these groups often act like a cult. Absolutely. I've spoken to someone from southern Missouri who notices similar things in Protestant churches. These groups are social clubs dominated by certain cliques and woe betide those who rub the hens the wrong way. If you're a man around thirty interested in a girl below 20 they have you marked as some sort of criminal. They want the young pretty girls for their own sons.
-
The Tea Party mentality that they think is anti-communist, in reality is just the opposite, because if left unchecked it will make us all like the Chinese, serfs to the elite. This I believe is true. Every human being is measured using a metric of productivity. When you don't "measure up", you will see the "charity" that drives the thought: Love of Money.... Yes we all should have an oar in the water, but the value of our contribution to society can't always be plainly seen.
-
Jehanne it's sad that Father Petty died so young. Are you still in that general location?
-
Jehanne it's sad that Father Petty died so young. Are you still in that general location?
Yes, I am. I knew Father Petty and his "co-rector," Father Blake, who confirmed me and married my wife and I in a Church wedding. The Tridentine Mass that Father Petty sung was kind of a hybrid Mass, with him singing into a microphone accompanied by one of the few remaining sisters in Dyserville playing the church organ and signing in the choir loft.
During my RCIA program, Father Blake would always genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament while Father Petty would walk right by. It was a noticeable contrast.
-
We, as a family, contemplated moving to France, due to the large SSPX presence there. I sent an email to the DICI about moving to France at our own expense (basically, we would sell our house and use the money to move) in late November 2010, and in late December 2010 (a full month later), they replied saying that they had no advice for me nor could (or would) they provide me with any POCs in France whom I could discuss the issue with further. (My goal was to find another individual/family who had made this "journey.") Instead, I was referred to the "superior general" in Kansas City, whom I was told was French.
Anyone who thinks that the SSPX is a "cult" should think again. They are hard to get a hold of!
Jehanne, they care a lot about money. It's understandable that they wouldn't encourage you to move to France, but the way in which they treat strangers doesn't make them less cultish - quite the opposite. I wasn't able to talk to the priest until I stared down a black man who was in his face at while we were saying the rosary before an abortion clinic. I was attending nearly a year before people started talking to me. In particular some young women took notice of me. When they thought I was well-off some of them were extremely welcoming, the mother of one young woman was waiting for me after church to interview me. Women would come up to me and ask me whether or not I was interested in some widow half-way across the country. Essentially, after ignoring me for a year, they were now acting as though I should immediately take a fancy to their daughter who seemed to be in a rush to be married.
Well. I was stupid, and always admitted my difficulties. I even made the mistake of eventually telling this woman of the girl I did like - the girl who had first paid attention to me - the first girl I was able to introduce myself too (though she was forbidden to speak to me one week later in confession) - after it seemed like the girl who had her mother waiting for me was going to marry someone else. Suddenly this young woman who had been so friendly treated me like some sort of criminal. When my mother came to mass her mother was extremely rude to my mother. The priest, when I tried to talk to him of the way the girls acted towards me he just pretended I was crazy.
Oh yes - these groups often act like a cult. Absolutely. I've spoken to someone from southern Missouri who notices similar things in Protestant churches. These groups are social clubs dominated by certain cliques and woe betide those who rub the hens the wrong way. If you're a man around thirty interested in a girl below 20 they have you marked as some sort of criminal. They want the young pretty girls for their own sons.
Well, I found that story of yours confusing. :confused1:
Anyway, the SSPX is not a cult. I agree with Jehanne.
-
As far as whether or not America is the greatest nation, in my opinion, it's far from it. However, I'm not sure if there is a "greatest nation" right now. All nations are guilty of numerous sins.
-
Jehanne it's sad that Father Petty died so young. Are you still in that general location?
Yes, I am. I knew Father Petty and his "co-rector," Father Blake, who confirmed me and married my wife and I in a Church wedding. The Tridentine Mass that Father Petty sung was kind of a hybrid Mass, with him singing into a microphone accompanied by one of the few remaining sisters in Dyserville playing the church organ and signing in the choir loft.
During my RCIA program, Father Blake would always genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament while Father Petty would walk right by. It was a noticeable contrast.
Oh, I didn't know. He was a convert. I never lived there just visited when going to Grandma's. I just knew he did a lot to help restore the Basilica.
-
We, as a family, contemplated moving to France, due to the large SSPX presence there. I sent an email to the DICI about moving to France at our own expense (basically, we would sell our house and use the money to move) in late November 2010, and in late December 2010 (a full month later), they replied saying that they had no advice for me nor could (or would) they provide me with any POCs in France whom I could discuss the issue with further. (My goal was to find another individual/family who had made this "journey.") Instead, I was referred to the "superior general" in Kansas City, whom I was told was French.
Anyone who thinks that the SSPX is a "cult" should think again. They are hard to get a hold of!
Jehanne, they care a lot about money. It's understandable that they wouldn't encourage you to move to France, but the way in which they treat strangers doesn't make them less cultish - quite the opposite. I wasn't able to talk to the priest until I stared down a black man who was in his face at while we were saying the rosary before an abortion clinic. I was attending nearly a year before people started talking to me. In particular some young women took notice of me. When they thought I was well-off some of them were extremely welcoming, the mother of one young woman was waiting for me after church to interview me. Women would come up to me and ask me whether or not I was interested in some widow half-way across the country. Essentially, after ignoring me for a year, they were now acting as though I should immediately take a fancy to their daughter who seemed to be in a rush to be married.
Well. I was stupid, and always admitted my difficulties. I even made the mistake of eventually telling this woman of the girl I did like - the girl who had first paid attention to me - the first girl I was able to introduce myself too (though she was forbidden to speak to me one week later in confession) - after it seemed like the girl who had her mother waiting for me was going to marry someone else. Suddenly this young woman who had been so friendly treated me like some sort of criminal. When my mother came to mass her mother was extremely rude to my mother. The priest, when I tried to talk to him of the way the girls acted towards me he just pretended I was crazy.
Oh yes - these groups often act like a cult. Absolutely. I've spoken to someone from southern Missouri who notices similar things in Protestant churches. These groups are social clubs dominated by certain cliques and woe betide those who rub the hens the wrong way. If you're a man around thirty interested in a girl below 20 they have you marked as some sort of criminal. They want the young pretty girls for their own sons.
Try this:
http://www.sspxsingles.com/
http://traditionalcatholicdating.com/
-
Jehanne it's sad that Father Petty died so young. Are you still in that general location?
Yes, I am. I knew Father Petty and his "co-rector," Father Blake, who confirmed me and married my wife and I in a Church wedding. The Tridentine Mass that Father Petty sung was kind of a hybrid Mass, with him singing into a microphone accompanied by one of the few remaining sisters in Dyserville playing the church organ and signing in the choir loft.
During my RCIA program, Father Blake would always genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament while Father Petty would walk right by. It was a noticeable contrast.
Oh, I didn't know. He was a convert. I never lived there just visited when going to Grandma's. I just knew he did a lot to help restore the Basilica.
Yes, it's a beautiful Church. He remarked, on occasion, how much money the noon "Latin Mass" would bring in. Still, they only baptize children once a month, which I found to be strange.
-
Telesphorus said:
If you're a man around thirty interested in a girl below 20 they have you marked as some sort of criminal.
How do you expect them to act around a pervert? :laugh1:
Sorry, couldn't resist.
In all seriousness, your story doesn't make sense. What is this? It's like it's written by a different person, it's grammatically apocalyptic and incoherent and full of holes.
Telesphorus said:
"Well. I was stupid, and always admitted my difficulties. I even made the mistake of eventually telling this woman of the girl I did like - the girl who had first paid attention to me - the first girl I was able to introduce myself too (though she was forbidden to speak to me one week later in confession) - after it seemed like the girl who had her mother waiting for me was going to marry someone else. Suddenly this young woman who had been so friendly treated me like some sort of criminal. When my mother came to mass her mother was extremely rude to my mother. The priest, when I tried to talk to him of the way the girls acted towards me he just pretended I was crazy.
( 1 ) What are "your difficulties"?
( 2 ) Who is the "woman of the girl" that you liked, her mother?
( 3 ) Why was the girl you liked forbidden to speak to you in confession?
( 4 ) How old was this girl you liked? Don't just say a teenager, there is a difference between 19 and 14.
( 5 ) You liked the "first girl," the young one, not the other whose mother was interested in you, so how does the latter have any bearing on anything?
( 6 ) You talk about the way the "girls" acted toward you -- plural. So the adolescent you were interested in, as well as the one whose mother had her eye on you and who was getting married to someone else, ganged up on you, is that it?
I want to be on your side, Tele, but the anecdote is far from proving that SSPX is a cult. I can easily imagine there's another side to the story.
-
Raoul I met her when she was 17 (it took a few months to know how old she was because she had been bound not to speak to her after our initial introduction and because I didn't know anyone else at the chapel who could tell me) but she was over 18 when I was threatened to be kicked out of Church if I tried to contact her. She's 19 now but those pharisees still wouldn't approve of the age difference (14 years). The SSPX priests have even said from the pulpit (in a stentorian voice) "you do not take a girl until you get the father's permission." They've made up their own system of morality and it isn't based on Catholicism.
It's not perverted for a man my age to pursue a girl that age, and anyone who says it is a feminist pharisee.
btw I accidentally "deleted" your post.
-
"take a girl out"
-
There was no reason that the girl was forbidden to speak to me - she didn't even say "hello" - except that she was a girl and her father didn't want her speaking to me. Like I told you I know she was forbidden because she was very upset, saying "I'm sorry" as she passed my pew to go to the confession line. She ignored me after mass, but a few weeks later she was not ignoring me, just not speaking to me - not even daring say "hello."
To tell you the truth, at that time I held many scruples - I believed what the SSPX priest said from the pulpit, that I needed the father's permission. I was very, very stupid to think that Puerto Rican would ever be straight with me.
As to the honesty of the priest: there were several young women paying marked attention to me - I never had the intention of doing wrong with any of them - and when I tried to discuss this with this the priest his reaction was to pretend it was in my head (they are just being friendly!) - it was part of the setup for the story they were going to go with - that I was completely delusional and infatuated. Whatever the truth was didn't matter - what mattered was to make me out to be a danger so they could get rid of me.
-
Matthew maybe you should split this off from the topic.
-
As to the "cultish behavior" -
I never did anything to justify it - but twice now priests have told me I've been reported to the police. I've never heard a word from the police. These SSPX priests are not above encouraging people to make frivolous reports to the police. What it shows me is that some of these priests are not only dishonest but are merciless bullies who will resort to dirty tricks to get rid of someone.
Right now it seems to me the SSPX is in the grip of such bullies in Bishop Fellay's clique - it does not surprise me that the mentality spreads from the top down.
-
Such conduct, not only being unethical, may also be illegal. It's called harassment.
-
There was no reason that the girl was forbidden to speak to me - she didn't even say "hello" - except that she was a girl and her father didn't want her speaking to me. Like I told you I know she was forbidden because she was very upset, saying "I'm sorry" as she passed my pew to go to the confession line. She ignored me after mass, but a few weeks later she was not ignoring me, just not speaking to me - not even daring say "hello."
To tell you the truth, at that time I held many scruples - I believed what the SSPX priest said from the pulpit, that I needed the father's permission. I was very, very stupid to think that Puerto Rican would ever be straight with me.
As to the honesty of the priest: there were several young women paying marked attention to me - I never had the intention of doing wrong with any of them - and when I tried to discuss this with this the priest his reaction was to pretend it was in my head (they are just being friendly!) - it was part of the setup for the story they were going to go with - that I was completely delusional and infatuated. Whatever the truth was didn't matter - what mattered was to make me out to be a danger so they could get rid of me.
Such conduct may have worked in feudalistic Europe, but not here, not now. If they are 18 they are free, which means that they can date or have sex with whomever they want. (In actuality, they probably earned that right at age 16 or 17, depending upon the state they are residing in.) If it were me, I would have probably passed one of them a note saying, "Hey, baby, if you want to get married, then, let's run-off and get married." In some respects, I have to be thankful for the NO priests a bit, because if every priest acted like some SSPX priests, the Catholic Church would be reduced to a single, squabbling, backbiting parish where no one gets along with each other. I appreciate very much the liturgical and doctrinal orthodoxy of the SSPX (although, with respect to the latter, I think that they are overstepping their bounds somewhat) and especially their commitment to the moral and traditional law, but not their bad attitudes. As I said, this is America, and everyone ought to respect everyone else's rights and liberties. For better or for worse, feudalism is dead.
-
Such conduct may have worked in feudalistic Europe, but not here, not now.
The irony Jehanne is that in feudal Europe the Church did not impose parental will on children, but freed them from it. "Enlightenment" Spain imposed parental will on children - and feminist America doesn't want any young women getting married, and wants to treat a man interested in a young woman as a predator by default.
If they are 18 they are free, which means that they can date or have sex with whomever they want. (In actuality, they probably earned that right at age 16 or 17, depending upon the state they are residing in.)
Certainly there are no legal penalties - I was never trying seduce any of them.
If it were me, I would have probably passed one of them a note saying, "Hey, baby, if you want to get married, then, let's run-off and get married."
Had I been better informed and less scrupulous and trusting of untrustworthy people I'm fairly confident I would not be in this situation now and I would not have violated my conscience to do what I was free to do by right.
In some respects, I have to be thankful for the NO priests a bit, because if every priest acted like some SSPX priests, the Catholic Church would be reduced to a single, squabbling, backbiting parish where no one gets along with each other. I appreciate very much the liturgical and doctrinal orthodoxy of the SSPX (although, with respect to the latter, I think that they are overstepping their bounds somewhat) and especially their commitment to the moral and traditional law, but not their bad attitudes.
There is definitely a very serious problem.
-
Certainly there are no legal penalties - I was never trying seduce any of them.
If they are 18, there are no legal penalties against seduction, unless the woman does not want to be seduced. But, one cannot answer that question until after the seduction has begun.
-
Certainly there are no legal penalties - I was never trying seduce any of them.
If they are 18, there are no legal penalties against seduction, unless the woman does not want to be seduced. But, one cannot answer that question until after the seduction has begun.
What I said is confusing Jehanne - what I meant is -
1) these people were trying to bring the police into something that wouldn't have been criminal even if I really were a wicked predator
2) I never intended evil - but that didn't stop them from trying to drag my reputation through the mud - telling the fathers of all the girls I was a menace to their daughters.
in my case it was never an issue of intending to do evil
-
Certainly there are no legal penalties - I was never trying seduce any of them.
If they are 18, there are no legal penalties against seduction, unless the woman does not want to be seduced. But, one cannot answer that question until after the seduction has begun.
What I said is confusing Jehanne - what I meant is -
1) these people were trying to bring the police into something that wouldn't have been criminal even if I really were a wicked predator
2) I never intended evil - but that didn't stop them from trying to drag my reputation through the mud - telling the fathers of all the girls I was a menace to their daughters.
in my case it was never an issue of intending to do evil
My dad works in law enforcement. They deal with this crap all the time. Dump her and try out that dating service. You deserve better!
-
Such conduct may have worked in feudalistic Europe, but not here, not now. If they are 18 they are free, which means that they can date or have sex with whomever they want. (In actuality, they probably earned that right at age 16 or 17, depending upon the state they are residing in.) If it were me, I would have probably passed one of them a note saying, "Hey, baby, if you want to get married, then, let's run-off and get married."
Of course, the secular law also says you can make porno and distribute it on the Internet. Despite its lawfulness, if someone at SSPX did that, the priest should still have a problem.
Tele could have done what you said, but it's not the best recipe for a stable Catholic marriage to alienate the entire family of your bride.
There's still too much that's unknown about this situation. We're only hearing one side of the story. From the way Tele tells it, he didn't do anything to deserve getting kicked out, but are we really hearing everything? Then again, to get kicked out of the chapel, they'd better have some real dirt on him, some actual misconduct, not just their suspicions.
I don't know exactly what happened, but let me speak of a hypothetical. If a young-ish man of 30 or so named Gelephorus were to be targeted by a mother who sees him as the perfect suitor for her 48-year old widowed daughter -- and if this same Gelephorus begins pitching woo to a 17-year old nubile instead -- and if this mother was sort of the queen bee of the church and had the priest wrapped around her finger -- a situation like this could easily turn sticky.
It sounds like Tele was, at worst, imprudent. We are in America so minds here are colored by the American mindset, which is that interest in a young girl is automatically perverted.
As far as I know, there is nothing in the Catholic religion that is against marrying a teenage girl, except that you are supposed to respect the fair secular laws. Courting a young girl and waiting until she is of marriageable age doesn't strike me as wrong from a Catholic perspective -- someone correct me if I'm mistaken. But from an American perspective, it's simply not done. You would probably have to get special permission to court a younger girl, the priest and the parents would all have to approve, and that isn't what happened.
The dynamic between a teenage girl and a 30-year old man is extremely awkward. You aren't old enough to radiate harmless paternalistic concern, but you're not young enough that it feels all innocent and cute like when two teenagers are conversing in church, and perhaps thinking of marriage ( yes, younger Catholic girls can be very mature spiritually, but there is still that gap in experience. ) It can come off kind of predatory or wolf-ish.
I would only have brief exchanges with a girl this young. I wouldn't sit in the car or the library with her as I've done with older girls there. If I did sit in the library with a 16-year old, people would get suspicious, and though they'd be wrong to be suspicious, it would be understandable. Sometimes you have to anticipate these things and not fan the flames.
-
I still found Tele's story confusing, but if this is why he thinks the SSPX is cultish just because he hit on a girl 11 years younger than him, then he's not thinking clearly. What he did sounds disgusting to me.
-
I can see why some would call the SSPX cultish. I know its not a cult, but there is some major politicing going on at some of the centers I've been to. Some, unfortunately, include priests who join in the 'festivities.'
And it is these priests who, imho, make all the difference. I've met priests of the SSPX who were saintly and people I look up to to this day. On the other hand, there are some SSPX priests in positions of power, who abuse that power. They play politics and even intimidate other priests.
Spritus- I'd venture to say you have very good and holy priests whom you've had good experience with. These were the priests who I was fortunate enough to have experiences with (Frs. Nichols and Hewko) Unfortunately, many priets in the SSPX have a MAJOR lack of Charity. I can only pray for them.
-
I can see why some would call the SSPX cultish. I know its not a cult, but there is some major politicing going on at some of the centers I've been to. Some, unfortunately, include priests who join in the 'festivities.'
And it is these priests who, imho, make all the difference. I've met priests of the SSPX who were saintly and people I look up to to this day. On the other hand, there are some SSPX priests in positions of power, who abuse that power. They play politics and even intimidate other priests.
Spritus- I'd venture to say you have very good and holy priests whom you've had good experience with. These were the priests who I was fortunate enough to have experiences with (Frs. Nichols and Hewko) Unfortunately, many priets in the SSPX have a MAJOR lack of Charity. I can only pray for them.
Yes, I have had experience with good and holy SSPX priests. I only said that Tele is wrong to call them cultish just because he got in trouble for hitting on a teenage girl (I still don't completely understand his story).
-
Then again, to get kicked out of the chapel, they'd better have some real dirt on him, some actual misconduct, not just their suspicions.
Raoul, the priest gave me an ultimatum - do not attempt to contact the girl without the father's consent or you'll be kicked out. The girl was 18 at the time. Now there's no possible justification for that.
I don't know exactly what happened, but let me speak of a hypothetical. If a young-ish man of 30 or so named Gelephorus were to be targeted by a mother who sees him as the perfect suitor for her 48-year old widowed daughter
The one waiting outside the gate near where I was parked had a young daughter that was anxious to be married, it was some other poor woman who told me about a poor 42 year old widow.
-- and if this same Gelephorus begins pitching woo to a 17-year old nubile instead -- and if this mother was sort of the queen bee of the church and had the priest wrapped around her finger -- a situation like this could easily turn sticky.
I'm pretty sure she thought the girl I liked was somehow for her son (besides the factor of jealosy in the daughter) - that's the only way I could account for the hysterical, panicked reaction I got from that girl and her mother.
It sounds like Tele was, at worst, imprudent. We are in America so minds here are colored by the American mindset, which is that interest in a young girl is automatically perverted.
The priest should correct that sort of evil thinking, not fan the flames. I am very suspicious about the motives of this priest.
As far as I know, there is nothing in the Catholic religion that is against marrying a teenage girl, except that you are supposed to respect the fair secular laws. Courting a young girl and waiting until she is of marriageable age doesn't strike me as wrong from a Catholic perspective -- someone correct me if I'm mistaken. But from an American perspective, it's simply not done.
It certainly was done not long ago. We're supposed to be Traditional Catholics, not feminists.
You would probably have to get special permission to court a younger girl, the priest and the parents would all have to approve, and that isn't what happened.
No, they don't need to approve - not after the girl was 18.
I would only have brief exchanges with a girl this young. I wouldn't sit in the car or the library with her as I've done with older girls there. If I did sit in the library with a 16-year old, people would get suspicious, and though they'd be wrong to be suspicious, it would be understandable. Sometimes you have to anticipate these things and not fan the flames.
These priests have absolutely no right to do this to people.
-
Yes, I have had experience with good and holy SSPX priests. I only said that Tele is wrong to call them cultish just because he got in trouble for hitting on a teenage girl (I still don't completely understand his story).
SS - I was kicked out of the parish. And yes, it is very cultish. They wanted to represent me as crazy guy who was pursuing this girl without any encouragement. Priests who lie and tell other people to lie - to make people in the parish think you're a lunatic are despicable people.
-
My dad works in law enforcement. They deal with this crap all the time. Dump her and try out that dating service. You deserve better!
Thank you for your support Jehanne. It means a lot to me when it seems so many people at that church think it's just fine what they did to me (not all, thankfully)
-
Yes, I have had experience with good and holy SSPX priests. I only said that Tele is wrong to call them cultish just because he got in trouble for hitting on a teenage girl (I still don't completely understand his story).
SS - I was kicked out of the parish. And yes, it is very cultish. They wanted to represent me as crazy guy who was pursuing this girl without any encouragement. Priests who lie and tell other people to lie - to make people in the parish think you're a lunatic are despicable people.
It's your own fault for hitting on a girl 11 years younger than you. I'm not convinced that they are cultish because of something YOU did, and Raoul doesn't seem to be convinced by your statement either.
-
Yes, I have had experience with good and holy SSPX priests. I only said that Tele is wrong to call them cultish just because he got in trouble for hitting on a teenage girl (I still don't completely understand his story).
SS - I was kicked out of the parish. And yes, it is very cultish. They wanted to represent me as crazy guy who was pursuing this girl without any encouragement. Priests who lie and tell other people to lie - to make people in the parish think you're a lunatic are despicable people.
It's your own fault for hitting on a girl 11 years younger than you. I'm not convinced that they are cultish because of something YOU did, and Raoul doesn't seem to be convinced by your statement either.
SS - she is 14 (when I spoke to her father he'd always talk about 20 years though - what a loon!) years younger than me, and what I did wasn't wrong. There's nothing in the Catholic religion to say that a man my age liking a girl that age is wrong. To say it is justifiable to threaten to kick a man out of church - to make frivolous and malicious reports to the police - to tell the other fathers this guy is out for their daughters - to lie and pretend that I was acting without any encouragement - all these are the acts of malicious pharisees. And the people who support them and go along with they did because they think I deserved it are pharisees too.
-
Tele, I'm not talking about the secular law. Legally, you don't need consent from the parents when the girl hits 18, but you're in the Church. There is other protocol involved. Just because it's technically legal for you to hit on a young girl doesn't mean everyone is going to do jumping jacks about it.
Imagine you had a daughter. Now imagine someone who was coming to church, someone with tattoos all over who said he was reformed, was hitting on her, and totally ignoring you. Would you instantly just say "Go ahead, take my daughter! You're perfect!"
Because of the age gap, you have to win the trust of her family. But instead, it sounds to me like you were trying to cut them out entirely, which makes you seem more louche and shady. You constantly talk about how you don't need the father's consent. If I were a father, that would irritate me big-time. It's disrespectful. Catholics are pro-family, and you're acting like it's nothing to you to smash one up.
The problem is, no one here knows the whole story. What concerns me is that, when you write about this, you start to get emotional and lose control. You don't sound like you're thinking clearly. That makes me wonder if there is more than meets the eye here.
God knows what's going on, I don't. I have no idea if you deflowered more virgins than Casanova in your twenties, or what you're really like.
-
Tele, I'm not talking about the secular law. Legally, you don't need consent from the parents when the girl hits 18, but you're in the Church.
According to the laws of the Church, I don't need their consent. Children do not need their parents consent in choosing or seeking a spouse.
There is other protocol involved. Just because it's technically legal for you to hit on a young girl doesn't mean everyone is going to do jumping jacks about it.
Raoul, that's not the point - and I resent this implication that I was hitting on her. I introduced myself to her when she was walking directly in front of me on purpose. She's given me plenty of indication of her sentiments already - I'm pretty shy. It was quite clear she liked me.
Imagine you had a daughter. Now imagine someone who was coming to church, someone with tattoos all over who said he was reformed, was hitting on her, and totally ignoring you. Would you instantly just say "Go ahead, take my daughter! You're perfect!"
Here's the point Raoul - they have no right to tell her she can't speak to me, no right to tell me I can't contact her, and no right to kick me out of Church. I certainly don't have any tattoos either.
Because of the age gap, you have to win the trust of her family. But instead, it sounds to me like you were trying to cut them out entirely, which makes you seem more louche and shady.
No, it's not true. I tried talking to the father. I was even stupid enough to forgo the one real chance I had to talk to her because of my scrupulosity, because I didn't want to do something wrong - I believed those priests who said you needed parental permission. Her father was a Puerto Rican whose response to me was to pretend I was crazy, that I'd imagined the way she'd acted towards me - it became quite clear to me he was never going to give me the opportunity to speak freely with her. ("lick your wounds, she's not interested in you")
You constantly talk about how you don't need the father's consent.
Raoul, it's a simple fact. If the father refuses consent I'm not bound by that. Either someone respects what the Church teaches or they are pharisess.
If I were a father, that would irritate me big-time. It's disrespectful. Catholics are pro-family, and you're acting like it's nothing to you to smash one up.
I don't see how talking to a girl after Church is "smashing up a family." The only way someone can see it that way is if he is a machismo addled lunatic.
The problem is, no one here knows the whole story. What concerns me is that, when you write about this, you start to get emotional and lose control. You don't sound like you're thinking clearly. That makes me wonder if there is more than meets the eye here.
Raoul, the bottom line is I never attempted to seduce these girls. I was treated as trash, lied about, reported to the police, because I wanted to talk to a girl who showed every indication, for nearly a year, of liking me, but being restrained by pharisees in the confessional.
God knows what's going on, I don't. I have no idea if you deflowered more virgins than Casanova in your twenties, or what you're really like.
You Raoul, if I were unscrupulous, I wouldn't be in this position. That's what makes it sting all the more. The SSPX operates in a manner that rewards hypocrisy.
-
I said I don't know the whole story, so forgive me if I said you were hitting on her when you weren't. You weren't making much sense ( i.e. any sense ). It's starting to become clearer.
I am part-Spanish so yeah, I am a machismo-addled "lunatic" ( I have a sense of honor like a Japanese, that's a nicer way to say it. ) It's the same as my feelings about mixed-race marriages, I'm not into it, though I realize it's not specifically against Church teaching. But I wouldn't marry a teenage girl against her father's wishes, even if they were unreasonable. It's just a bad idea as far as I'm concerned. If the whole family is unreasonable, why would I want to marry into it?
From what you say in your last post, they certainly have no cause to kick you out. Unless you were mistaken about her advances and you were seeing what you want to see, like a rapist who says "She was coming onto me, she licked her lips." But I have no reason to suspect that's the case.
:detective: Playing Sherlock, I saw that the girl's dad is Puerto Rican, and you also called the priest, disparagingy, "that Puerto Rican." Are you claiming that there was a Puerto Rican clique working against you?
-
I feel certain that we met for a reason - we were really well suited for each other in every way.
If only I had been better and wiser this disaster would never have happened. But that doesn't excuse the jealous, spiteful pharisees who treat me like a monster for falling in love with a girl who had made every effort to charm me.
-
:detective: Playing Sherlock, I saw that the girl's dad is Puerto Rican, and you also called the priest, disparagingy, "that Puerto Rican." Are you claiming that there was a Puerto Rican clique working against you?
No, there's only one Puerto Rican - the Father. The second priest, the one who kicked me out, is French.
-
From what you say in your last post, they certainly have no cause to kick you out. Unless you were mistaken about her advances and you were seeing what you want to see, like a rapist who says "She was coming onto me, she licked her lips." But I have no reason to suspect that's the case.
That's the worst thing about the way they treated me - acting as though I was imagining everything - delusional - to destroy my reputation - that was their story - I was simply imagining, misinterpreting - it's a deliberate lie on their part - they would even drop the pretense from time to time - but they made sure to make it clear to me they absolutely not ashamed to lie. He didn't have the girls brothers following her and following me because they thought I was going to chase her down against her will.
Interestingly the girl's older brother seemed quite hostile to me at first but I think he realized what was really going on and after that he was always polite and kind to me. The girls younger brothers - not so much.
-
Tele, what is the girl like? Is there any chance that she was simply flirtatious, but that this flirtation went farther than she intended?
What did she say to you, what was your relationship like, did she say she wanted to be married? Did she say she was in love with you? Or was it all kind of vague and you just "knew" she liked you?
-
Tele, what is the girl like? Is there any chance that she was simply flirtatious, but that this flirtation went farther than she intended?
What did she say to you, what was your relationship like, did she say she wanted to be married? Did she say she was in love with you? Or was it all kind of vague and you just "knew" she liked you?
Raoul, I told you - me spoke only one time, and she was forbidden to speak to me after that. All I ever asked was to be able to speak freely with her after mass. They finally had her tell me 14 months after meeting her - with her father and the priest present, that she'd never had feelings for me - and to add insult to injury she said she couldn't remember acting the way she did. But they never once, in over a year, let me speak to her with any sort of freedom.
Listen Raoul, there's nothing vague about a girl walking in front of you path, week after week, facing directly towards you, and raising her eyes towards your own. There's nothing vague about a girl following right behind you down a dark staircase when no one else is around. There's nothing vague about a girl who looks into your eyes and smiles at you again and again for over a year.
This is pretty degrading to be called crazy. It really burns the way people are willing to believe what they say and treat me like a delusional lunatic - for some reason people want to say that and believe that even though I'm certain they know it isn't true.
-
The SSPX has gotten sued for some of its bad behavior:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/stpius/stpius9.html
More here:
http://www.rickross.com/groups/stpius.html
-
delete
-
It sounds to me that regardless of whether Tele was hitting on her, he apprently had emotions for her. The fact that she was 14 at the time makes it even worse. And then he blames the SSPX for what he did. Any time a full-grown adult in their 20s or 30s has a crush of some sort on a 14 year-old teenage girl, something is wrong. When at Church you should have your mind on God, not on a girl more than 10 years younger than you regardless of how attractive she is.
If I've been able to comprehend this crazy story right, it sounds like the SSPX priests were just trying to protect this girl. There's nothing cultish about that. Yet Tele goes around playing innocent, saying there's nothing wrong with acting like a pervert in Church and trying to get the attention of a teenager. If I was a father and some adult tried to hit on my daughter during Church, I would be TICKED off.
Tele, you don't make the SSPX look bad with this story. You only make yourself look bad. I doubt this girl felt any affection towards you, she probably noticed that you couldn't take your eyes off her and just tried to be nice. But as Raoul said, there may be more to this story than what you are telling us. You deserved everything that came your way via punishment and I do not feel sorry for you as you don't seem to have repented at all for what you did. You just keep bragging about how she must have liked you and how the SSPX was wrong to correct you. You go to Church to worship Christ, not hit on other women. What you did was WRONG. No question about it.
-
It sounds to me that regardless of whether Tele was hitting on her, he apprently had emotions for her. The fact that she was 14 at the time makes it even worse.
SS - are you capable of reading! She was not 14 !!!!!!!
She was 17 when I met her. Sometimes I wonder if it's not deliberate when these society people say these things like this!
-
Did you have your one conversation before or after all of this flirting?
At what point did you decide this was serious enough to address her father? Before or after your conversation with her?
When did he sic her brothers on you?
Also, what was said during this conversation, what kind of affections were exchanged?
-
Did you have your one conversation before or after all of this flirting?
It became very clear to me she liked me a week before I introduced myself to her - she had flirted some with me for a couple months before that - on May 24, 2009 we met. A week later she tried to talk to me before she went to confession. She seemed to get angry with her mother in the confession line. After mass she ignored me.
A few weeks later she started flirting with me - she continued to act that way until the Saturday before Palm Sunday 2010.
At what point did you decide this was serious enough to address her father? Before or after your conversation with her?
I decided to talk to her father in November, a couple weeks after she'd followed me down the steps - when she did follow me down I did nothing, didn't even speak to her, because I thought it wouldnt' be right.
When did he sic her brothers on you?
Right after I introduced myself to her.
Raoul we just met. She seemed very happy to meet me and I was very happy to meet her.
-
Telesphorus said:
She was 17 when I met her. Sometimes I wonder if it's not deliberate when these society people say these things like this!
It doesn't matter if it is or isn't. There are all sorts of strange things that go on in my chapel, too. There are many things I've just learned to let drop. But gossip is not a problem confined to the SSPX.
But I do believe there is more to this story, Tele. I'll wait until you answer my questions to say more.
-
But I do believe there is more to this story, Tele. I'll wait until you answer my questions to say more.
Like what Raoul?
This story has only one theme - I never intended any wrong, didn't take advantage of the girl in any way - even when I had the opportunity, just wanted to talk to her, and I am maligned and slandered by these wicked lying cultists.
-
Tele, I hope you realized that you just used the worst word possible. If this were my forum you'd be banned right about now, but it is not my forum so that doesn't really matter. You mentioned something about her being 14, calm down. I still feel no sympathy for you. You are acting like a loser. Please, lose the smug attitude.
-
Tele, I hope you realized that you just used the worst word possible.
You silly wicked pharisee. How many times has it been written that she was 18 when I was threatened to be kicked out of church. I'm having a hard time believing you're not lying. I really am. IF the SSPX members are so wickedly depraved as to deliberately misquote - then they are devils.
If this were my forum you'd be banned right about now, but it is not my forum so that doesn't really matter. You mentioned something about her being 14,
SS - why do you comment on things when you don't even bother to read what's written? Do you consider the implications of what you're doing.
calm down. I still feel no sympathy for you. You are acting like a loser. Please, lose the smug attitude.
You are the smug one you wicked pharisee.
-
But I do believe there is more to this story, Tele. I'll wait until you answer my questions to say more.
Like what Raoul?
This story has only one theme - I never intended any wrong, didn't take advantage of the girl in any way - even when I had the opportunity, just wanted to talk to her, and I am maligned and slandered by these wicked lying cultists.
You are a fool. Please, save your breath. They aren't wicked. You did wrong and when you were corrected you couldn't handle it. You seem so full of yourself. You saying that you two seemed right for each other in every way shows you had every intention of hitting on her. If I were you, I'd be hoping that Matthew does not see this thread. Because he will be furious when he sees that you called the SSPX wicked. Calling me wicked isn't going to help much. After hearing what you did to that girl and seeing you call people wicked, I'm beginning to wonder if you are a CINO.
-
You are a fool. Please, save your breath. They aren't wicked.
They are wicked liars and you are wicked to judge me. There's absolutely nothing in the Catholic religion that says its wrong for a man my age to want to talk to a 17 year old girl that shows interest in him. Nothing wrong with contacting an 18 year old girl with innocent messages without the father's consent. Nothing! Only a warped little cult pharisee can claim it's wrong.
You did wrong and when you were corrected you couldn't handle it. You seem so full of yourself. You saying that you two seemed right for each other in every way shows you had every intention of hitting on her.
You are a devil who smugly accused me of hitting on a 14 year old girl because you're either too lazy or what is far far worse - you're one of the cult liars.
If I were you, I'd be hoping that Matthew does not see this thread. Because he will be furious when he sees that you called the SSPX wicked.
I don't call the SSPX wicked. I call liars and people who support their lies wicked.
-
Yeah, it sounds like she liked you, with very little question.
At first I thought she might have just been flirting with you in a vague way, and that you took it to mean more than it did. But if she tried to talk to you in the confession line, that's serious.
The father and priest probably think they're acting in her best interests, trying to protect her, but it sounds to me like they went too far in portraying you as a madman.
Spiritus is a little naive and very devoted to the SSPX, don't let him rile you up. I hope you see that I'm just trying to get the truth.
-
Yeah, it sounds like she liked you, with very little question.
At first I thought she might have just been flirting with you in a vague way, and that you took it to mean more than it did. But if she tried to talk to you in the confession line, that's serious.
The father and priest probably think they're acting in her best interests, trying to protect her, but it sounds to me like they went too far in portraying you as a madman.
Spiritus is a naif, don't let him rile you up. I hope you see that I'm just trying to get the truth.
As usual, I'm persecuted for acting myself and for telling a person off. It's people like roscoe and Tele that are slowly making CatholicInfo a less enjoyable experience. Here this man is calling me a devil and you side with him? You're going to let being a sedevacantist get in the way of what's important, siding with him and cutting me down just because I'm not a sede? (Tele can't even admit he's a sede.) Anyway, it doesn't matter. There's not way Matthew wouldn't ban Tele for calling the SSPX and other forum users wicked. So we'll see who's right before long.
-
BYW Tele, I deleted that nasty post of yours. You'd better be prepared to get banned as well. I'll likely put you on ignore as well. It's clear that you are not the person you claim to be. You are a CINO who has a hot temper and can't admit when he does wrong.
-
I changed "naif" to "a little naive." :farmer:
Sorry, I didn't mean that to sound as rude as it did. But you come off as young and quite green.
You were misrepresenting Tele's position, acting like he was going after a 14-year old while, at the same time, unequivocally siding with the SSPX priest without knowing the whole story, making him sound like a pervert. You don't see why this would annoy him if he was already unfairly blackballed?
-
BYW Tele, I deleted that nasty post of yours. You'd better be prepared to get banned as well. I'll likely put you on ignore as well. It's clear that you are not the person you claim to be. You are a CINO who has a hot temper and can't admit when he does wrong.
You're a devil who accused me of hitting on a 14 year old girl. Don't pretend you didn't. Even if it was only laziness on your part, it would be a bannable offense.
-
But that gives Tele no reason to call me a devil. And he wasn't "blackballed". I actually think Tele may be a worse poster than roscoe (if that's even possible). So again, don't be surprised if you see Tele banned when Matthew sees this thread.
-
But that gives Tele no reason to call me a devil.
It certainly does. What part of falsely claiming that I hit on a 14 year old girl is not devilish? Even if it were negligence it shows you can't read and are utterly irresponsible in your comments.
And he wasn't "blackballed".
And you know that how? The same way you claimed to know that the girl in question was 14?
-
But that gives Tele no reason to call me a devil.
It certainly does. What part of falsely claiming that I hit on a 14 year old girl is not devilish? Even if it were negligence it shows you can't read and are utterly irresponsible in your comments.
And he wasn't "blackballed".
And you know that how? The same way you claimed to know that the girl in question was 14?
I have told you this before, but you need to move on. You're a good man, and there is a traditional Catholic woman waiting for you. My wife and I met through a dating service. So what? It's a "numbers game," and a dating service will help you "cut to the chase." There are young, beautiful traditional Catholic women who are looking to get married and good men like yourself who are ready to marry them. Don't wait; life is short, Heaven is long, so if I was you, I would "get to work" on this ASAP.
-
I wonder if Matthew could change the title of this thread to
A question for Ann Landers. . . .
-
Okay, Spiritus, think for a second. You accuse me of being prejudiced towards sedevacantism ( guilty ), as if this is why I took Tele's side ( not guilty. )
( 1 ) I disagree with Tele that this incident proves that SSPX is a "cult." He'd have to go to several chapels and have the same kind of experience before being able to prove that.
( 2 ) Tele's dilemma has nothing to do with SSPX vs. sedevacantism for me. Didn't I just say earlier in this thread, over and over, that there is gossip in sede chapels, that there was gossip before Vatican II, that this is as old as human weakness itself?
People need to get something through their skulls here and now: Sedevacantism is a theological position, and the SSPX has an opposed theological position. But this has NOTHING, but do you hear me, O willfully deaf ones out there, NOTHING to do with the faults of various priests on either side, whether they be at SGG or SSPX.
Who do you think is the real non-objective one here, Spiritus? I was the one who opened this whole debate by challenging Tele on the holes in his story. Before I did that, the majority of the sympathy was already on his side -- at least Jehanne, the only other major participant in this thread, was on his side, asking no questions.
If I just wanted to flatter Tele, who is on the verge of sedevacantism, why didn't I just say right away "Oh, SSPX is evil, get out of there?" In fact, last night I worried I was driving him away from sedevacantism by confronting him.
Yet you instantly defend the SSPX chapelgoers without even caring to know the details. I guess Tele isn't a Catholic, he doesn't deserve to have his side of the story told? Just cover everything up that doesn't reflect well on SSPX, is that it? Follow that logic a little deeper and see where it leads you -- right to the death of Christ, because that really is Pharisee stuff right there. That is to emulate people who would rather crucify Truth than listen to Him.
Tele is very emotional on this subject, and the way I saw it, there are two possible reasons for that. Either he is obsessed with this girl, or else he really was treated unfairly. I was trying to get a rough estimate which was really the case.
He went too far in attacking you, he should confess it. Basta.
-
I wonder if Matthew could change the title of this thread to
A question for Ann Landers. . . .
Myrna, we've had a society that has looked for direction from Jewesses like "Ann Landers" and "Abigail van Buren" for decades and that's why we're in this situation where people act like lunatics when the feminist consensus against early marriage is challenged.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZKC0VFLFoM&feature=player_detailpage#t=176s
Tolstoy's hero Andrei Bolkonsky - in the eyes of this upside down pharisaic judaized world - he's a pervert !
-
To be honest Telesphorus, I will tell you what I would tell my own son, forget the girl, it is obvious she is immature and she is playing games with you. All she wanted was your attention, and she got it! She needs to grow up before she would make a good wife and mother. The hurt you feel now is nothing to the hurt she might inflict on you if she were to get married at such a young age.
Maybe she was beautiful and cute and all, but it takes more than that to be a good wife and mother. If you want to wait till you are about 40 then she will be 26 and hopefully more mature.
-
To be honest Telesphorus, I will tell you what I would tell my own son, forget the girl, it is obvious she is immature and she is playing games with you. All she wanted was your attention, and she got it! She needs to grow up before she would make a good wife and mother. The hurt you feel now is nothing to the hurt she might inflict on you if she were to get married at such a young age.
Maybe she was beautiful and cute and all, but it takes more than that to be a good wife and mother. If you want to wait till you are about 40 then she will be 26 and hopefully more mature.
I think that's a very modern attitude to have Myrna. Sure, I'm sure she wanted attention. But I don't believe she's that cruel to tease me for a year - even I don't think that badly of her.
Frankly I don't think it's right that Catholic men are expected to wait until they are well-off to marry and then only to women who have already passed the bloom of youth. It's a cheat.
It's pure hypocrisy that girls are sent to dens of fornication called universities but are considered "too young' to marry - and "too young" even to talk after Church to some "old" 32 year old!
-
To be honest Telesphorus, I will tell you what I would tell my own son, forget the girl, it is obvious she is immature and she is playing games with you. All she wanted was your attention, and she got it! She needs to grow up before she would make a good wife and mother. The hurt you feel now is nothing to the hurt she might inflict on you if she were to get married at such a young age.
Maybe she was beautiful and cute and all, but it takes more than that to be a good wife and mother. If you want to wait till you are about 40 then she will be 26 and hopefully more mature.
I think that's a very modern attitude to have Myrna. Sure, I'm sure she wanted attention. But I don't believe she's that cruel to tease me for a year - even I don't think that badly of her.
Frankly I don't think it's right that Catholic men are expected to wait until they are well-off to marry and then only to women who have already passed the bloom of youth. It's a cheat.
Maybe not "well-off" in the sense of buying her a million dollar home, but a man should be in a position to be able to support wife and children.
Your last statement is cause for concern. What is this "passed the bloom of youth". You seem to be saying that a woman closer to your own age of 32/33 yrs, would be passed the "bloom of youth", kinda indicating that your eye is for younger girls.
-
You seem to be saying that a woman closer to your own age of 32/33 yrs, would be passed the "bloom of youth", kinda indicating that your eye is for younger girls.
A woman at 32 or 33 years old is nearing menopause LM.
To say she's near the bloom of youth is crazy.
I would have married a woman my age, or even older than me, if I was able marry her during her best years. But a woman who is my age is past her best years.
If a younger woman wants to marry me and I want to marry her only a pharisee can say it's wrong because of a 14 year age difference.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a man my age wanting to marry a young virgin. Nothing wrong at all.
There is something very insidious about this idea that a man should have no qualms about marrying a woman "whose clock is ticking" - and being expected to be a meal ticket for a woman.
In modern society the typical woman who married has given up her innocence and the best years of her life in contraceptive fornication - but suddenly a man is expected to "man up" and provide a very expensive home and provide for her wants and her children, now that she wants a family.
I want a young woman who wants a family. Two years ago I really believed my life was changing, things were getting better in every way, spiritually, materially, I really thought I was finally going to break free of this degraded situation.
But that dishonest pharisaical priest and those gossiping hens had to drive me out of Church and treat me like a monster for falling in love with a beautiful young girl.
-
As for the money situation - yes - I'm poor. But that's no reason not to let me speak to her - I just wanted to get to know her. Money situations can change rapidly. I was very honest with people, and they kicked me in the teeth and judged me to be a loser for it.
I think it's funny you mentioned a "million dollar home."
Is a man not supposed to be married if he can't afford to buy a $250,000 home?
You know we're supposed to be Catholics - not bourgeois philistines. If these people cared about the Faith they would want the best Catholic daughters to be married by Catholic men who are near them in intelligence and looks - not by whether or not he managed to slave away for a suburban house whose value is grossly inflated.
-
I've faced a lot of rejection in life for being an outspoken Catholic. Ultimately I am alone to blame for my poverty, but the fact remains that I have been denied many opportunities.
What really irks me the most, is that I get the sense some of these priests are not real Catholics. If a priest loses the Faith, what happens to him? Does he leave the Church? What if there's more in it for him to be a hypocritical subversive?
I didn't do anything to deserve being treated the way that priest treated me. I really have a hunch some of these priests are no longer really Catholics.
-
You seem to be saying that a woman closer to your own age of 32/33 yrs, would be passed the "bloom of youth", kinda indicating that your eye is for younger girls.
A woman at 32 or 33 years old is nearing menopause LM.
To say she's near the bloom of youth is crazy.
I would have married a woman my age, or even older than me, if I was able marry her during her best years. But a woman who is my age is past her best years.
If a younger woman wants to marry me and I want to marry her only a pharisee can say it's wrong because of a 14 year age difference.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a man my age wanting to marry a young virgin. Nothing wrong at all.
There is something very insidious about this idea that a man should have no qualms about marrying a woman "whose clock is ticking" - and being expected to be a meal ticket for a woman.
In modern society the typical woman who married has given up her innocence and the best years of her life in contraceptive fornication - but suddenly a man is expected to "man up" and provide a very expensive home and provide for her wants and her children, now that she wants a family.
I want a young woman who wants a family. Two years ago I really believed my life was changing, things were getting better in every way, spiritually, materially, I really thought I was finally going to break free of this degraded situation.
But those wicked pharisaical priest and those gossiping hens had to drive me out of Church and treat me like a monster for falling in love with a beautiful young girl.
A woman of 32/33 "past her best years" and "nearing menopause", you've got to be kidding Tele. How about a women of 25, 26--29. Would they be "passed their prime".
As I said before, a man should be in a position to be able to support/provide for his wife and children. And again, what is coming through is your eye out for the "young".
-
A woman of 32/33 "past her best years" and "nearing menopause", you've got to be kidding Tele. How about a women of 25, 26--29. Would they be "passed their prime".
I think you've got to be kidding. Women are regularly advised that it may be too late to conceive if they wait past their twenties.
My younger sister is 31 now and she may never marry because the stupid twisted way women are encouraged to go to college and move to the big city.
When you're willing to have a serious discussion that isn't based on your arrogant derision of what I said (based as it is on the corrupt man-hating ideology that dominates our society) - which was completely natural and normal, then I'll continue this discussion with you.
Some links - one from a century ago, and one from a Catholic philosopher.
The women's movement and the baby crop (http://books.google.com/books?id=NYIEAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=feminism+its+fallacies+and+follies+baby+crop&source=bl&ots=kG6fVPmg65&sig=RI3UJSb7ulGM8QD5DRMWTT8WUYo&hl=en&ei=QTKITdqlHMux0QHvhsHfDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/fert.pdf
-
It's not a sin to want to marry a beautiful woman.
It's not a sin to want to marry a virgin.
It's not a sin to want to marry a woman younger than you.
If I was going with a a fat or ugly woman who was young, no one would care. If was going with a loose woman - no one would worry about me being taken advantage of. If I was going with a woman older than me - like a 42 year old widow that was suggested to me, no gossipy hens would make it a "scandal."
It's only an "outrage" to people who - whether they are consciously aware of it or not - are motivated by jealousy.
-
A woman of 32/33 "past her best years" and "nearing menopause", you've got to be kidding Tele. How about a women of 25, 26--29. Would they be "passed their prime".
I think you've got to be kidding. Women are regularly advised that it may be too late to conceive if they wait past their twenties.
When you're willing to have a serious discussion that isn't based on your arrogant derision of what I said - which was completely natural and normal, then I'll continue this discussion with you.
And women over 30 regularly conceive, and guess what, conception also happens in women in their 40s.
Again I will ask, women 25-29, are they "past their prime"?
-
They are certainly past the bloom of youth LM - anyone denies that is not telling the truth.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-shows-fertility-dec
-
They are certainly past the bloom of youth LM - anyone who denies that is not telling the truth.
I don't consider myself to be in the "bloom of youth" - far from it - though I'm only 33. Our Lord wasn't an old man, and Our Lady wasn't too young to conceive Him.
It's always been said with truth that an 18 year old girl is really 10 years older in the eyes of society than an 18 year old boy. God made us, gave us our nature and created human society as well.
Women's fertility declines in late 20s:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-shows-fertility-dec
-
And women over 30 regularly conceive, and guess what, conception also happens in women in their 40s.
You think you are telling me something I don't know?
Going by your logic, it would be wrong to say I shouldn't marry a woman 10 years older than me because it's possible she could conceive.
The bottom line is you don't care about the evils that befall a man that would foolishly marry a woman 10 years older than him - but you do care very much that a pretty young girl might marry an older man - why you care that she would marry instead of wasting the best years of her life studying for some useless affirmative action job is beyond me.
-
Note - this isn't about a girl marrying an old man for money - that is disgusting.
This is about a girl who was naturally attracted to me - the first girl who paid attention to me at that church - who happened to be young. Was it unnatural for her to be attracted to me or for me to be attracted to her?
When she finally found out how old I was - which was delayed for months because the priest forbidding her to speak to me - she was disappointed - but in reality nothing had changed. She was still attracted to who I was and I was still attracted to who she was.
SSPX fathers shouldn't act like Laban. They should be honest and decent and want to help their daughters - not sacrifice their best years to pride and worldly ambitions.
-
Men have always wanted to marry younger women for natural reasons: (and historically fathers made sure their daughters married young)
It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption. This effect is strongest for women who have multiple premarital coresidental unions
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sɛҳuąƖ-partner-divorce-risk.html
-
The primary purpose of marriage is procreation, and since motherhood is the highest natural end of woman, it follows that a young woman should marry when nature intends - and not after an unnatural delay.
The secondary purpose of marriage is to allevieate concupiscence. Now if a man marries a woman who is unattractive or who will become old many years sooner than another woman he could marry - he is doing a bad job of alleviating concupiscence. If a woman unnaturally delays marriage and childbearing she is going to have a harder time alleviating concupiscence, and if she loses her virginity to a man not her husband she is far less likely to be a faithful and loyal wife.
Now - all of this point to one conclusion - it's best not to unnaturally delay marriage and its completely natural to prefer a younger woman.
-
They are certainly past the bloom of youth LM - anyone who denies that is not telling the truth.
I don't consider myself to be in the "bloom of youth" - far from it - though I'm only 33. Our Lord wasn't an old man, and Our Lady wasn't too young to conceive Him.
It's always been said with truth that an 18 year old girl is really 10 years older in the eyes of society than an 18 year old boy. God made us, gave us our nature and created human society as well.
Women's fertility declines in late 20s:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-shows-fertility-dec
A mans fertility also declines Tele, and you are just about that age. So by your own "criteria" you are not in the running for being a marriageable prospect.
-
A mans fertility also declines Tele, and you are just about that age. So by your own "criteria" you are not in the running for being a marriageable prospect.
Not nearly as fast LM. Men can continue to father children to an advanced age - usually for 20 years longer than women at least. You are arguing exactly as a feminist, trying to deny the differences between men and women.
If a man wants to have a lot of children and a big family and a wife that will make him happy it's completely natural to marry a young woman.
-
If you expect to marry a girl that much younger than yourself, I'd recommend befriending the father LONG BEFORE attempting to talk to the girl.
:alcohol:
-
A mans fertility also declines Tele, and you are just about that age. So by your own "criteria" you are not in the running for being a marriageable prospect.
Not nearly as fast LM. Men can continue to father children to an advanced age - usually for 20 years longer than women at least. You are arguing exactly as a feminist, trying to deny the differences between men and women.
If a man wants to have a lot of children and a big family and a wife that will make him happy it's completely natural to marry a young woman.
And a women can continue to conceive well past her 20s, so really Tele, there is a major problem and this problem is with you and your fixation with girls barely out of their teens.
-
The other girls who showed interest in me - I told them my age right away - pointed out my gray hairs. It didn't deter them at all. What deterred them was my shyness towards them (because I liked another girl) and the thought of what their parents would think.
-
If you expect to marry a girl that much younger than yourself, I'd recommend befriending the father LONG BEFORE attempting to talk to the girl.
:alcohol:
You do realize that a father's consent is not required?
A bull-headed latin who thinks he has the right to dictate who his daughter may speak to is impossible to convince or befriend.
The only reason I talked to this girl is because she was acting unmistakably to get my attention.
-
And a women can continue to conceive well past her 20s,
Sorry LM, once they reach 30 their childbearing years are rapidly near a close. Since you don't admit the biological differences between men and women I really think it's futile to discuss this with you.
so really Tele, there is a major problem and this problem is with you and your fixation with girls barely out of their teens.
Show me where in the Catholic religion it's wrong to want to marry a young virgin? It isn't. It certainly isn't wrong or unnatural for them to be attracted to me, or for me to be attracted to them.
-
The other girls who showed interest in me - I told them my age right away - pointed out my gray hairs. It didn't deter them at all. What deterred them was my shyness towards them (because I liked another girl) and the thought of what their parents would think.
Well, that didn't deter the one girl because she didn't tell her mother. I told her I was 32 and without a good income the day we met - that didn't deter her at all - but she didn't tell her mother - who was waiting to interview a week later.
-
A bull-headed latin who thinks he has the right to dictate who his daughter may speak to is impossible to convince or befriend.
That's why you should befriend him before he knows you're interested in his daughter.
-
This is a biological fact:
Women reach full maturity sooner than men and lose their fertility and attractiveness much sooner than men.
It is completely natural for women to marry men significantly older than themselves, and always has been.
-
A bull-headed latin who thinks he has the right to dictate who his daughter may speak to is impossible to convince or befriend.
That's why you should befriend him before he knows you're interested in his daughter.
Mater no one at that church had any interest in a stranger. Hardly anyone spoke a word to me for nearly a year. That girl was one of the first people to pay me any attention at all.
-
A mans fertility also declines Tele, and you are just about that age. So by your own "criteria" you are not in the running for being a marriageable prospect.
Not nearly as fast LM. Men can continue to father children to an advanced age - usually for 20 years longer than women at least. You are arguing exactly as a feminist, trying to deny the differences between men and women.
If a man wants to have a lot of children and a big family and a wife that will make him happy it's completely natural to marry a young woman.
I suggest you take a better read of that article you linked to Tele, seems to be, you really didn't pickup on what it said.
-
Men today are supposed to gratefully "man up" and support the women desperate to be married who rejected them when they were younger.
Well they are quite mad to think the men they rejected want them now.
-
This is a biological fact:
Women reach full maturity sooner than men and lose their fertility and attractiveness much sooner than men.
It is completely natural for women to marry men significantly older than themselves, and always has been.
You have a problem, a major, major problem.
-
You have a problem, a major, major problem.
No, you have a problem with reality. Women lose their attractiveness and fertility much sooner than men. This is simply a fact - and you have trouble accepting the implications of it.
I blame the schools in large part.
Somehow people think it's natural for boys and girls of the same age to be crammed together in classes for hours a day - it's totally perverse. Whereas my wanting to meet and get to know a lovely young woman who showed interest in me is totally natural.
-
You have a problem, a major, major problem.
No, you have a problem with reality. Women lose their attractiveness and fertility much sooner than men. This is simply a fact - and you have trouble accepting it.
You are to full of yourself, and with a fixation for barely out teen girls.
-
You have a problem, a major, major problem.
No, you have a problem with reality. Women lose their attractiveness and fertility much sooner than men. This is simply a fact - and you have trouble accepting it.
You are to full of yourself, and with a fixation for barely out of teen girls.
-
You have a problem, a major, major problem.
No, you have a problem with reality. Women lose their attractiveness and fertility much sooner than men. This is simply a fact - and you have trouble accepting it.
You are to full of yourself, and with a fixation for barely out teen girls.
You are trying to paint a natural desire for marriage to a young virgin as some sort of perversion, because you belong to a perverse society.
-
You have a problem, a major, major problem.
No, you have a problem with reality. Women lose their attractiveness and fertility much sooner than men. This is simply a fact - and you have trouble accepting it.
You are to full of yourself, and with a fixation for barely out teen girls.
You are trying to paint a natural desire for marriage to a young virgin as some sort of perversion, because you belong to a perverse society.
I said you have a fixation for barely out of teen girls, this problem is Your problem.
-
While I agree there's nothing wrong with an older man wishing to marry a younger woman, it's also true that from the father's perspective, the only reason he might consider the older man a good match for his daughter would be financial stability or overall maturity. These would have to outweigh the negatives like the possibility of the girl one day becoming a widow and still having young children to care for. It's not unreasonable that a father would prefer his daughter to marry someone her own age -- especially if he himself is financially able to assist them as the young man becomes more established. If he thinks she will have no problems finding a suitable mate her own age, he has every reason to disuade her from taking an interest in an older man.
-
You have a problem, a major, major problem.
No, you have a problem with reality. Women lose their attractiveness and fertility much sooner than men. This is simply a fact - and you have trouble accepting it.
You are to full of yourself, and with a fixation for barely out teen girls.
You are trying to paint a natural desire for marriage to a young virgin as some sort of perversion, because you belong to a perverse society.
I said you have a fixation for barely out of teen girls, this problem is Your problem.
It's not a sin to prefer younger women - no matter how much you want it to be. Since it's not a sin, your very hostile attitude towards it is pharisaism. That makes it your problem.
-
While I agree there's nothing wrong with an older man wishing to marry a younger woman, it's also true that from the father's perspective, the only reason he might consider the older man a good match for his daughter would be financial stability or overall maturity. These would have to outweigh the negatives like the possibility of the girl one day becoming a widow and still having young children to care for. It's not unreasonable that a father would prefer his daughter to marry someone her own age -- especially if he himself is financially able to assist them as the young man becomes more established.
Sure, it's not unreasonable for a father to have preferences, but the bottom line is that it's not up to the father to decide. The SSPX has consciously acted to give people an impression contrary to church teachings, and that is inexcusable.
-
We should all keep in mind that young ladies should be encouraged to honor their fathers, including their wisdom and experience.
True, there might be a few exceptions (a staunch protestant or athiest, in a family where the only the young lady converts to Catholicism, etc.) but the exception doesn't nullify the rule. Generally speaking, honoring a father's wishes will bring happiness, not misery.
And would you WANT a woman who would throw off her father (metaphorically speaking) that easily? The man who proved his love by slaving away for her well-being for 18 years? Since you could scarcely ever catch up to him in terms of what he's done for her, it wouldn't look very good for YOU in 5 or 10 years!
Let's look at this objectively -- on the one hand, you have the father, who has loved, educated, and guided this woman from her infancy. True love = sacrifice, and fathers sacrifice a LOT for their children. There is a very real, provable love there. Not just words, promises, thoughtful gifts, etc. On the other hand, you have a young man who claims to love this woman. He didn't know her last month, but now he swears he loves her and would be willing to die for her -- at the very least, he is willing to commit to her for life. Now married love IS a good thing, created by God, and "for this reason a man shall leave mother and father, and cleave to his wife, etc." Nevertheless, romantic love often starts out with a heavy dose of infatuation. The "true love" aspect grows over time.
There is a parallel to all this -- one's spouse (fiance, girlfriend, etc.) is God's first, yours second. On a practical level, that means you only love her for God's sake, according to His will. A man who "out of love" tries to make her disobey God (by committing fornication, for example) is not motivated by love, but rather by lust. And if he does marry her, there will be problems down the road because he undermined God's authority in the beginning -- what hope is there for HIS authority as head of the house? If God can be crossed, how about the lowly Joe Public?
All proportion guarded, it's a similar situation when pushing a young lady to go against her father's wishes. His authority must be respected, kept intact, or you will end up with a "Pyrrhic victory" (a victory where you win the battle, but lose the war).
-
We should all keep in mind that young ladies should be encouraged to honor their fathers, including their wisdom and experience.
Yes of course, but how is it dishonoring her father to say hello to me?
To honor the father is fine - but to teach in the confessional he has rights that he doesn't have is a grave sin.
Whatever a father does for a daughter doesn't give him the right to be a tyrant. Ever.
It is also a great blessing that the Church has limited, so far as is needful, the power of fathers of families, so that sons and daughters, wishing to marry, are not in any way deprived of their rightful freedom
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html
When are SSPX preachers going to teach from the pulpit that children are not bound to obey their parents in these matters? Instead of teaching the opposite?
-
You have a problem, a major, major problem.
No, you have a problem with reality. Women lose their attractiveness and fertility much sooner than men. This is simply a fact - and you have trouble accepting it.
You are to full of yourself, and with a fixation for barely out teen girls.
You are trying to paint a natural desire for marriage to a young virgin as some sort of perversion, because you belong to a perverse society.
I said you have a fixation for barely out of teen girls, this problem is Your problem.
It's not a sin to prefer younger women - no matter how much you want it to be. Since it's not a sin, your very hostile attitude towards it is pharisaism. That makes it your problem.
It really comes down to that Tele. All the hoopla about the ""decline in fertility" is just a sham, a cover because what it comes down to, is you want girls young, barely out of their teens.
-
It really comes down to that Tele. All the hoopla about the ""decline in fertility" is just a sham, a cover because what it comes down to, is you want girls young, barely out of their teens.
It's not a sham at all. The reason that men by nature prefer younger women is that older women are less likely to love them innocently and closer to infertility. There are biological reasons for this natural preference. Just as there are biological reasons for preferring beauty.
There are many women taking injections from aborted fetuses to try to look younger, because men prefer younger women.
-
Maybe the priest just told her to obey her father, since she was caught in the middle.
You have some good points, but I think you could approach the situation with a bit more humility and/or trust.
It seems like your attitude is, "I don't need the father's permission" and everything you do expresses that disdain. Maybe that raises red flags for potential fathers-in-law?
-
It really comes down to that Tele. All the hoopla about the ""decline in fertility" is just a sham, a cover because what it comes down to, is you want girls young, barely out of their teens.
It's not a sham at all. The reason men prefer younger women is because older women are less likely to love them innocently and closer to infertility. There are reasons for this natural preference.
There are many women taking injections from aborted fetuses to try to look younger, because men prefer younger women.
You are one troubled man.
-
Maybe the priest just told her to obey her father, since she was caught in the middle.
You have some good points, but I think you could approach the situation with a bit more humility and/or trust.
It seems like your attitude is, "I don't need the father's permission" and everything you do expresses that disdain. Maybe that raises red flags for potential fathers-in-law?
Matthew - I didn't approach it that way. I believed the SSPX priests who said I needed permission. I believed parental permission was needed. When I discovered it wasn't and pointed it out to people, they didn't believe me. Even when I showed them sources, they still disagreed with me. They've had their critical faculties cut.
-
There are a lot of Catholic spinsters out there, and I can't help thinking one reason there are so many is that they were told to put off marriage and to ignore older men who wanted them.
-
I have to fight off gut-busting laughter at some of this stuff, with Tele being painted as a pervert.
He's right that it's perfectly natural to want to marry a young virgin. A 32-year old man and an 18-year old woman, that's not even controversial. If he was 50, yeah, okay.
I will say that, from what I have observed, some women out of their teens, and I'm talking about Catholics, often accrue an unpleasant worldliness and traces of feminist arrogance.
But strangely, those are the women I'm sɛҳuąƖly attracted to, because there's an element of tension, of sparring. I would probably be bored with a young virgin. That is my temptation, these women that I have intellectual sparks with.
The younger women, however, for whatever reason, seem more devout. There are so few young adults my age, or Tele's age, in trad chapels, from what I've seen. Basically it's parents and their children, and most of the children fall away.
-
Tele reminds me of a Southern gentleman, he doesn't wear his emotions on his sleeve. He is reserved. I don't know if he's Southern, but that is what I'm picking up on. Still waters run deep.
At first I thought his interest in the young lady was somewhat shallow, but now I wonder.
He's making some good points here. Women these days are too ambitious and dissatisfied, this is how even some Catholic women strike me. It's better for a girl to just get married young and concentrate totally on her kids.
-
To be honest Telesphorus, I will tell you what I would tell my own son, forget the girl, it is obvious she is immature and she is playing games with you. All she wanted was your attention, and she got it! She needs to grow up before she would make a good wife and mother. The hurt you feel now is nothing to the hurt she might inflict on you if she were to get married at such a young age.
Maybe she was beautiful and cute and all, but it takes more than that to be a good wife and mother. If you want to wait till you are about 40 then she will be 26 and hopefully more mature.
I think that's a very modern attitude to have Myrna. Sure, I'm sure she wanted attention. But I don't believe she's that cruel to tease me for a year - even I don't think that badly of her.
Frankly I don't think it's right that Catholic men are expected to wait until they are well-off to marry and then only to women who have already passed the bloom of youth. It's a cheat.
It's pure hypocrisy that girls are sent to dens of fornication called universities but are considered "too young' to marry - and "too young" even to talk after Church to some "old" 32 year old!
The "rule of thumb" is that if a woman agrees to have coffee with you she's also agreeing to have sex with you. Don't wait a year. If she (or another woman) teases you once, you need to "ask her out" the very next time that she teases you again. It's the genetic clock -- tick, tick, tick,... They do not want to wait, which means that they are not going to "tease" for long, so if you do not respond right away, they will dislike or even hate you, for having rejected them.
-
I also didn't get a chance last night to speak of up Tele on one point --
He is NOT some kind of pervert for being attracted to innocence, beauty, and/or virginity in a potential spouse. On the contrary!
What, does it go against American egalitarian values? We're supposed to treat all women equal, regardless of "maidenhood" status?
If anything, I'd say his critics are hypocrites. They would have us believe that they look at a beautiful 17 year old young lady and nothing happens? Just the same reaction they would get by looking at their 55 year old mailman? If so, I think they need to get themselves checked...
Or maybe the critics say they are attracted to them, but they wouldn't "say yes" to themselves by marrying one -- I'd like to see that! So they have a choice of a 17 1/2 year old who is still a virgin, and a 27 year old, and they'll go with the 27 year old I suppose...yeah right.
I think it's actually the more prudent move -- the better choice -- to give yourself the best possible chance at marriage by marrying a virgin IF POSSIBLE. Now I have nothing against the hypothetical 27 year old -- often times (in REALITY) that's the only choice for an "older" man. But what I'm saying is, it helps one's chances at having a 25th anniversary if both spouses are each other's "first".
Oh, and worldliness doomed happiness as well -- including marital harmony. So trying to get someone who hasn't been corrupted too much by the world is not a bad strategy.
I'm talking in concepts here, not Tele personally. I still think he handled things wrong.
Matthew
-
In my experience, I have a much easier time "wooing" a woman's parents than I have wooing the woman I'm after! Maybe I'm just a sixtysomething in a thirtysomething's body. (When I was single, I was more like a fiftysomething in a twentysomething's body).
I was the type of guy that no girl wanted because I was the "safe" one. I didn't do anything crazy; I was too RESPONSIBLE for most of them. I guess I was too nerdy? I knew how to read (including the Douay-Rheims translation of the Bible) and compose coherent paragraphs. I went to Mass every Sunday (and usually once during the week as well), frequent confession, had a steady job, knew how to handle money, etc. but no women were attracted to any of those things. I suppose if I had bought a motorcycle, I would have been married at 20! :laugh1:
Oh, and I had no "experience" with women -- you'd think women would like that trait. Maybe because my competition had the trait as well?
But it's not just how responsible I was -- it was also my personality. I had a deep-seated respect for authority, including parental authority. I am very open, honest, etc. which usually causes lots of trouble (people love to tease me).
-
Telesphorus said:
Frankly I don't think it's right that Catholic men are expected to wait until they are well-off to marry and then only to women who have already passed the bloom of youth. It's a cheat.
It's pure hypocrisy that girls are sent to dens of fornication called universities but are considered "too young' to marry - and "too young" even to talk after Church to some "old" 32 year old!
When you're right, you're right. And you're right.
An 18-year old girl who is raised as a Catholic could -- I'm not saying they always are, but they COULD be -- easily mature enough to make a wife. Not only that, but if they haven't gone to college, and don't have lots of career goals, they could be more single-minded and devoted to raising children.
Some people become more mature as they grow older. Others become less so, and then drop out of the Church entirely. Since we are, or should be, talking about spiritual maturity, not worldly savoir-faire.
The problem, Tele, is that it seems for you being 18-years old is the be-all and end-all. You are overstating it by making it sound like everyone who is past this magical age is an infertile old bag. It would be one thing if you just fell in love with an 18-year old girl, or even younger. It's another to actively seek out 18 year olds just for being 18. I think in this case, it's a bit of both.
I know that you aren't so shallow that everything is about physical beauty. Otherwise you would be out sleeping with young girls, not looking for a Catholic wife. But you have narrowed your playing field down to 18-year olds, and due to this, you might easily achieve the spinsterville you deplore in the opposite sex.
Something else to think about -- You could easily marry an 18-year old only for her to lose her looks at 19. Meanwhile, some women stay relatively young-looking forever. If you have a deep mental and spiritual connection, of course, that is the main thing. You need to expand your view, because you have made a religion out of young virgins, like Dracula. You're right that it's okay to marry young virgins, but you are going over the top with it.
If I may speculate, I think you perhaps feel cheated that, as a Catholic, you may never have experienced young love like in high school. Many of the girls, if your school was anything like mine, were sɛҳuąƖly active and you were probably chaste, one hopes. Now you feel like these girls who had their fun are crawling back to you wanting you to marry them. But you are saying "No, I want first love, I want a girl who is fresh, I was cheated."
The assumption here, which is wrong, is that all girls past 18 have 200,000 miles of bad road on them. Also, some of those 18-year olds may have mileage too, and lots of it. Youth is not a guarantee of virtue. How do you know this girl at Church didn't have a promiscuous past and that's why her dad has clamped down on her?
You have to take each individual case as it comes. What would you say to the idea of a 26-year old virgin? Some women have probably been in one long relationship only before conversion. And if she's a Mary Magdalene who has become devout, she may be more appreciative and grateful than a virgin. You assume that all women with a "past" are going to cheat or are unstable. Mary Magdalene was a stronger Catholic than almost all the apostles except St. John when she stood by the cross.
That's what it should really be about, finding a devout woman.
And a devout Catholic is a new person, whether virginal or not. You are fixating on a young girl, not being open to God's will for you, which may not be a young girl ( though it may be ). I just get the impression you want it too much.
-
See, guys? THIS is why I un-banned Raoul.
Well-said, Raoul! You saved me 1/2 hour of posting the exact same thing :)
Matthew
-
Let me see if I can find a favorite part --
Ah, yes, here we go --
The problem, Tele, is that it seems for you being 18-years old is the be-all and end-all. You are overstating it by making it sound like everyone who is past this magical age is an infertile old bag. It would be one thing if you just fell in love with an 18-year old girl, or even younger. It's another to actively seek out 18 year olds just for being 18. I think in this case, it's a bit of both.
I know that you aren't so shallow that everything is about physical beauty. Otherwise you would be out sleeping with young girls, not looking for a Catholic wife. But you have narrowed your playing field down to 18-year olds, and due to this, you might easily achieve the spinsterville you deplore in the opposite sex.
I also think that Telesphrous needs to worry less about the ideal, and more about the reality of his particular situation. If he was rich, had a PhD, or was uber-well-established, he might not be out of touch with reality in holding out for "the ideal" or "the gold medal".
I don't disagree that he is seeking the ideal, or that one should seek out a non-worldly wife. But maybe he'll have to compromise in some other area -- such as age, looks, or maiden status to get that good Catholic wife.
I made an allusion to humility before -- I'll make it again. With humility, you'd realize "of course I might have to marry someone who isn't a virgin, or who is older. After all, there are lots of men who have to marry such women. Who am I to consider myself somehow above all of them."
Really -- who IS going to marry such women? Are they all to commit ѕυιcιdє? Or are they for the losers and lesser men -- you know, those who aren't Telesphorus?
As a man who married late, I can relate to Telesphorus in many ways (as can Raoul, being a single man about his age) so I think we both know what we're talking about.
Matthew
-
I also like Raoul's point that women age at different rates.
My wife, while beautiful, is more "natural beauty" than the perfect "magazine beauty". She looks beautiful even when she first wakes up. And she seems to be aging very slowly.
Apparently everyone overlooked her before I got to her -- lucky me! :)
Her mom (in her 50's of course) still doesn't have grey hair! And my wife doesn't either. I am about 30% (or more) grey. I get that from my Irish side. Irish folk often go grey in their 20's. My dad did.
-
Thanks, Matthew, I also found your posts articulate and insightful.
But you un-banned me because my mom died, remember? I'd like to think you missed my stunningly brilliant posts, but that was at least the occasion for letting me back on.
Matthew said:
"I made an allusion to humility before -- I'll make it again. With humility, you'd realize "of course I might have to marry someone who isn't a virgin, or who is older. After all, there are lots of men who have to marry such women. Who am I to consider myself somehow above all of them."
Really -- who IS going to marry such women? Are they all to commit ѕυιcιdє? Or are they for the losers and lesser men -- you know, those who aren't Telesphorus?"
I wrote a paragraph that I erased from my long post. I thought it might be better for its own thread, but it pertains exactly to what you're saying here. It was about machismo and about how hard it is for men to deal with other men having "handled" their women.
Tele is calling the father of his love-interest "macho," but I pick up on some serious machismo coming from him as well, because I think he really is consumed with a VIRGIN, he feels like he'll be cheated if he doesn't have a virgin. Usually the reason for this is that we ( guys ) often want total possession of a woman, we want her intact and only touched by us, like a dog marking its territory by peeing on a tree.
But think of the woman taken in adultery. Think what that incident really means. Christ tells her "You are forgiven, now go and sin no more." When I read this, I used to think "Easy for you to say, Lord, you're not her husband. You don't have to live with her." Well, how foolish was that? The truth is, it's far more noble for Christ, who is perfect innocence and goodness, to forgive a mortal sin than it is for a husband, who is a sinner himself and would be deserving of death ( not of a virgin ), had Christ not come to save him.
This woman's fornication put Christ on the cross, while the worst it did for her husband was make him jealous. And God does have to live with her, if He lets her into heaven -- scratch that, He WANTS to live with her despite her sins, that is why He became a man and died on the cross, even though she deserves to be in hell.
Therefore, it's not just that Tele is acting better than other men. He's acting better than God. Of course, he doesn't realize this. But this idea of wanting a virgin is pretty worldly. Tele is even reading worldly articles saying "A woman who has premarital sex is more likely to cheat." That's not talking about Catholics, okay? Catholics, if they are devout, obey God; and God forbids mortal sin. I was more liable to cheat before I became Catholic, too.
-
Not with the persecution that Tel put up with, but I'm kinda in the same boat. I'm 34 and I actually look like I'm younger and I feel younger. I'm also in college and surrounded by younger women/girls. Am I attracted to them sure, are any of them Trads nope. I just admire the beauty and move on pretty much. I know a few girls in 20's and and early 30's that are Trads but they kinda live some 6 hours away, wonderful girls though. It's kinda tough to even develop a relationship with that kind of distance. Some of you are lucky to live in areas with large Trad populations.
-
It's obviously "human" to want a virgin -- just look at the 100% "human" religion, Islam.
What do the jihadists get after death? Virgins.
But we are supposed to be supernatural -- not just going with the flow of what comes naturally. We have been taught things like humility, forgiveness, resignation to God's will, etc.
-
Good point about Islam, Matthew.
TraceG said:
I'm 34 and I actually look like I'm younger and I feel younger.
Me too. Same age exactly. I can't even grow a beard, which REALLY makes me look younger. I am starting to see a bit of wear-and-tear now, so that I joked to Alex that I look like a "decaying Justin Bieber." But I have one of those eternally boyish faces. Polish don't age, I'm telling you.
Unlike you, I am not lucky to live where there's a large Trad population of girls, because I don't want to be married. Yet I am constantly tempted. We should change situations. Want to buy a house? ( I'm not kidding, it's going up for sale ).
The Catholic girls are way more tempting than the pagans. Church is almost an occasion of sin; if it wasn't Church, the priest might have to tell me to stay away! After all that time in the wilderness, when I see devout, pretty, modest girls, it is very enticing. As my priest says, modesty helps a woman preserve her mystery, and this is very true.
The half-naked girls out there in the outside world, it does nothing for me. They look like post-apocalyptic orphans to me now, starving, tattered waifs, downright pathetic. And pathetic is not attractive.
-
I agree -- I'm not even tempted by women with no modesty or chastity.
I'm repulsed by their spiritual ugliness and lack of virtue.
Men (myself included) want an enclosed garden -- not a busy crosswalk.
Not to say that nothing tempts me -- like Raoul, I'm attracted to modest women.
An ankle-length skirt would be more dangerous to me than Britney Spears' slutty attire.
-
About the Polish not aging -- I tend to agree. My old (Redemptorist) priest back home has dark hair even into his 70's. He was ordained in '61, so you can do the math.
I think he went through chemotherapy for a while, and didn't even lose his hair! Strong and healthy as a horse, he is.
He is also built like an opera singer -- and has a melodious voice to match.
-
I still see no apology from Tele after he called me a devil and called the SSPX "wicked pharisees". The man should not be given sympathy from anyone on this forum until he starts acting like an actual man. And Tele, I now have you on ignore, so don't bother replying to me.
-
I am also attracted by modesty and repulsed by immodesty. Where I live I am always having to look away because of the way the women dress. It makes me happy whenever I see a modestly dressed woman.
I don't find anything wrong with a man in his thirties seeking to marry an eighteen year old woman, though I do understand that many people have a problem with that. I would think it strange for an older woman to marry a younger man, but an older man marrying a younger woman seems normal to me.
I do find it creepy when an older man is interested in taking advantage of a younger girl and not marrying her, kind of like how I can't listen to a Chuck Berry song without being creeped out.
-
Sorry to say, but Tele has betrayed extreme ignorance and malice. First of all, it is evident that he has failed to grasp this circuмstance as a trial for his own good, the way in which he has reacted demonstrates the very attachment that God desired to rid him of, but now instead, all we hear is complaining and horrific calumny of priests. Rather than humbly submitting to a real or perceived injustice, he lashes out at anyone who dares cross his path, saving the worst epithets for those who speak contrary to what his will desires.
Secondly, he claims to rest his case on "church teaching" but in reality, there is no "church teaching" regarding local customs. There is a wide range of ages, customs and preferences. Marshalling St. Thomas does no good for he did not specify and particular age anyway. The canonical age for marriage is very low, why does he not demand that SSPX priests start preaching from the pulpit that boys can marry at 14 and girls at 12 or 16 and 14 or whatever ages are found in the law? Are they trying to hide something or is Tele just extremely embittered because his will was not satiated? If he is consistent, he should start a campaign for public awareness regarding canonical ages and valid marriages. But my guess is that such a point doesn't directly pertain to his situation so he is not too concerned about it.
The fact that he cannot respect a situation where there is a gray area regarding a technical aspect of the law vs. the force of custom and the feelings of parents says more about him than those "wicked priests." It is a principle of common sense that we ought to avoid greater evils sometimes by acquiescing a circuмstance that is not desirable or a right that can be legitimately claimed.
My guess is that if he had realized this as a trial for his own good from the beginning, he would have never started this gross campaign of calumny against priests and probably would have been rewarded with a good wife as well. As it stands, now he is left with a string of mortal sins, a bitter attitude and no potential wife.
I say all of this through personal experience. We do not grasp things according to the standard of the Cross, but whatever suits our fancy.
-
Finally someone that agrees with me. Good post, Caminus. The fact is that Tele appears to be obssessed with this girl. He started by giving a long, confusing story about this whole thing, then goes on and on about how he thought he and the girl were "perfect for one another". And unlike what others on this thread have said, I actually think it is problematic when a 32 year old or however old he was at the time can't take his eyes off an 18 year old. 18 is too young to marry. Even if this girl was playing games with him and was somehow attracted to him, it's his own fault for paying her any attention. You go to Church to worship God, not find a wife.
Tele's attitude just stinks. I told him these things and he just went off, telling me I'm a "wicked devil" and that the SSPX priests are "wicked pharisees". This man is extremely naive and anyone who looks at him and feels that he was mistreated is either an anti-SSPX person, someone who failed to comprehend his story, or just a plain sucker. Tele went on about how bad the SSPX treated him, but then look at how he treats the first person to disagree with him! He contradicted himself and made himself look like a fool, not to mention that he used God's name in vain, then edited his post after I told him it was wrong so he could try to get away with it without Matthew seeing it. I feel that Telesphorus should be banned. Behaviour like that is unacceptable. He has not apologized for anything he has done and it's clear he has no intention to either. He'd rather obssess over an 18 year old girl.
-
The other girls who showed interest in me - I told them my age right away - pointed out my gray hairs. It didn't deter them at all. What deterred them was my shyness towards them (because I liked another girl) and the thought of what their parents would think.
Well, that didn't deter the one girl because she didn't tell her mother. I told her I was 32 and without a good income the day we met - that didn't deter her at all - but she didn't tell her mother - who was waiting to interview a week later.
This quote from you above may be the bigger issue: "I told her I was 32 and without a good income".
Are you saying that your income (your ability to support a wife and family) should not matter to the girl nor to her parents?
-
This quote from you above may be the bigger issue: "I told her I was 32 and without a good income".
Are you saying that your income (your ability to support a wife and family) should not matter to the girl nor to her parents?
I never said that at all.
My point was that these girls weren't deterred by my age. Was that because they are acting unnaturally?
Let me explain the context. This woman's mother was there interviewing me - flattering me - and a few months later, when they found out i liked a younger girl, - she was insulting my mother. Finally the father told me she didn't want me talking to her daughter because her daughter was "too young for me" - (about 9 years different)
Now that's ridiculous. I told the girl my situation and my age the very day we met - in fact the first thing out of her mouth was "what do you do."
It's not my fault the adult girl didn't tell her mother my age or my situation. But this is the sort of arrogance you deal with. People who treat you like trash when they find out you're poor.
-
Sorry to say, but Tele has betrayed extreme ignorance and malice. First of all, it is evident that he has failed to grasp this circuмstance as a trial for his own good,
Caminus, something the SSPX pharisees don't understand is that their unjust and malicious treatment of others is not for the good of others.
the way in which he has reacted demonstrates the very attachment that God desired to rid him of, but now instead, all we hear is complaining and horrific calumny of priests.
There's no excuse for priests who lie, priests who act like pharisees, and judaizing priests who call pharisees instruments of heaven. Those aren't calumnies, that's the truth. You go ahead and follow dishonest, malicious, judaizing priests. I won't
Rather than humbly submitting to a real or perceived injustice, he lashes out at anyone who dares cross his path, saving the worst epithets for those who speak contrary to what his will desires.
Yes, SSPX priests should be free to treat other people unjustly. I called the new priest who is there and told him it was an injustice to kick me out. His response "you should accept injustice" - well that priest is responsible for whether or not I suffer the injustice! This is unbelievably cynical arrogance. They are the bullies, and bullying people and mistreating people while telling them it's for their own good!
Secondly, he claims to rest his case on "church teaching" but in reality, there is no "church teaching" regarding local customs.
Sorry Caminus, age 18 is the age of majority according to canon law. I'm not going to be bound by the "customs" of perverted pharisaic 21st Century America anyway. These SSPX priests baldly deceive people and lie about what the Church teaches because they are pharisaical and manipulative. If they cared about the truth they would tell it. They lie to my face because they don't care about the truth. Those are the bitter fruits of Bishop Fellay's treacherous judaizing clique.
There is a wide range of ages, customs and preferences. Marshalling St. Thomas does no good for he did not specify and particular age anyway.
Caminus, the principle is that the daughter is free to marry who she wants. It was this very principle that priests and laymen at the chapel rejected. I find that SSPX parishioners in general reject this principle and it doesn't surprise me because I've heard the opposite preached from the pulpit. In fact they still reject it. Even someone who sympathizes with me at that parish still adheres to the belief that the father has the right to determine who speaks to the daughter - I was talking to her about the ridiculous way a certain father treated me - telling me not to talk to his 22 year old daughter because she's "under his roof" - this was the same daughter of his that had her mother waiting for me after church to interview me - a girl I had absolutely no interest in. Canon Law says 18 is the age of majority. In St. Thomas's day children could marry even without a priest.
The canonical age for marriage is very low, why does he not demand that SSPX priests start preaching from the pulpit that boys can marry at 14 and girls at 12 or 16 and 14 or whatever ages are found in the law?
It's a typical trick of unscrupulous people who argue against early marriage to start talking about younger ages than what's being debated. SS suggested the girl was 14 - I"m still not convinced he didn't know better. The simple fact is that the girl was 18 and the priest threatened to kick me out without having parental consent. The girl is not a child, the girl is not a minor - he is absolutely out of control to make that threat.
Are they trying to hide something or is Tele just extremely embittered because his will was not satiated? If he is consistent, he should start a campaign for public awareness regarding canonical ages and valid marriages. But my guess is that such a point doesn't directly pertain to his situation so he is not too concerned about it.
Caminus the age-impediment for marriage isn't the same thing as the freedom to marry. In principle the girl is free to marry who she wants. The girl is of age - therefore she is free. The SSPX has no right to legislate when a girl is of age.
The fact that he cannot respect a situation where there is a gray area regarding a technical aspect of the law vs. the force of custom and the feelings of parents says more about him than those "wicked priests."
Caminus, there's nothing gray about kicking me out for wanting to talk to a girl who is 18. Nothing gray about kicking me out for sending innocent messages. It's completely black-hearted and evil.
It is a principle of common sense that we ought to avoid greater evils sometimes by acquiescing a circuмstance that is not desirable or a right that can be legitimately claimed.
My guess is that if he had realized this as a trial for his own good from the beginning, he would have never started this gross campaign of calumny against priests and probably would have been rewarded with a good wife as well. As it stands, now he is left with a string of mortal sins, a bitter attitude and no potential wife.
These priests are malicious pharisees who are betraying the mission of the SSPX - including Bishop Fellay, and they deserve every word of reproach.
-
The fact that you are shocked at the imperfections, errors and sins of other Catholics seems to indicate that you have an idealistic notion regarding the people who fill the seats of traditional Catholic chapels. Far from being perfect, they have many vices that are apparently hidden by the practice of traditional Catholicism. Our own selves should be sufficient to demonstrate this truth. It is the Great Mistake of "traditional" Catholics, the seeming attitude that the mere association with traditional Catholicism gives one an added perfection. FAR from it. WE are just like every other Catholic who practiced the same religion and professed the same faith, but in addition to this, add to our souls the corruptions of the day and we are faced with a grave spiritual battle that if left understated or underrated leads to spiritual ruin.
-
I don't think Telesphorus is telling us the whole story.
There must have been SOME reason why the priest kicked him out of the parish.
-
I still see no apology from Tele after he called me a devil and called the SSPX "wicked pharisees". The man should not be given sympathy from anyone on this forum until he starts acting like an actual man. And Tele, I now have you on ignore, so don't bother replying to me.
Spiritus Sanctus to falsely accuse me of hitting on a 14 year old is incredibly wicked. You are very malicious to say that without verifying it. I'll apologize to you when you admit you did a very reckless evil thing.
-
I don't think Telesphorus is telling us the whole story.
There must have been SOME reason why the priest kicked him out of the parish.
Matthew - he threatened me that if I tried to contact the girl without the father's consent I would be kicked out. When they sat me down and had the girl give her statement they had canned for her - which was a lie - and I said it was a lie - the next day the priest sent me a message that "after my performance" I was banned and it was final.
These people reported me to the police when I never touched a girl, never suggested evil to them, never intended any harm to any of these girls. They are wicked dishonest bullies. That's the way these priests operate - they lie and try to sic the police on people without shame.
BTW - I've never heard a word from the police. As Jehanne said, the police deal with such garbage complaints all the time.
-
The fact that you are shocked at the imperfections, errors and sins of other Catholics seems to indicate that you have an idealistic notion regarding the people who fill the seats of traditional Catholic chapels. Far from being perfect, they have many vices that are apparently hidden by the practice of traditional Catholicism. Our own selves should be sufficient to demonstrate this truth. It is the Great Mistake of "traditional" Catholics, the seeming attitude that the mere association with traditional Catholicism gives one an added perfection. FAR from it. WE are just like every other Catholic who practiced the same religion and professed the same faith, but in addition to this, add to our souls the corruptions of the day and we are faced with a grave spiritual battle that if left understated or underrated leads to spiritual ruin.
No Caminus, I'm not shocked by other Catholics acting badly. I'm shocked at other Catholics approving of bad actions.
-
Tele, go read St. Paul's statements regarding the eating of meat and the weaker brethren. If I could paraphrase your response: I'll eat meat in front of whomever I please, everyone else be damned! Your entire post is as predictable as it is unfortunate. I suspect that you were not "kicked out" for wanting to talk to a girl, but rather for some other offensive behavior that you were entirely responsible for. Read my words again: Trial and Cross. This was designed for you to purge you of a very specific attachment. The sooner you realize this, the better off you will be. And if there was injustice committed against you, that doesn't amount to the level of charges you have brought against everybody and their brother. That does not warrant the names and ridicule you have heaped upon others. Your reaction is entirely disproportionate to the situation, but very proportionate to your attachments.
You are far too idealistic about SSPX priests. One injury incurred by the lack of discretion of a single priest amounts to the rejection of the entire order, Bishops and all! And you also fail to see that the priest who you called actually spoke to your favor! He said there was an injustice, so be it. Take it calmly and humbly and the thing will sort itself out. You are obliged, as one who is a follower of Jesus Christ, to accept injustices. This is not an option, nor will it be the only one. Be prepared to suffer many more. Not surprisingly, you twist this into his approval of injustice.
The fact that we (you and I and the rest) are so ridiculously offended at being mistreated only demonstrates the level of our pride. Go and look at the Cross. The Innocent One, hanging on a Cross and a condemned criminal. Yet we cry and complain when we bruise our precious flesh.
-
No Caminus, I'm not shocked by other Catholics acting badly. I'm shocked at other Catholics approving of bad actions.
You're not shocked at one sin, but another?
-
I don't think Telesphorus is telling us the whole story.
There must have been SOME reason why the priest kicked him out of the parish.
Matthew - he threatened me that if I tried to contact the girl without the father's consent I would be kicked out. When they sat me down and had the girl give her statement they had canned for her - which was a lie - and I said it was a lie - the next day the priest sent me a message that "after my performance" I was banned and it was final.
These people reported me to the police when I never touched a girl, never suggested evil to them, never intended any harm to any of these girls. They are wicked dishonest bullies. That's the way these priests operate - they lie and try to sic the police on people without shame.
BTW - I've never heard a word from the police. As Jehanne said, the police deal with such garbage complaints all the time.
Yes, what you describe certainly sounds unjust. But a part of me would still like to know the priest's side of the story.
Did you behave irreproachably the whole time -- I mean, behave like a saint? I don't doubt your chastity during the whole ordeal -- I'm talking overall behavior.
Matthew
-
The problem, Tele, is that it seems for you being 18-years old is the be-all and end-all. You are overstating it by making it sound like everyone who is past this magical age is an infertile old bag. It would be one thing if you just fell in love with an 18-year old girl, or even younger. It's another to actively seek out 18 year olds just for being 18. I think in this case, it's a bit of both.
I liked the girl because she was the first one who paid attention to me. She is also the most beautiful and most brilliant - and yes - she was young.
I know that you aren't so shallow that everything is about physical beauty. Otherwise you would be out sleeping with young girls, not looking for a Catholic wife. But you have narrowed your playing field down to 18-year olds, and due to this, you might easily achieve the spinsterville you deplore in the opposite sex.
No Raoul there are plenty of young women who would marry me once I get some money. I made the incredibly stupid mistake of thinking Traditional Catholics really cared about tradition and religion more than American middle-class values.
If I may speculate, I think you perhaps feel cheated that, as a Catholic, you may never have experienced young love like in high school. Many of the girls, if your school was anything like mine, were sɛҳuąƖly active and you were probably chaste, one hopes. Now you feel like these girls who had their fun are crawling back to you wanting you to marry them. But you are saying "No, I want first love, I want a girl who is fresh, I was cheated."
Raoul, I don't assume all older women are like that - I'm talking about the attitude of women in general - they seem to think nothing of the fact that they rejected the men who would have loved them while they were younger for men who didn't love them - and then get angry at a man for wanting a younger woman.
The assumption here, which is wrong, is that all girls past 18 have 200,000 miles of bad road on them. Also, some of those 18-year olds may have mileage too, and lots of it. Youth is not a guarantee of virtue. How do you know this girl at Church didn't have a promiscuous past and that's why her dad has clamped down on her?
The girl is homeschooled. But you're right Raoul - I can't judge whether or not a girl is pure by her age or religious status. Nevertheless, it's pure common sense that a younger girl is more likely to be innocent than an older girl.
You have to take each individual case as it comes. What would you say to the idea of a 26-year old virgin? Some women have probably been in one long relationship only before conversion. And if she's a Mary Magdalene who has become devout, she may be more appreciative and grateful than a virgin. You assume that all women with a "past" are going to cheat or are unstable. Mary Magdalene was a stronger Catholic than almost all the apostles except St. John when she stood by the cross.
That's what it should really be about, finding a devout woman.
And a devout Catholic is a new person, whether virginal or not. You are fixating on a young girl, not being open to God's will for you, which may not be a young girl ( though it may be ). I just get the impression you want it too much.
Raoul if a woman is Mary Magdalene she doesn't need to marry. If I were a different kind of man I wouldn't care. But I do care. It matters to me. When I was young it wouldn't have mattered so much - guess what - when I was young - the girls didn't want to love me - be they chaste or unchaste. Now that I'm older and wiser I'm not going to be a fool and fall in love with a woman I think is probably not a virgin.
-
Yes, what you describe certainly sounds unjust. But a part of me would still like to know the priest's side of the story.
Did you behave irreproachably the whole time -- I mean, behave like a saint? I don't doubt your chastity during the whole ordeal -- I'm talking overall behavior.
Matthew
Matthew I didn't behave "irreproachably" - but I didn't do anything to harm those girls. If I were a bad man, unscrupulous and dishonest, I would still be at that church, I'm convinced.
I did send a message to a girl who was a senior in high school. I told her that I liked the girl I've been talking about - the girl with the Puerto Rican father. I told her I hoped we could be friends, and that I hoped I could trust her, unlike her older sister, who I did not trust. She turned out to be only 16 - something I didn't believe, but should have realized was true. It was an innocent message - they still reported me to the police for it - even though 16 is past the age of consent in this state and my message had nothing to do with any evil intentions. Of course I never heard a word from the police because what I did was not even remotely criminal.
The priest actually based his sermon on the message I sent. I can send you the message and the sermon he sent based on it. It's really quite ludicrous.
This was his "ammunition" - after that he went to all the other fathers and suggested I was some sort of predator.
After that certain people started agitating for my removal.
-
I suspect that you were not "kicked out" for wanting to talk to a girl,
Caminus, the simple fact is that the priest told me that if I contacted the girl without the father's consent I'd be kicked out. Other than that, I've never been given a reason.
but rather for some other offensive behavior that you were entirely responsible for. Read my words again: Trial and Cross. This was designed for you to purge you of a very specific attachment. The sooner you realize this, the better off you will be. And if there was injustice committed against you, that doesn't amount to the level of charges you have brought against everybody and their brother. That does not warrant the names and ridicule you have heaped upon others. Your reaction is entirely disproportionate to the situation, but very proportionate to your attachments.
You are far too idealistic about SSPX priests. One injury incurred by the lack of discretion of a single priest amounts to the rejection of the entire order, Bishops and all! And you also fail to see that the priest who you called actually spoke to your favor! He said there was an injustice, so be it. Take it calmly and humbly and the thing will sort itself out. You are obliged, as one who is a follower of Jesus Christ, to accept injustices. This is not an option, nor will it be the only one. Be prepared to suffer many more. Not surprisingly, you twist this into his approval of injustice.
The fact that we (you and I and the rest) are so ridiculously offended at being mistreated only demonstrates the level of our pride. Go and look at the Cross. The Innocent One, hanging on a Cross and a condemned criminal. Yet we cry and complain when we bruise our precious flesh.
Caminus, it's not right for SSPX defenders to defend their bad behavior by telling people that they're meant to suffer for it. Whatever I'm meant to suffer, it's doesn't excuse them, and it doesn't excuse people refusing to stand up to them.
-
I still see no apology from Tele after he called me a devil and called the SSPX "wicked pharisees". The man should not be given sympathy from anyone on this forum until he starts acting like an actual man. And Tele, I now have you on ignore, so don't bother replying to me.
Spiritus,
While I appreciate you sticking up for me in that other thread against Pope Heitenan, I have to say that you are a little bit in the wrong here. Telesphorus repeatedly said the girl in question was 17/18 and not 14, but you continued to state that he was "hitting on" a 14 year old girl. You made no apologies for your error. Even if it was an honest misunderstanding the fact that Telesphorus repeatedly said she was 17 going on 18 puts the onus on you to apologize.
While I think Telesphorus is being quite whiny and defensive, you as an SSPX supporter are only proving him right about the Society being a pharisaic cult by responding so harshly to him and refusing to accept that the SSPX priests or parishioners could have been at least partially in the wrong.
I think you and Telesphorus owe each other an apology.
-
I'm getting tired of people coming on here and calling the SSPX a cult. First of all, either Tele or someone else said something about the girl being 14, so I looked at that and thought she was 14. As you can see, I have already corrected myself by correctly calling her 18. So I owe him no apology for that.
Tele also continues to call the SSPX "pharisees" on an SSPX forum. This forum's rules clearly state that sedevacantists cannot launch nasty attacks or verbal insults at the SSPX. So by calling them wicked pharisees and by calling me a devil, Tele has violated forum rules on several occasions and has not apologized, nor did he admit he made a mistake when he used God's name in vein. So I owe him no apology. He owes me an apology. He got kicked out due to his own actions, not because the SSPX just likes being a "cult". Me being an SSPX supporter does not mean anything. If I felt that he was treated wrongly I would say so. The Society is not perfect. But what he did was wrong and he cannot admit it, and though you say I'm responding so harshly to him you obviously have not been following this thread very much. He called me a wicked devil. He deserves to be banned. And I'm sure he will, Matthew does not allow slander against the SSPX for very long.
-
I'm getting tired of people coming on here and calling the SSPX a cult. First of all, either Tele or someone else said something about the girl being 14
Nope, never did SS. Now why would you keep saying that? Why didn't you read what was written.
Tele also continues to call the SSPX "pharisees" on an SSPX forum. This forum's rules clearly state that sedevacantists cannot launch nasty attacks or verbal insults at the SSPX.
I'm not attacking all members of the SSPX. I'm talking about specific people.
So by calling them wicked pharisees and by calling me a devil, Tele has violated forum rules on several occasions and has not apologized, nor did he admit he made a mistake when he used God's name in vein. So I owe him no apology. He owes me an apology.
Sorry I lost my temper and called you names but you seem to have no conception of the gravity of what you said.
He got kicked out due to his own actions, not because the SSPX just likes being a "cult".
Maybe you haven't read SS - I didn't do anything that deserves being kicked out of a Catholic Church. I crossed certain people with cult-like attitudes - that is the reason I was unjustly kicked out.
But what he did was wrong and he cannot admit it,
You saying that what I did was wrong has nothing to do with what the Church teaches. What I did wasn't wrong, there's nothing in the Catholic religion to say it's wrong to pursue a young woman honorably with the intention of marriage. However, as far as the SSPX's cult-like teachings on this subject go - it is considered wrong by them.
-
I think you are trying to get booted off CatholicInfo, Tele. If you keep calling the SSPX a cult, Matthew will not allow you on here much longer. Matthew even said you didn't handle things right. You're just upset you didn't get the girl you wanted so you blamed it on the SSPX. I still say you deserved to get kicked out. I don't say this because I am bias. Not at all. If I thought you were unjustly kicked out I would have said something. But it doesn't sound like you were to me so I must disagree. Plus you went to Church because of an attractive girl rather than to pay attention to Our Lord. As Caminus said, I think you're full of pride. So I'm just going to put you back on ignore to avoid any more arguments between you and me. So no need to reply to me, as I won't be able to see it unless someone else quotes your post.
-
Tele,
The dad was probably very protective of his daughter and didn't like you potentially trying to court her. He tried to end it by ordering her not to talk to you. He saw you were persisting and raised it to the priest's level.
I can understand you really innocently liked this girl, but she should obey her parents while she is under their roof and respect their wishes. I understand that emotions can blur our logic. We are only human. In a perfect world things might be different, but can't you understand at least the Father's perspective? No matter how good of a guy, most Traditional Catholic dads don't want their innocent and naive homeschool daughters of high school age starting relationships with 30 something men. Even if it is platonic. They see it as creepy. It's just a natural reflex as a dad. The priest was caught in a no win situation. That said, calling the police was absurd, but I suppose they wanted to send the message they were serious.
-
IYou're just upset you didn't get the girl you wanted so you blamed it on the SSPX.
SS - I'm upset with the SSPX for being unjustly kicked out - and for the pharisaic advice given in the confessional.
I still say you deserved to get kicked out.
And you know that how? The same way you claimed that the girl was 14?
I don't say this because I am bias. Not at all. If I thought you were unjustly kicked out I would have said something.
lol, yes you don't think it, but you haven't explained how it could possibly be justified for me to be kicked out.
But it doesn't sound like you were to me so I must disagree. .
Oh, because it doesn't sound like it - because you think it's wrong to be interested in an 18 year old girl - or to insist on the fact that I don't need the father's permission to court her?
-
I'm getting tired of people coming on here and calling the SSPX a cult.
I never called the Society a cult. I simply said that your kneejerk defensiveness doesn't do much to prove your assertion that it is not a cult.
It was immature of Telesphorus to call you names, but you engaged in similar behavior so I wouldn't be throwing stones if I were you.
While I agree he should get over it and move on as no permanent harm came to anybody, Telesphorus was wronged pretty badly. Not so much by the girl's father not wanting him to talk to her, but for the priest's slandering of him in front of the parish and him contacting the police for something not remotely criminal.
I'll admit that neither of us were there during these incidents so only Telesphorus knows what really happened. But even if his behavior was a little creepier than he thinks it was, if he did nothing criminal or immoral then the pastor had no business discussing the matter publicly with the parish or contacting law enforcement.
-
I can understand you really innocently liked this girl, but she should obey her parents while she is under their roof and respect their wishes.
Stevus, they can't bind her not to speak to me. And the priest can't either. The girl, when she was 18, was free, and they wouldn't admit that.
I understand that emotions can blur our logic. We are only human. In a perfect world things might be different, but can't you understand at least the Father's perspective? No matter how good of a guy, most Traditional Catholic dads don't want their innocent and naive homeschool daughters of high school age starting relationships with 30 something men. Even if it is platonic. They see it as creepy. It's just a natural reflex as a dad. The priest was caught in a no win situation. That said, calling the police was absurd, but I suppose they wanted to send the message they were serious.
But the bottom line is the father has no right to bind his daughter not to speak to me and the priest has no right to kick me out. They were malicious, unjust people.
And it's not creepy. It's perverse and pharisaical to say it's creepy. It's completely natural.
-
My advice is to forget this girl and incident, shake the dust from your feet, and concentrate on education and job skills to prepare yourself to support a family if that is God's will for you. Once you get married and have kids it will be much harder for you to prepare for or switch careers. There is a reason for everything. God probably just saved you from a future of sorrows and this was the only way He could do it because you were blinded by your heart. Keep close to Him and I promise He has something much better in store for you that will end in greater happiness.
-
I still see no apology from Tele after he called me a devil and called the SSPX "wicked pharisees". The man should not be given sympathy from anyone on this forum until he starts acting like an actual man. And Tele, I now have you on ignore, so don't bother replying to me.
Spiritus Sanctus to falsely accuse me of hitting on a 14 year old is incredibly wicked. You are very malicious to say that without verifying it. I'll apologize to you when you admit you did a very reckless evil thing.
It was a misunderstanding. I corrected myself for saying she was 14 yet you insist on making me look like the fool by constantly bringing this up as your only ammunition. Several people on this thread have tried to explain to you why you were in error yet you don't listen to anyone. You're being stubborn and prideful. I am sorry for saying she was 14, but what I did was not evil as I did not intend it to be. You were kicked out for stalking an 18 year old girl that you wouldn't leave alone, do you really think they kicked you out for the heck of it? You're not thinking logically. (I know I said I would put you back on ignore but when I saw this post I wanted to reply to it, so now I will put you on ignore.)
-
I suspect that you were not "kicked out" for wanting to talk to a girl,
Caminus, the simple fact is that the priest told me that if I contacted the girl without the father's consent I'd be kicked out. Other than that, I've never been given a reason.
but rather for some other offensive behavior that you were entirely responsible for. Read my words again: Trial and Cross. This was designed for you to purge you of a very specific attachment. The sooner you realize this, the better off you will be. And if there was injustice committed against you, that doesn't amount to the level of charges you have brought against everybody and their brother. That does not warrant the names and ridicule you have heaped upon others. Your reaction is entirely disproportionate to the situation, but very proportionate to your attachments.
You are far too idealistic about SSPX priests. One injury incurred by the lack of discretion of a single priest amounts to the rejection of the entire order, Bishops and all! And you also fail to see that the priest who you called actually spoke to your favor! He said there was an injustice, so be it. Take it calmly and humbly and the thing will sort itself out. You are obliged, as one who is a follower of Jesus Christ, to accept injustices. This is not an option, nor will it be the only one. Be prepared to suffer many more. Not surprisingly, you twist this into his approval of injustice.
The fact that we (you and I and the rest) are so ridiculously offended at being mistreated only demonstrates the level of our pride. Go and look at the Cross. The Innocent One, hanging on a Cross and a condemned criminal. Yet we cry and complain when we bruise our precious flesh.
Caminus, it's not right for SSPX defenders to defend their bad behavior by telling people that they're meant to suffer for it. Whatever I'm meant to suffer, it's doesn't excuse them, and it doesn't excuse people refusing to stand up to them.
Tele, below is what you posted at another site. Has it not occured to you that by posting this on Facebook you kicked yourself out of the chapel.
Again, since no one has acknowledged this source, I will post again this article that shows that the Church has historically supported freedom to marry against unjust interference and obstruction of relatives, and that in Spanish speaking countries it was the "enlightened" despotism of the 18th Century that began to impose the requirement of parental consent on marrying couples.
http://books.google.com/books?id=6Req0mi3G...epage&q&f=false
It was just after posting a link to this book on facebook that I received notification by email that I was banned from the SSPX chapel.
-
You were kicked out for stalking an 18 year old girl that you wouldn't leave alone,
No, I wasn't. It wasn't stalking. You are a vicious slanderer.
do you really think they kicked you out for the heck of it?
They kicked me out to gratify the pride of that priest and that Puerto Rican.
You're not thinking logically. (I know I said I would put you back on ignore but when I saw this post I wanted to reply to it, so now I will put you on ignore.)
I know exactly what happened SS, and I know they are malicious liars, and you are aiding and abetting their campaign of lies.
-
After seeing what LM posted, I think it's safe to say that Tele's argument just got blown out of the water. Facebook, that place is a joke anyway. They support gαy marriage.
-
It was just after posting a link to this book on facebook that I received notification by email that I was banned from the SSPX chapel.
LM, the fact that I received a message that I was kicked out after posting that link maybe strictly coincidental.
At any rate, it wasn't wrong to post the link, and it proves one thing - the SSPX teaches and practices against what the Catholic Church teaches.
To Love Honor and Obey in Colonical Mexico (http://books.google.com/books?id=6Req0mi3GVUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=love+honor+and+obey+in+colonial+mexico&source=bl&ots=D8ARlY0jc1&sig=xgyfyxZXtf_kAhROsdQJ_fGFy8s&hl=en&ei=LB-JTe_vCMmE0QH-86XzDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false)
-
After seeing what LM posted, I think it's safe to say that Tele's argument just got blown out of the water.
In what way?
I said that after I posted that link I received a message that I was kicked out. But I was allowed to come back after that - and I do not believe that posting that is what caused me to be kicked out. It may have prodded some of the people complaining to complain some more. It certainly would never be a grounds to kick anyone out - to post a history book on facebook!
Once again SS - you and LM are claiming some ridiculous "gotcha" when you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
First you slandered me as hitting on a 14 year old girl, now you slander me as a stalker.
I really am beginning to understand how these priests can get away with their outrageous betrayal, when i see how you people blindly and viciously attack someone for standing up to them.
-
So let's see, Tele has done the following things:
Has called the SSPX "wicked pharisees"
Has called me a devil
Has said the SSPX is a cult
Has said the SSPX teaches against what the Catholic Church teaches
Can't stop talking about an 18 year old girl
Yeah, I don't think he's going to be allowed on CatholicInfo much longer. He's going to be kicked off this forum for the same thing that got him kicked out of his Church, and that's pride.
-
It was just after posting a link to this book on facebook that I received notification by email that I was banned from the SSPX chapel.
LM, the fact that I received a message that I was kicked out after posting that link maybe strictly coincidental.
At any rate, it wasn't wrong to post the link, and it proves one thing - the SSPX teaches and practices against what the Catholic Church teaches.
To Love Honor and Obey in Colonical Mexico (http://books.google.com/books?id=6Req0mi3GVUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=love+honor+and+obey+in+colonial+mexico&source=bl&ots=D8ARlY0jc1&sig=xgyfyxZXtf_kAhROsdQJ_fGFy8s&hl=en&ei=LB-JTe_vCMmE0QH-86XzDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Seems to be there is a connection between your Facebook post and the subsequent action. Also Tele, you need to keep in mind, the marriage customs of the various countries and the time frame. What is appropriate for one may not necessarily be appropriate in another.
-
Seems to be there is a connection between your Facebook post and the subsequent action.
If there was, it shows that kicking me out was outrageous.
Also Tele, you need to keep in mind, the marriage customs of the various countries and the time frame.
Canon Law says an 18 year old girl has reached majority and the Church teaches that a girl does not need her father's consent to marry. There is no custom that invalidates that, certainly not the customs of this godless feminist country.
-
Seems to be there is a connection between your Facebook post and the subsequent action.
If there was, it shows that kicking me out was outrageous.
Also Tele, you need to keep in mind, the marriage customs of the various countries and the time frame.
Canon Law says an 18 year old girl has reached majority and the Church teaches that a girl does not need her father's consent to marry. There is no custom that invalidates that, certainly not the customs of this godless feminist country.
It shows that there is a lot more to the story then what you paint. A parent does not loose the right to counsel a daughter/son, even when they reach 18 yrs of age. You should have let the whole matter drop when the girl told you she was not interested in you.
-
It shows that there is a lot more to the story then what you paint.
It shows that when I confronted the priest about what the Church teaches he flatly refused to apply those teachings, instead he gave me an ultimatum and said I must not attempt to contact the girl. He told me I was kicked out of the choir That was Palm Sunday 2010. The very day before the girl had looked into my eyes and smiled at me for a fair duration as soon as I saw her at choir practice.
After that I sent her a friend request saying - they threatened to kick me out if I try to contact you again. I called the police and got into an argument with him, and didn't go to mass for the next couple weeks. He hadn't banned me yet.
A parent does not loose the right to counsel a daughter/son, even when they reach 18 yrs of age.
The right to counsel doesn't mean the right to bind her in the confessional not to speak to me. Now, I know that you really don't care about the justice of this case or about what the church teaches. You just care about the fact that you don't like a 32 year old being interested in an 18 year old. That's what motivated the priest, and that's what motivated the father, and that's what's motivated all the people judging me for something that is blameless.
You should have let the whole matter drop when the girl told you she was not interested in you.
The girl was never allowed to speak to me alone. I said for months - just let me talk to her platonically after mass - they always refused. They only let her talk to me when they had a canned statement for her to say that she had no feelings for me, that she never had, and then she denied ever paying me any attention. That priest and her father both knew she was lying and they were encouraging her to lie, because they don't care one whit about the truth.
-
Spiritus, you act as if you can't understand why Tele got angry with you. Do you realize that in almost every single post you make some unwarranted conclusion? Here are some examples --
"Plus you went to Church because of an attractive girl rather than to pay attention to Our Lord."
Meeting girls at Church is wrong, everyone who does that is ignoring God?
"He got kicked out due to his own actions, not because the SSPX just likes being a 'cult.'"
What actions? You haven't yet been able to point out a single one.
I also thought for a little while that Tele might be a creeper or stalker. I have seen his picture, he has a funny mustache :laugh1: But I also know he seems like a gentle soul. That is why I grilled him, I wanted to know the truth, as much as it can be known on this forum. I had no prejudice either way.
Well, he answered all my questions upfront, without shilly-shallying, and it turns out the girl tried to talk to HIM in the confessional line. If you were a girl being stalked, is that what you would do? Let's say that all she wanted to say was "Stop stalking me, pervo." Then why was she pulled away?
-
"Plus you went to Church because of an attractive girl rather than to pay attention to Our Lord."
When that girl tried to talk to me, before she was banned from speaking to me, I didn't pay attention to her because I was praying. When she followed me down the steps 6 months later and no one was around, I didn't try to talk to her because I was afraid of committing a sin. But I'm a predator to these people!
-
It shows that there is a lot more to the story then what you paint.
It shows that when I confronted the priest about what the Church teaches he flatly refused to apply those teachings, instead he gave me an ultimatum and said I must not attempt to contact the girl. He told me I was kicked out of the choir That was Palm Sunday 2010. The very day before the girl had looked into my eyes and smiled at me for a fair duration as soon as I saw her at choir practice.
After that I sent her a friend request saying - they threatened to kick me out if I try to contact you again. I called the police and got into an argument with him, and didn't go to mass for the next couple weeks. He hadn't banned me yet.
A parent does not loose the right to counsel a daughter/son, even when they reach 18 yrs of age.
The right to counsel doesn't mean the right to bind her in the confessional not to speak to me. Now, I know that you really don't care about the justice of this case or about what the church teaches. You just care about the fact that you don't like a 32 year old being interested in an 18 year old. That's what motivated the priest, and that's what motivated the father, and that's what's motivated all the people judging me for something that is blameless.
You should have let the whole matter drop when the girl told you she was not interested in you.
The girl was never allowed to speak to me alone. I said for months - just let me talk to her platonically after mass - they always refused. They only let her talk to me when they had a canned statement for her to say that she had no feelings for me, that she never had, and then she denied ever paying me any attention. That priest and her father both knew she was lying and they were encouraging her to lie, because they don't care one whit about the truth.
Tele, the girl made a choice. Just like you go on and on about an 18 yr old girl having a right to marry who she wishes, you have to give her the same right to say no. Once she says no, what ever happened prior becomes irrelevant.
-
The main strategy of the priest and the father in talking to me was to pretend I was imagining things, pretend I was delusional, when I talked about the way that girl was acting, and many other girls and women were acting towards me. (when I tried to ask the priest for advice about it) It was their setup - their dirty lie - that would enable them to accuse me of being crazy. A way of baiting me as well.
Here is my picture - this was taken around the same time I tried to talk to her father the first time:
(http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd237/leondeponcins/nov202009.jpg?t=1300835644)
You can judge for yourself if you think girls would be interested in me or not.
-
Once she says no, what ever happened prior becomes irrelevant.
It's completely relevant to what is true and to whether or not it's justified to kick me out of church. If the girl lies and says she never encouraged me, it makes me look crazy.
Now I know you think that's okay - since you say it doesn't matter what happens before - you must think it's okay to lie about it, when I'm about to be kicked out of church? Just as you think it doesn't matter what the church teaches, only that you don't approve of man my age pursuing a girl that age.
The fact remains they never once let me speak to her alone.
She was never really in a position to speak to me freely. They had always bound her to their pharisaic cult morality.
-
The main strategy of the priest and the father in talking to me was to pretend I was imagining things, pretend I was delusional, when I talked about the way that girl (and many other girls and women) were acting towards me. It was their setup - their dirty lie - that would enable them to accuse me of being crazy. A way of baiting me as well.
Here is my picture - this was taken around the same time I tried to talk to her father the first time:
(http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd237/leondeponcins/nov202009.jpg?t=1300835644)
You can judge for yourself if you think girls would be interested in me or not.
Tele, what is it with you posting your picture. This is the third time. Do you think you are irresistible to women/girls.
-
Also, it should be remembered that Tele DID talk to the dad first. That is a very important point.
But Tele, if I were your lawyer, this is where I would take over and tell you to shut your mouth. The more you talk, the worse you look. I don't think you're a creeper, but you are so single-minded on this theme of virgins and 18-year olds that it makes you sound like one.
Who is it you're against here, Tele, the macho Spaniards or the godless American feminists? I guess now they're in collusion to keep you away from toothsome 18-year olds. :laugh1:
Your real fault here is that you seem totally blind to her father's perspective. You can't acknowledge that, from a certain point of view, what you were doing looked weird. You just keep beating this drum about feminism and machismo.
I see what you're saying, but I can't say it would be clear to everyone. Also, like it or not, you ARE in America and there are certain codes, this is the way people think. You can't just bust through it like a raging bull, brandishing quotes from Leo XIII. Use some finesse, man!
It is a delicate thing for a man in his thirties to be courting a teenager. I am very aware that if I were hanging around teenage girls at Church, people might start to whisper about me. But you are insulated from this bit of common sense by your precious theory.
You can say her dad is infected with feminist machismo or whatever all you want, and you may be right. The point is, many, many fathers would be uncomfortable with a thirty-something lurking around their daughter. If you had shown any sort of awareness of this, any sort of respect for his point of view, you might have been engaged to the girl by now. And if not, you could have hung around until she got a bit older and was less under the control of her dad.
What did she say when you sent her the friend request? She denied it because she was under orders not to talk to you?
-
Tele, what is it with you posting your picture. This is the third time. Do you think you are irresistible to women/girls.
I'm posting it as evidence for anyone who accuses me of imagining things. Now they can judge for themselves whether or not they would think girls would find me attractive.
As I said, the whole premise the priest and the father was to call me a liar or crazy for saying the girl was paying attention to me. That was devious and wicked.
-
Who is it you're against here, Tele, the macho Spaniards or the godless American feminists?
Raoul - phony conservatives are the real bulwark of feminism. They're the ones who lean on the feminist police state. The ones who are in the Zionist serving military. The ones who think no one is good enough for their daughter. It was anti-clerical Spain that imposed parental will on children - there is certainly a connection between this father's attitude and feminism - whether or not either of you have the insight to discern it.
I guess now they're in collusion to keep you away from toothsome 18-year olds. :laugh1:
In fact they are in collusion to prevent early marriage of daugthers - fathers because of perverse pride, and feminists because of hatred of men.
Your real fault here is that you seem totally blind to her father's perspective. You can't acknowledge that, from a certain point of view, what you were doing looked weird. You just keep beating this drum about feminism and machismo.
I see what you're saying, but I can't say it would be clear to everyone. Also, like it or not, you ARE in America and there are certain codes, this is the way people think. You can't just bust through it like a raging bull, brandishing quotes from Leo XIII. Use some finesse, man!
If the SSPX can't accept what the Church teaches about this I don't have any confidence in them at all.
You can say her dad is infected with feminist machismo or whatever all you want, and you may be right. The point is, many, many fathers would be uncomfortable with a thirty-something lurking around their daughter. If you had shown any sort of awareness of this, any sort of respect for his point of view, you might have been engaged to the girl by now.
Nonsense. He was never going to let her even say so much as hello to me.
What did she say when you sent her the friend request? She denied it because she was under orders not to talk to you?
I don't know why she denied it. I don't know what her feelings were at that point. I know she did like me, but somehow she seems to have been finally poisoned against me.
-
I was going to crack a joke about Tele's mustache, then thought it was rude. But since he posted it again...
No, I jest. Actually, it looks good in this picture ( I did remember it being a little creepy ). He is a handsome man, though, almost like a 30's matinee idol.
-
Tele, what is it with you posting your picture. This is the third time. Do you think you are irresistible to women/girls.
I'm posting it as evidence for anyone who accuses me of imagining things. Now they can judge for themselves whether or not they would think girls would find me attractive.
As I said, the whole premise the priest and the father was to call me a liar or crazy for saying the girl was paying attention to me. That was devious and wicked.
The girl said no.
-
The girl said no.
I'm complaining about being kicked out church, not for her saying no.
Are you a woman?
You seem to really lack logical reasoning ability.
You are so invested in having me being seen as rejected and cast out - and unjustified in complaining. You are invested in it because you are perverse. You have 0 interest in justice.
If that girl teased me for a year without ever having feelings for me it was a wicked thing. Now I don't believe that's the case - but the priest and her father encouraged her to say it and to pretend she never paid me any attention when they certainly knew it wasn't true - they are malicious liars. They too were very invested in seeing me totally rejected, and you are as well, invested in wanting to see me as crazy. Because you are malicious.
-
The girl said no.
I'm complaining about being kicked out church, not for her saying no.
Are you a woman?
You seem to really lack logical reasoning ability.
You are so invested in having me being seen as rejected and cast out - and unjustified in complaining. You are invested in it because you are perverse. You have 0 interest in justice.
If that girl teased me for a year without ever having feelings for me it was a wicked thing. Now I don't believe that's the case - but the priest and her father encouraged her to say it and to pretend she never paid me any attention when they certainly knew it wasn't true - they are malicious liars. They too were very invested in seeing me totally rejected, and you are as well, invested in wanting to see me as crazy. Because you are malicious.
You've been complaining about everything. How you feel the father "interfered", the priest, some mothers, congregation, etc. etc. She said No, deal with it.
-
I was going to crack a joke about Tele's mustache, then thought it was rude. But since he posted it again...
No, I jest. Actually, it looks good in this picture ( I did remember it being a little creepy ). He is a handsome man, though, almost like a 30's matinee idol.
It certainly isn't far fetched to contend that girls were paying attention to me. Call it vanity on my part to point that out - but understand this priest thinks he can get away saying anything about anyone - that he can say I'm delusional - tell me to my face I'm just imagining the things I said I saw - when he knows I wasn't - say it to my face and expect me to take it sitting down. He's a sick twisted bully.
-
You've been complaining about everything. How you feel the father "interfered", the priest, some mothers, congregation, etc. etc. She said No, deal with it.
I'm complaining about dirty malicious pharisees who want me kicked out of church - and who would far rather have me be kicked out of church than to ever give me a chance of being vindicated in any way.
Dirty malicious pharisees who take delight in the way they made it impossible for me ever to speak freely with her.
Are you a woman? Won't answer that?
-
Myrna,
I should stay off the internet when I am tired. My comment which mentioned you at the beginning of this thread was actually responding to a post by Matto. For some reason my brain inserted Myrna. My apologies.
-
Telesphorus said:
Raoul - phony conservatives are the real bulwark of feminism. They're the ones who lean on the feminist police state. The ones who are in the Zionist serving military. The ones who think no one is good enough for their daughter. It was anti-clerical Spain that imposed parental will on children - there is certainly a connection between this father's attitude and feminism - whether or not he or you have the insight to discern it.
Dude, get some perspective. You don't know how to help yourself. You're an older guy hanging around someone's nubile teenage daughter. That's a touchy situation these days, and whatever the root causes are, why don't you just come to grips with the fact that that's the way it is.
By bringing in Zionists and feminism and Spanish machismo you only succeed in making yourself sound obsessed.
Oh, and I understand exactly what you're talking about, except that you're confusing two different mindsets.
What you call anti-clerical Spain never existed. No nation has ever been more "clerical." What you mean is that sometimes the Spanish went further than they had to go, arguably, they had a tendency to rigor and punishment. That is not "anti-clerical" -- a better term would be pseudo-Gallican, something like that. But they did that because they were trying to stop incipient liberalism.
An incipient liberalism, do I need remind you, that was pushed along primarily by the IRISH like yourself, and that is the basis of Americanism. Why do you think there are so many Irish-American Catholic priests? The Irish have always been about "freedom" from the British, and that ties in perfectly with democracy, that is why they see this Masonic cesspool as the promised land. The Polish have that tendency too, unfortunately. But if the Spanish and French Catholics ruled America, it would all be different.
So no, Spanish rigor has nothing in common with American democratic liberalism, they are two strands that have diverged in varying degrees from perfect Catholicism ( if such a thing exists outside of the Magisterium )...
-
You've been complaining about everything. How you feel the father "interfered", the priest, some mothers, congregation, etc. etc. She said No, deal with it.
I'm complaining about dirty malicious pharisees who want me kicked out of church - and who would far rather have me be kicked out of church than ever have a chance at being vindicated in any way.
Dirty malicious pharisees who take delight in the way they made it impossible for me ever to speak freely with her.
Are you a woman? Won't answer that?
Do you ever listen to yourself. It is a big red flag as to how you "communicate".
-
What you call anti-clerical Spain never existed.
No, the royal government was taking anticlerical measures by taking away the Church's ability to marry young people without parental consent. Read the book I posted.
No nation has ever been more "clerical." What you mean is that sometimes the Spanish went further than they had to go, further than what the Church actually taught at times, they had a tendency to rigor and punishment.
Raoul, before the 1770s the Church protected the freedom of young people to marry, but the state intervened and forced the Church to go along with the requirement that fathers give permission.
That is not "anti-clerical" -- a better term would be pseudo-Gallican, something like that. But they did that because they were trying to stop incipient liberalism.
No they weren't. One of Voltaire's friends was very powerful in Spain at that time.
So no, Spanish rigor has nothing in common with Americanism and Zionism and ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic liberalism,
No, they were both anti-clerical and anti-marriage.
-
Do you ever listen to yourself. It is a big red flag as to how you "communicate".
You stopped communicating some time ago. You have no interest in responding to what I say - only in insulting me.
-
Dude, get some perspective. You don't know how to help yourself. You're an older guy hanging around someone's nubile teenage daughter. That's a touchy situation these days, and whatever the root causes are, why don't you just come to grips with the fact that that's the way it is.
If it's a touchy situation it gives them no right to kick me out. Absolutely none. They are obligated to follow Catholic teaching, but they don't care what the Church teaches - and they don't care about the truth - that's the bottom line.
-
Do you ever listen to yourself. It is a big red flag as to how you "communicate".
You stopped communicating some time ago. You have no interest in responding to what I say - only in insulting me.
No Tele, what is clear is that you want things your way, and only your way.
-
Oh, I thought you were referring to a different time in Spanish history due to your emphasis on "machismo" ( that you were complaining about the Inquisition and things like that ).
I admit I don't know what you're referring to here. Post a link to the book again, I'm intrigued.
-
To love honor and obey in colonial Mexico (http://books.google.com/books?id=6Req0mi3GVUC&pg=PA205&dq=to+love+honor+and+obey+royal+pragmatic&hl=en&ei=oTWJTcXhB6WD0QGvmdCHDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
-
I'll take a look, though I admit this question of marrying young girls is not at the forefront of my imagination as it is yours. Not because I don't find them attractive, I do, but because I don't want to get married.
But if you are right, and you may well be, do you expect this girl's father to draw the same connection you did, at leisure in your study -- hopefully you don't smoke a pipe, though you look the type -- between Zionism and feminism and Spanish anti-clericalism? And do you expect him to have this in mind as you pursue his young daughter? You're not going to cut him any slack here, you're not going to acknowledge he may see things differently, or not as acutely?
If you understand the pernicious anti-Catholic forces at work here, why can't you understand that this man is a victim of them, and understand his nervousness? Some battles can't be won.
To sum up, use some common sense. You're not in Renaissance France, you're in apocalyptic Mystery Babylon. The people here think the way they do. I understand it's frustrating, but you're not going to get anywhere without some finesse and charity.
-
I'll take a look,
Where I linked was a bad spot to start. Going to the beginning would be best.
-
And do you expect him to have this in mind as you pursue his young daughter? You're not going to cut him any slack here, you're not going to acknowledge he may see things differently, or not as acutely?
Raoul, this kind of "conservative traditionalist" wishes he could call up the police and have me arrested for trying to talk to his daughter. The feminist police state is his best friend when he tries to bully - just as the Zionist controlled military is his sustenance.
He's a bad Catholic.
-
I cannot pass judgement because I wasn't there in the first place. But I would just drop it and move on, really. Even if an injustice was done to you, I'd just forget about it and pray for the people you believe to have erred. All this energy used to fret over this matter could be devoted to prayer and growing more intimate with our Lord.
This counts for myself as well, as I tend to complain too much.
St. Paul was so right when he said that those who choose perpetual celibacy are more blessed than those who pursue marriage (which doesn't mean that marriage is bad or something).
-
Alex, who I'm on the phone with, says that a priest has no right to ban a girl from talking to someone she likes. Score one for you, Tele.
-
I feel certain that we met for a reason - we were really well suited for each other in every way.
If only I had been better and wiser this disaster would never have happened. But that doesn't excuse the jealous, spiteful pharisees who treat me like a monster for falling in love with a girl who had made every effort to charm me.
Wait a minute, you have never had a proper conversation with her (or am I correct that you have never even talked to her at all?), you certainly never have got to know her in any depth and you are saying that you have fallen in love with her? How can you fall in love with someone you dont know? What you are describing is not love but infatuation, something which can be incredibly dangerous.
-
Alex, who I'm on the phone with, says that a priest has no right to ban a girl from talking to someone she likes. Score one for you, Tele.
Does the father have the right. She was 17 when Tele introduced himself to her, and 1 wk later the talking stopped. At 18 she said no.
-
Wait a minute, you have never had a proper conversation with her (or am I correct that you have never even talked to her at all?), you certainly never have got to know her in any depth and you are saying that you have fallen in love with her? How can you fall in love with someone you dont know?
Ever hear of love at first sight?
She is very talented. Believe me it is easy to fall in love with her. We knew each other, we were in choir together.
What you are describing is not love but infatuation, something which can be incredibly dangerous.
Clovis, you can call it whatever you want - the bottom line is that I liked her and she liked me and they forbade us from speaking - they have no right to do so.
-
Alex, who I'm on the phone with, says that a priest has no right to ban a girl from talking to someone she likes. Score one for you, Tele.
Does the father have the right. She was 17 when Tele introduced himself to her, and 1 wk later the talking stopped. At 18 she said no.
So a girl should be forbidden in principle to say hello to me until she's 18 years old? I think not. And let's get something clear - she rejected me in the presence of the priest and her father - six months after her 18th birthday - for 14 months from the time I met her I was never allowed to speak to her privately or even semi-privately. Not a single phone call, not even a hello. The one time she spoke to me alone was when she followed me down the steps in the dark - instead of talking to her I held the door for her - and she thanked me. She was literally afraid to speak to say anything more to me.
She was not afraid to to try to speak to me - saying I'm sorry - very supset before she went to line for confession the Sunday after we met - but after that she was afraid to say hello to me.
Now people who support priests and fathers who act like that are sick malicious cultists - as you are - someone who relishes my humiliation.
LM - I see how you much it gratifies you to represent me as being humiliated. How much it gratifies you to think of me as some sort of monster because I liked a teenage girl. How much it gratifies you to see a lying priest and a bullying father have me kicked out of church.
You're a bad person.
-
Ever hear of love at first sight?
Clovis, you can call it whatever you want - the bottom line is that I liked her and she liked me and they forbade us from speaking - they have no right to do so.
I believe in infatuation or lust at first sight, not love. You can only have the type of meaningful love we are talking about for a person, and it takes time to get to know another human person. What people love at first sight is a projection from their own heads.
Did she actually SAY that she liked you? If not why do you trust your own judgement on this issue above her father and her priest? The fact that you believe that you and her are perfect for each other without knowing each other is worrying to say the least.
-
Alex, who I'm on the phone with, says that a priest has no right to ban a girl from talking to someone she likes. Score one for you, Tele.
Does the father have the right. She was 17 when Tele introduced himself to her, and 1 wk later the talking stopped. At 18 she said no.
So a girl should be forbidden in principle to say hello to me until she's 18 years old? I think not. And let's get something clear - she rejected me in the presence of the priest and her father - I have never yet been allowed to speak to her privately. Never once.
LM - I see how you much it gratifies you to represent me as being humiliated. How much it gratifies you to think of me as some sort of monster because I liked a teenage girl. How much it gratifies you to see a lying priest and a bullying father have me kicked out of church.
You're a bad person.
No Tele, I have read what you have called the priests, the father, people who have debated this issue with you here and at the other site. Do not try and play the "humility" card.
-
I believe in infatuation or lust at first sight, not love.
Well Clovis, you can try to make it into something evil but it's completely natural. I liked her, she liked me, and they forbade any contact. They had no right. That's the issue. They had no right.
You can only have the type of meaningful love we are talking about for a person, and it takes time to get to know another human person. What people love at first sight is a projection from their own heads.
I learned a lot about her and was in her presence a lot. That I wasn't allowed to speak to her or get to know her wasn't my fault.
Did she actually SAY that she liked you? If not why do you trust your own judgement on this issue above her father and her priest?
I trust my own eyes when I see a girl flirting and smiling with me, over the words of priest who say I'm imagining things when I state what I saw. That priest and her father proved to me they are shameless liars, and the people who side with them have proved to me they are cultish sheep.
The fact that you believe that you and her are perfect for each other without knowing each other is worrying to say the least.
There are several things about her online -- I learned about her. She is incredibly intelligent, talented, beautiful, and she values the same things I do. You don't need to know a person to know about a person.
-
No Tele, I have read what you have called the priests, the father, people who have debated this issue with you here and at the other site. Do not try and play the "humility" card.
Explain to me what the humility card is?
You are gratified by what they did. You refuse to admit they did anything wrong in lying to me, or in kicking me out of church. Because it gratifies you to see someone like me who pursued a girl that age to be treated unjustly.
That is perverse.
-
You're a bad person.
The vast majority of people are a mix of good and bad. There are very few saints and very few outright evil people in this world. Labeling someone a bad person like that does you no favours. I dont think you are a bad person but you really seem to have problems controlling your emotions which may be the real reason why the priest was opposed this courtship (that is if he was not just following her wishes).
-
The vast majority of people are a mix of good and bad.
Someone who is hung up on attacking me and trying to humiliate me because they don't like the fact that I pursued a teenage girl is acting very badly.
seem to have problems controlling your emotions which may be the real reason why the priest was opposed this courtship (that is if he was not just following her wishes).
No, the priest and the girl's father never once considered giving me a chance. When I realized just how deceitful they are I became naturally angry, and I should be angry.
If I have trouble controlling my emotions, it was nothing compared to the cynical ease with which they taunted me (the priest laughing at me on the phone, saying "this is a joke" calling me imbalanced, pretending not to believe me when I related what I saw), lied to me, tried to humiliate me, tried (and failed - because the complaints were frivolous!) to sic the police on me.
They are bad people.
-
Not a single phone call, not even a hello. The one time she spoke to me alone was when she followed me down the steps in the dark - instead of talking to her I held the door for her - and she thanked me. She was literally afraid to speak to say anything more to me.
Because, her brother saw us coming out of the the steps together - or perhaps she was scrupulous because she thought she had done wrong to follow me that way.
These people who have accused me of imagining things were not there to see what I saw. After a while people start to doubt your sanity if your simply reiterate what you have seen in the face of persistent mocking. That is the reason for the strategem of claiming to doubt everything I say - to make me angry - so that people will not believe me.
It is incredibly cynical, and the priest is incredibly malicious and showed contempt for the truth and for religion to act that way.
-
Spiritus, you act as if you can't understand why Tele got angry with you. Do you realize that in almost every single post you make some unwarranted conclusion? Here are some examples --
"Plus you went to Church because of an attractive girl rather than to pay attention to Our Lord."
Meeting girls at Church is wrong, everyone who does that is ignoring God?
"He got kicked out due to his own actions, not because the SSPX just likes being a 'cult.'"
What actions? You haven't yet been able to point out a single one.
I also thought for a little while that Tele might be a creeper or stalker. I have seen his picture, he has a funny mustache :laugh1: But I also know he seems like a gentle soul. That is why I grilled him, I wanted to know the truth, as much as it can be known on this forum. I had no prejudice either way.
Well, he answered all my questions upfront, without shilly-shallying, and it turns out the girl tried to talk to HIM in the confessional line. If you were a girl being stalked, is that what you would do? Let's say that all she wanted to say was "Stop stalking me, pervo." Then why was she pulled away?
Whatever. Bottom line though is that Tele should and in fact likely WILL be banned. I can't see why Matthew wouldn't ban him. The fact that Tele keeps posting his picture shows that he must think he's extremely attractive and has to brag about it.
-
No Tele, I have read what you have called the priests, the father, people who have debated this issue with you here and at the other site. Do not try and play the "humility" card.
Explain to me what the humility card is?
You are gratified by what they did. You refuse to admit they did anything wrong in lying to me, or in kicking me out of church. Because it gratifies you to see someone like me who pursued a girl that age to be treated unjustly.
That is perverse.
Like I said before, it is likely that you kicked yourself out of the chapel. As has been said before Tele, It is time that you drop the whole matter.
-
No Tele, I have read what you have called the priests, the father, people who have debated this issue with you here and at the other site. Do not try and play the "humility" card.
Explain to me what the humility card is?
You are gratified by what they did. You refuse to admit they did anything wrong in lying to me, or in kicking me out of church. Because it gratifies you to see someone like me who pursued a girl that age to be treated unjustly.
That is perverse.
Like I said before, it is likely that you kicked yourself out of the chapel. As has been said before Tele, It is time that you drop the whole matter.
No, I certainly did not. I was kicked out by the priest.
You really take pleasure in it too. Like that priest and that Puerto Rican - you relish my humiliation.
-
I think Tele is trying to get banned. He can't drop this subject, he's obssessed with it! He also continuously insults people here left and right.
-
Whatever. Bottom line though is that Tele should and in fact likely WILL be banned. I can't see why Matthew wouldn't ban him. The fact that Tele keeps posting his picture shows that he must think he's extremely attractive and has to brag about it.
SS, I don't think I'm "extremely attractive."
I'm posting my picture to let people judge for themselves - am I imagining that girls are attracted to me?
Because that was the premise of the dishonest priest.
You want me banned - why is that?
So far you've slandered me twice - accused me of being a stalker - accused of hitting on a 14 year old girl. Why are you interested in dragging my name through the mud?
Why don't you explain to me how it is a sin to want to talk to a girl who showed interest in me? Explain how it is justifiable for a priest to bind a girl not to say hello? Or how he can threaten to kick me out of church if I send an innocent message to a girl who has passed majority?
You can't and you won't.
All you care about is the power you feel from standing with the cult bullies and feeling pharisaical indignation at me for liking a teenage girl.
-
I think Tele is trying to get banned. He can't drop this subject, he's obssessed with it! He also continuously insults people here left and right.
You definitely protest too much SS. If you think I'm obsessed why post on the thread and demand my banning. Why slander me? Why provoke me?
Because you want to ban me here just as you say you approve of my being kicked out of church - because you relish being on the side of the bullies
-
It is STRANGE to like a teenage girl if you're 32. Your mind should be on God during Mass, yet you had it on a girl just because she looked at you. I think roscoe's MK Ultra has gotten to you.
-
It is STRANGE to like a teenage girl if you're 32.
According to whom? According to feminist Americans?
Or according to sane people who understand history?
Your mind should be on God during Mass, yet you had it on a girl just because she looked at you. I think roscoe's MK Ultra has gotten to you.
SS I met the girl after mass. If you want me to drop the subject drop the subject yourself.
-
No, I want you banned for violating forum rules. It even says when posting on this section "No profanity or blasphemy". You're using profanity by calling people wicked and used blasphemy when you put God's name in front of a cuss word, forming the worst bad word there is. I could care less about proving I'm right or whatever.
-
No, I want you banned for violating forum rules. It even says when posting on this section "No profanity or blasphemy". You're using profanity by calling people wicked and used blasphemy when you put God's name in front of a cuss word, forming the worst bad word there is. I could care less about proving I'm right or whatever.
Only after you started slandering me.
-
And please drop the 14 year old girl thing. I apologized for that. You clearly hold grudges, and that's not acting like a Traditional Catholic or even a Christian for that matter.
-
I never slandered you. And even if I did that's no exucse to violate the Second Commandment.
-
You really take pleasure in it too. Like that priest and that Puerto Rican - you relish my humiliation.
Look seriously there are many, many things in life that we have absolutely no control over and therefore its best if we do not get emotionally worked over up them. You have no control over her father, the priest in question and the girl accepting their guidance so it would really be best for you if you allowed yourself to emotionally disengage from the situation. If you are really meant to be with this girl God will find a way to bring you together.
Relishing another person's pain is a pretty heavy accusation. I seriously doubt that anyone is doing that here.
-
And please drop the 14 year old girl thing. I apologized for that. You clearly hold grudges, and that's not acting like a Traditional Catholic or even a Christian for that matter.
You keep bringing up my cursing and calling you wicked, when you know very well why I did.
It's no trivial thing to do what you did, even negligently. Do you understand that? I don't see any genuine remorse - "oopsie-daisy - I accused you of hitting on a 14 year old - now don't hold grudges"
-
And please drop the 14 year old girl thing. I apologized for that. You clearly hold grudges, and that's not acting like a Traditional Catholic or even a Christian for that matter.
You keep bringing up my cursing and calling you wicked, when you know very well why I did.
It's no trivial thing to do what you did, even negligently. Do you understand that? I don't see any genuine remorse - "oopsie-daisy - I accused you of hitting on a 14 year old - now don't hold grudges"
You act as if a misunderstanding is worse than cursing. You're acting like a child over this whole thing. You should just accept that God did not will for you and her to be together and move on. But you'd rather not accept it and keep on about it. And me dropping the subject will do no good, you talk about it even when I'm not online. I should have just kept you on ignore. So back on ignore you go, this time for good.
-
You act as if a misunderstanding is worse than cursing.
You still don't get it SS. You thought nothing of negligently accusing me of hitting on a 14 year old girl and you call it mere "misunderstanding" - when you accuse someone of that you make sure it's true first. Do you understand that? My impulsive words "God damn it" were said in the heat of the moment. Acting like it's the worst thing anyone has ever said is crazy - and comparing it to your accusation against me is crazy.
You're acting like a child over this whole thing.
I am an aggrieved and betrayed and I won't ever accept this - the SSPX is going to have to reform itself or face just censure.
You should just accept that God did not will for you and her to be together and move on. But you'd rather not accept it and keep on about it. And me dropping the subject will do no good, you talk about it even when I'm not online. I should have just kept you on ignore. So back on ignore you go, this time for good.
Good, I hope so. I hope you're serious this time, really.
-
SpiritusSanctus said:
It is STRANGE to like a teenage girl if you're 32.
(http://www.smiley-faces.org/smiley-faces/smiley-face-whistle-2.gif)
I hate to blow your obviously young mind, SS, but 92-year olds "like" teenage girls. Men are naturally and biologically attracted to beautiful women, and young women are at or near their physical peak, in general. This attraction doesn't go away magically as you get older, that is why we pray to Mary for chastity, wear hair shirts, throw ourselves into thorn bushes, or do whatever we have to do in order to avoid sin.
-
SS, you have asked Tele to be a man and apologize, and he did. I want you to be a man and admit that you were passive-aggressively goading him.
Here was my favorite SpiritusSanctus moment of the thread --
"I am sorry for saying she was 14, but what I did was not evil as I did not intend it to be. You were kicked out for stalking an 18 year old girl --
You apologize for one highly defamatory mistake -- let's hope that's what it is -- and then move right into a defamatory assumption, just throwing it out there that he was "stalking" the girl as if it were a fact. In the very next sentence!
You wonder why he gets enraged? You are dealing with a man's reputation here, and you can hardly expect someone who is unfairly kicked out of Church to appreciate being misrepresented and smeared once again, even if it's an accident.
But it has happened so many times in this thread that it makes one wonder just how accidental it is. It is almost reminiscent of the Modernists. They make one error, and by the time people have finished arguing over that one, they've moved onto another, so everyone is kept constantly off-balance.
When you do something like this, you had better correct yourself double-quick, or it is your reputation that will go into the mud -- not Tele's.
-
I just noticed this thread...
Three days, 24 pages...hot topic :)
FWIW, there is nothing wrong, in and of itself, with a mature man courting a young woman. All talk to the contrary is nonsense.
-
I curious at what point the "police" were called considering you were kicked out and admitted to never hearing from them. That was never part of the story before.
-
You apologize for one highly defamatory mistake -- let's hope that's what it is -- and then move right into a defamatory assumption, just throwing it out there that he was "stalking" the girl as if it were a fact.
Nowadays, the word stalking can mean simply looking up information on someone on the internet, or checking out their Facebook profile.
There are several things about her online -- I learned about her.
Kids call that stalking.
-
Nowadays, the word stalking can mean simply looking up information on someone on the internet, or checking out their Facebook profile.
He said I was kicked out for stalking. Are you suggesting someone can be kicked out for googling someone's name?
Stalking is a criminal offense, and he was accusing me of being kicked out for it.
-
I curious at what point the "police" were called considering you were kicked out and admitted to never hearing from them. That was never part of the story before.
Well, I've been told twice.
First I was told on Palm Sunday 2010 - that a report had been made to the police.
And when when I called the priory at the end of January they told me a restraining order had been filed against me. I've heard nothing about that except for what the priest told me.
When I had not sent her a message or gone near her. Of course it was patently absurd to file for a restraining order.
This Puerto Rican really is shameless in the way he conducts himself.
-
If a restraining order were filed against you, you would have been served by the Sheriff's Dept. already.
-
If a restraining order were filed against you, you would have been served by the Sheriff's Dept. already.
The priest told me one had been filed. I'm going by what the priest said.
Caminus, if I looked someone up in the phonebook and demanded a restraining order against a random name I don't think I'd get one.
-
That's all I'm going to say. Move on, consider what I said about the good of trials.
-
He said I was kicked out for stalking. Are you suggesting someone can be kicked out for googling someone's name?
No. I'm just saying that stalking does not necessarily mean the criminal kind.
After that I sent her a friend request saying - they threatened to kick me out if I try to contact you again.
They said you'd be kicked out if you tried to contact her again. You tried to contact her again. They kicked you out.
-
Tele,
There will be other women if marriage is your vocation. God's giving you time to prepare yourself for her and use this injustice as a chance to gain great merit. Wasn't there a saint who was falsely accused of something and didn't say a word, suffered silently, and later it was found he was innocent? The devil will try to use this injustice to trap you in bitterness and despair. In reality, I'm convinced that it was for your good. Infatuation wears off. I guarantee you'll thank God He saved you from this girl in 10 years when you are happily married to the one He picked out for you.
-
They said you'd be kicked out if you tried to contact her again. You tried to contact her again. They kicked you out.
That priest had no right to do that. Don't you understand that?
-
By the way, Tele bears a striking resemblance to Errol Flynn.
Tele, you should make this your new avatar...
(http://www.meredy.com/ef.jpg)
-
Or... the used car salesman from True Lies:
-
For reference, here is Telesphorus again:
-
Another of Flynn...
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01428/errol_flynn_1428265c.jpg)
-
Don't forget Boston Blackie...
(http://www.parrotheadparadise.com/images/bio/KentTaylor150x200.jpg)
-
Clark Gable...
You missed your era...
(http://bestuff.com/images/images_of_stuff/210x600/clark-gable-4075.jpg?1173107603)
-
Guy from Princess Bride...
(http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wes.jpg)
-
well maybe this will end this thread.
-
"My name...is Indigo Montoya... you killed my father. Prepare to die."
-
Boston Blackie made me burst out laughing. It's him! Complete with the tweedy clothing.
-
I think the photo comparisons suggest his looks would best suit attracting a 60-year-old woman. :dancing:
We have that set of books behind your left ear, Tele. :reading:
-
We have that set of books behind your left ear, Tele. :reading:
I only have a few volumes, back when I collected all sorts of books I didn't need (but thought I did). Still, I've gotten use out of them.
-
Looking at all the heartthrobs he resembles -- and the era they are from -- it would seem that Tele should be dating much, much OLDER women.
:laugh1:
-
Actually, I look kind of like Cary Elwes, the Princess Bride guy. More feminine / boyish. Tele doesn't look like that, he has an "adult" look, mature even for his age.
-
We have that set of books behind your left ear, Tele. :reading:
I only have a few volumes, back when I collected all sorts of books I didn't need (but thought I did). Still, I've gotten use out of them.
We have 54 of them!
I bought them at an estate sale, but still paid too much money considering how few of them I'm interested in reading.
They look good on the shelf, though. :cool:
-
Would it be a sin of detraction to mention how Errol Flynn ended up? Is it okay to talk about celebrity scandals which are public knowledge?
Because it very much relates to Tele's case!
-
Try to imagine Tele without the mustache.
I tried and I think my head nearly exploded. It's like trying to comprehend how our solar system would be if there was no sun.
-
Would it be a sin of detraction to mention how Errol Flynn ended up? Is it okay to talk about celebrity scandals which are public knowledge?
Because it very much relates to Tele's case!
Well, we could all Google it...
-
Telesphorus,
You've gotten some good advice on this topic. Here's one:
I cannot pass judgement because I wasn't there in the first place. But I would just drop it and move on, really. Even if an injustice was done to you, I'd just forget about it and pray for the people you believe to have erred. All this energy used to fret over this matter could be devoted to prayer and growing more intimate with our Lord.
This counts for myself as well, as I tend to complain too much.
St. Paul was so right when he said that those who choose perpetual celibacy are more blessed than those who pursue marriage (which doesn't mean that marriage is bad or something).
By the way, you have had lots of time to post here today, a Tuesday and yesterday, Monday, days when most people are busy at work. Do you currently have meaningful employment? If not, could you take the amount of time that you've spent here and invest it in searching for a better job? Or in pursuing an education that would lead to gainful employment?
If you are not currently in a financial position to support a wife and family, that may be a major reason that your courting prospects have not turned out as you have hoped.
I wish you the very best in finding out God's Will for your life and I will be praying for you for this intention.
-
From Wikipedia:
In the late 1950s, Flynn met and courted the 15-year-old Beverly Aadland at the Hollywood Professional School, casting her in his final film, Cuban Rebel Girls (1959). According to Aadland, he planned to marry her and move to their new house in Jamaica, but during a trip together to Vancouver, British Columbia, he died of a heart attack at the age of 50.
-
(http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd237/leondeponcins/nov202009.jpg?t=1300835644)
Clark Gable
-
GEORGE BRENT
(http://irishrollcall.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/george_brent.jpg)
He doesn't look like Clark Gable even remotely, except for the mustache. Clark has a really tiny peanut head, Tele has a large head like George Brent.
Trust me, if Tele shaved his mustache, he would not look even one iota of a fraction like Clark Gable. I'm not saying he's uglier, I'm not comparing at all, just to say he doesn't look like Clark Gable.
-
Trust me, if Tele shaved his mustache, he would not look even one iota of a fraction like Clark Gable.
Yes, it makes a big difference.
-
I wasn't comparing you unfavorably, you'd be good-looking with or without the mustache. When I say "Clark Gable" it doesn't mean "The best looking guy ever." It just means "Clark Gable."
You look more like Errol Flynn, because not only do you have the 'stache, but you have the smirk. But you look most like George Brent.
-
We have that set of books behind your left ear, Tele. :reading:
I only have a few volumes, back when I collected all sorts of books I didn't need (but thought I did). Still, I've gotten use out of them.
We have 54 of them!
I bought them at an estate sale, but still paid too much money considering how few of them I'm interested in reading.
They look good on the shelf, though. :cool:
Yeah my father has almost a complete set of Harvard Classics from his grandfather.
Lots of things to read as a boy, maybe not all of it good.
I loved A Thousand and One Nights.
-
Scheherezade, eh? You are a sensually-minded pervert. ( Joking ).
I always thought Scheherezade was a courtesan, turns out she was a wife trying to keep her head by regaling her fickle husband with stories. Shows how much I know. All right, off to say the Rosary, I have spent the whole day on the computer almost.
-
Scheherezade, eh? You are a sensually-minded pervert. ( Joking ).
I always thought Scheherezade was a courtesan, turns out she was a wife trying to keep her head by regaling her fickle husband with stories. Shows how much I know. All right, off to say the Rosary, I have spent the whole day on the computer almost.
My father read me stories from it when I was very very young.
-
I think the photo comparisons suggest his looks would best suit attracting a 60-year-old woman. :dancing:
:laugh1: This had me laughing.
Your style is not unattractive, but it may need some "aggiornamento" to attract younger women. ;)
-
Actually, as a recent article Matthew wrote points out, 60 year old women in 1980 may remember these actors, but 60 year olds todya would not! They would have been born in 1951!
In 2011 we would be talking about 80 year olds! :laugh1:
:geezer:
-
Actually, as a recent article Matthew wrote points out, 60 year old women in 1980 may remember these actors, but 60 year olds todya would not! They would have been born in 1951!
In 2011 we would be talking about 80 year olds! :laugh1:
:geezer:
Elizabeth Taylor has died.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS6qyMNqa_w&feature=player_detailpage#t=202s
-
Telesphorus, missing third member of the 80's Swiss techno- pop group Yello --
(http://www.torrentspath.com/upload/preview/images/music/8/0/8/5c972325286e825e94805db986d771ef.jpg)
"Standing at the machine every day for all my life I'm used to do it and I need it it's the only thing I want it's just a rush push cash."
-
"Virgins. Bring me virgins."
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cUOcabR55XI/TKxOHhPOs-I/AAAAAAAAACo/qa-Hk3u6Wl0/s1600/52230785_dracula_gary_oldman.jpg)
-
At least your moustache is a peacemaker, Tele. It's bringing us all together.
-
Please forgive me for taking this thread back to it's main subject ... (I have been enjoying the light hearted break with photos of 1930's movie actors, though :wink:)
I just wanted to say a couple of things, first as a past-her-point-of value, middle aged woman (age 43). It is hard to read things posted here and elsewhere with younger men and older men talking about how women of a certain age are essentially worthless and even repulsive over the age of 30. Yes, I totally understand the logic about biology and all of that. However, it's hard on a human level to be talked about like that.
Here we have supposedly good, Catholic men, who basically treat women just as much as objects, things to fill a purpose rather than flesh and blood human beings with souls and value in the eyes of God.
What's being missed in most of the conversation is the fact that God's will for a person's life is not the same for everyone. Some men won't marry at all. Some men will marry older and marry a woman their age and that will necessarily mean that they will either have a smaller family or none of their own biologically.
I also understand why a man of any age would prefer a young, beautiful woman. Men of the "world" and men of "faith" seem to be judging by the very same criteria here.
But if it's preferable and understandable .. why is it so offensive that most women prefer a man who can do more than offer basic financial security?
A woman has a right to prefer that her husband will be able to provide her and any children they have with a decent home, food, clothing and transportation. That costs a lot of money these days and will require that the husband devote himself to a life of hard work and personal sacrifice.
A woman is saved through bearing children and a man is saved through working by the sweat of his brow.
I don't know the whole story, none of us do. If we take Telephorus word for it .. then he was wronged. Life isn't fair. We've all experienced injustice .. just like the injustice of categorizing females as either youthful fertile beauties or as old worthless hags.
Trust in God, not in man ... seek His will not your own. You are called to work no matter if you're called to marriage. As others have said, work on establishing some financially strength in your life and focus on serving the Lord in whatever capacity He calls you to.
God bless.
-
Mrs. Z, my younger sister is 31, and I certainly don't consider her to be an "ugly old hag" - but it is a fact she is becoming an old maid.
This is because of the twisted society with its wrong priorities that sends women to college as a matter of course - that doesn't understand that a woman's stock as a wife is rapidly diminishing as she gets older, and that says that young women should go to the big city where it's "exciting."
My older sister is an old maid. She is very very intelligent, was accepted to Harvard.
It's sad. My parents didn't know how to deal with this culture and this society. We were all sent to schools where the others young people had totally alien values - and my parents didn't understand the need to seek out like minded people - or understand that a girl needs to think about marriage from a young age.
-
I hope you'll admit, I touched on the subject, MrsZ.
I brought up "God's will" and "who is supposed to marry the women over 18?"
After all, some men marry widows, women in their 20's and even women in their 30's (or older). There are couples who can't have children, and have to adopt for this or that reason -- there are plenty of crosses out there.
The point is: God gets to choose which crosses we will carry, not ourselves. We would choose no crosses at all. Generally, God equips us to carry the crosses He gives us.
We should try to discern God's will for us, which can be known by looking at our situation, and applying the brain He gave each one of us. Yes, our fallible brains will get things wrong, but we won't be condemned for making an honest mistake. We're not omniscient, and our intelligence isn't as great as an angel's -- God knows that.
God wants us to do our duty of state. God wants men to work, for example, without exception. Either working at the spiritual life in the Religious Life, working for souls as a priest, or working at a job in the single/married life. Living a life of self-will and leisure is not God's will for ANYONE unless that soul is not going to get any other reward ("Heaven") for the good deeds he has done.
-
I just accidentally deleted my post and it was a good one.
-
I just accidentally deleted my post and it was a good one.
Try to re-type it!
I've done that several times before, and I find that the 2nd post is even better than the first one.
-
Mrs. Z said:
But if it's preferable and understandable .. why is it so offensive that most women prefer a man who can do more than offer basic financial security?
It's not. That is absolutely a valid reason to marry a man, for security. Romanticism and the idea that you must marry for love only -- which often is just infatuation -- is another modern fallacy.
It's not that marrying for love is wrong, it's that the idea of love has steadily been vitiated.
My erased post was about the Catholic Church being eminently practical and not romantic, and how this offended my romantic sensibilities back in my visionary, mad-poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley days. But I don't have the energy to type it out again.
Please don't confuse us all with Tele. He is an excellent Catholic, in my opinion, but he has a mental block on this issue. His experience with this girl sent him reeling back into his study where he began poring over books and making some weird connections, like that Latin machismo is the root cause of feminism. If you tried to tell him that youth and virginity is not your top priority in a potential wife, he'd think you were just brainwashed and in denial. There's nothing to be done for the man on this subject because he is completely fixated on youth and virginity for reasons that are partly personal, partly philosophical; luckily, it's no big deal.
For me, mental kinship is at the top of my list when it comes to a wife, or it would be if I wanted to get married. I'm not kidding, it's more important for me that the girl agrees with me about Jews than it is that she is young and virginal and pretty. I don't care if she looks like Brigitte Bardot in her prime, I don't want to be with some girl who thinks I'm a reactionary crackpot, because that marriage would quickly turn sour. And what would be my chances of finding a pretty young virgin with a mature outlook on the world? Not many. Yes, there are devout young girls, but I'm talking about a mature outlook, about understanding the perils of the world and knowing how to navigate them.
-
Oh, I read it wrong, you say "more than basic financial security."
I find that "basic financial security" tends to be pretty insecure. Having a little more is a little more secure. If that's what you're saying, I agree. But to marry simply for yachts and helicopters, eh...
-
Telesphorus, this gal is 5 years older than you. 38 and still good looking! Or am I delusional? :wink:
Just goes to show what you can possibly find if you look. Move on.
-
Tele,
For the age group you are gunning for, you will have to change your look to the following...
(http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/sites/people/img/37122_Justin_Beiber.jpg)
-
Samurai, you need to stop listening to that junk. That woman is not attractive, she's harsh-looking.
-
Raoul76 - Yes, that's the point of what I was trying to say. It's not wrong of a man to prefer a young, pure Catholic woman. But it's wrong of him to pervert that natural preference into a mandate and to categorize human beings as things to be ignored or looked down upon if they're past the "sell by" date.
A woman can also pervert her natural preference for security into becoming a gold digger who's main focus in life is luxury as opposed to basic comforts. That's why unscrupulously rich old men get what they deserve in cold hearted gold digging young girls. They each provide each other with a lustful want, but there's no love, no respect in the deal.
There's such a thing as having a personal preference, but as Matthew and others have reaffirmed, there's God's will and reality as well. And we're all called to discern God's will and not our own and to also have charity and see the value in every human being beyond their outer appearance and functional value (i.e. what they can do for us).
-
I'd try to find a celebrity who is beautiful in her 30s or 40s, except celebrities tend to live harsh lives and therefore end up rather harsh-looking. Rita Hayworth was a sex symbol in her 30s, but as a Catholic, I don't find her as attractive as I used to, not soft enough.
But if we're talking about devout Catholic women, it's different. There is a woman in my church, I don't know how old she is, but she's married and has ten kids, and one of them is probably 16 so she didn't start yesterday. Well, she is stunningly beautiful. I'm not saying I lust after her, so don't get your overalls in a bunch, but it's something everyone notices, men and women I'm sure. The woman is just a knockout beauty. She looks a bit like Elizabeth McGovern at 20, except she somehow preserved her looks later.
If you find this attractive, Tele, this is what she looks like, and she's probably in her 40s -- like Austrian royalty or something -- I can't get the picture to show so here's a link -- it says null but it works --
null (http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3793260032/tt0082970)
-
I guess trying to prove older women can be beautiful is not the most un-shallow way to go about this...
I do understand a bit of what Tele is saying. He just takes it too far. But I have seen that women who go to college and are out in the world can take on a louche and untrustworthy quality. Sometimes you wonder if they have gone out and had their fun, and then decide to get married when they realize they're nearly past their sell-by date, or what they think of as their sell-by date.
That is what Tele is angry about, women that rejected him when he was younger then wanting him to take them on when they are older and used-up. He sees older women as the promiscuous girls who rejected him in high school or something. I don't think the women at his church would have been like that in high school, but that is how things are seen in Tele-vision.
I will say, it is very easy to detect a woman who is desperate, who just wants to be married because she is terrified her looks are about to disappear. That is a turn-off. Someone who is doing God's will should be calm, she doesn't need to panic over marriage because if it doesn't happen, God will find another place for her.
-
My older sister is an old maid. She is very very intelligent, was accepted to Harvard.
Well, so long as she doesn't have a mustache like your's (or at all, really), let me know and I'll see if she wants to have dinner sometime...
-
I do understand Telephorus point of view, even though I'm an (older) woman. The truth hurts, sometimes. The fact is that his perception is not completely false. There's a lot of truth in it these days, unfortunately. There are other blogs, non Christian, out there today featuring younger and older men talking about this very same thing.
Why would a woman who has a long history of "relationships" but who is now feeling her biological clock ticking away, be appealing in any way to a man her age? I get that, I do.
That doesn't change the fact that as Christians we're called to a higher purpose and perspective. We're called to charity and humility.
It's not as though there are no women over the age of 18 who aren't devout and chaste. Are there less? Yes, but God can work miracles if necessary and there's no reason to give up hope. The key here, is to keep looking in the right places. Don't allow the world and it's lies to continue to repulse you and fill you with despair. The good people are striving to do better and living a life of service to others .. and they come from all backgrounds and varying ages.
-
It's not as though there are no women over the age of 18 who aren't devout and chaste. Are there less?
Is it not just as possible that there are MORE?
-
True, we all assume that the women "left" after the first round of men have picked their wives are somehow "lesser" than the women that have been picked.
Because we rightfully assume that in school, when the boys are picked for the football team, you're not going to have a fast, strong, smart and healthy boy left there in the lineup. Obviously the strong/talented ones are going to get picked first.
But marriage isn't football.
For the analogy to hold, we'd have to assume that men pick the best women. But in reality, many men go after the wrong ones, ignoring some PERFECTLY GOOD potential spouses, because they are so immature and can't appreciate the virtues of said women.
Let's put it this way -- my wife is awesome. Besides having lots of natural beauty, she is also a good wife and mother, is good at giving birth, is healthy, a devout Catholic, a straight-A student and college educated (= will make a good homeschooling mom), and she has many virtues including chastity, modesty, self-denial, frugality, etc. (And yes, she was a maiden).
She was conservative Novus Ordo when I met her, I might point out. She did come from a small town (pop. 1000) in Texas, which probably helped. Her family is very down-to-earth and hard working.
Anyhow -- I met her when she was in her mid-twenties. I *know* that many of her high school friends married earlier. Does that mean those women were "better" than my wife? Yeah right! More like "their loss, my gain".
But it's not just the women in her class that married earlier -- what about ALL the marriages that took place from the time she was 18, until the time I met her. hundreds of thousands of marriages. And none of them involved her as the bride!
Matthew
-
Mrs. Z said:
Why would a woman who has a long history of "relationships" but who is now feeling her biological clock ticking away, be appealing in any way to a man her age? I get that, I do.
I don't have a double-standard. I have this sort of past and I'm a man. I don't say it is any better because I'm a man.
For someone who converted at 32, I guess I'm comparatively "innocent." I slept with three women, two long relationships and one unfortunate interlude in between. No one-night stands, which in itself is a sort of miracle. As far as pagans go, I was the goody two-shoes, believe it or not. What a shock to realize how wretched and not-good I really am.
Maybe I'm being too open about it, but this brings up my main point. When a girl has a "history," if I'm a man, I want to know about it, just as I would tell her about mine. That may be controversial -- maybe it's supposed to be enough that she has converted and turned herself around. But I'm sorry, when a girl doesn't tell, when she hints around about things, you start to get edgy. Your imagination begins to go into overdrive. This is what makes Catholic courtship hard for two people who have lived in the world, perhaps. In my opinion, it doesn't work to sugarcoat, I prefer total honesty. Not everyone agrees, but let me just tell you, this is how lots of men think, even relatively holy ones... We are territorial about women and very sɛҳuąƖly jealous. That is why some men often kill women who cheat on them. The thought of one's wife with another man is nightmarishly disturbing. Yes, if you can get over it, that's great, and Catholics are called to be charitable. But not every Catholic is a saint who can overlook such sins.
Now, I have a female friend who has a horrible past, much worse than mine, and she is totally open about it. Neither of us want to get married. But if I did want to get married, I'd find it easier to marry someone like her who lays it on the line, who has the courage to face possible rejection, than someone who is shady and shifty and hiding things. It's clear to me that this girl has truly changed, there is a feeling of a new person. I see her as nearly a saint. But with other girls, I can still detect some worldliness and some scheming even after conversion. It's just a feeling, but it's enough to make me run.
Mary Magdalenes who are truly repentant can be attractive, but I think it's better if they're celibate. I am a male Magdalene and that is why I am celibate. I want to make up for my past somehow, I want to do good works and give all I have to God from now on. If I meet the young Elizabeth McGovern as seen in that picture I may think twice :wink: No, not really, but it's hard to lose your sensual side completely, once it has been set in motion, that is the tragedy of losing your innocence.
-
See, guys? THIS is why I un-banned Raoul.
Well-said, Raoul! You saved me 1/2 hour of posting the exact same thing :)
Matthew
I am going to put him on ignore just to be "difficult." (No, just kidding -- Raoul, you have great posts for a 0 ignore count! I thought that only Matthew was capable of that!)
-
I agree -- I'm not even tempted by women with no modesty or chastity.
I'm repulsed by their spiritual ugliness and lack of virtue.
Men (myself included) want an enclosed garden -- not a busy crosswalk.
Not to say that nothing tempts me -- like Raoul, I'm attracted to modest women.
An ankle-length skirt would be more dangerous to me than Britney Spears' slutty attire.
Yes, this is referred to as Puritan Porn. (No, no, just kidding...) Yes, it is strange, isn't, what is attractive to some men is repulsive to others. But, I agree, the long, flowing skirts (with a modest, barely visible, underskirt a real plus) along with a modest, ruffly, but ornate, blouse, long, flowing hair -- a pure angelic delight. As long as they are not dressed in complete black, traditional Catholic women are the most beautiful women in the world.
One time I was in an auto shop waiting for my car to be fixed. An attractive petite woman in a very short black skirt came in and sat down right next to me. I felt very self-conscious and ignored her completely while surfing the Internet on my cell phone. For some reason, she felt the need to start talking to me, and out of pure politeness, I had to reply to her. But, the more I ignored her, the more she kept talking to me, "average Joe." Finally, she quit, and I was so happy to leave the lobby. I did not say "Goodbye" to her.
-
SS, you have asked Tele to be a man and apologize, and he did. I want you to be a man and admit that you were passive-aggressively goading him.
Here was my favorite SpiritusSanctus moment of the thread --
"I am sorry for saying she was 14, but what I did was not evil as I did not intend it to be. You were kicked out for stalking an 18 year old girl --
You apologize for one highly defamatory mistake -- let's hope that's what it is -- and then move right into a defamatory assumption, just throwing it out there that he was "stalking" the girl as if it were a fact. In the very next sentence!
You wonder why he gets enraged? You are dealing with a man's reputation here, and you can hardly expect someone who is unfairly kicked out of Church to appreciate being misrepresented and smeared once again, even if it's an accident.
But it has happened so many times in this thread that it makes one wonder just how accidental it is. It is almost reminiscent of the Modernists. They make one error, and by the time people have finished arguing over that one, they've moved onto another, so everyone is kept constantly off-balance.
When you do something like this, you had better correct yourself double-quick, or it is your reputation that will go into the mud -- not Tele's.
I don't know why you and Tele are making such big deals over a mistake that I apologized for. Of course, you saying I should apologize yet again after I already did is only your opinion, highlighted by the fact that you buy into Tele being unjustly kicked out. As far as being attracted to younger women, I meant it is strange for a 32 year old to be overly attractive to an 18 year old at Church.
-
And to make one last statement to clarify things, I don't want Telesphorus banned because of what he did or for being kicked out of Church. The reason I think he should be banned is because he called me a devil, he called the SSPX priests "wicked pharisees", he put God's name in front of the d word which forms a horrible cuss word and violates the Second Commandment, and he said that what the SSPX teaches is against what the Catholic Church teaches. You just can't do or say things like that on an SSPX forum! I don't expect any sedes to back me up since they aren't SSPX supporters, but I don't really care. It's not about people backing me up. It's about Tele violating forum rules on several accounts. Raoul teases me for being "young and naive" and for being an SSPX supporter but one thing I should point out is that I have not used profanity or lost my temper this whole argument and what Tele said to me is far worse than what I said to him. So that is why I think he should be banned. I'm not just blowing hot air here.
-
Please keep me and my forum out of your arguments, Spiritus.
I censored Tele's post -- the one you mentioned. He's been a member here for a long time, and I don't operate like a computer:
If (blasphemy_posted) then {
ban_individual();
}
Nobody likes the lack of common sense that such "zero tolerance" policies result in. Like the 6th grade girl who gets booted from school for taking Midol to school because of her period, or the kid who gets expelled for bringing a water gun to class, or Oregano (which looks like pot).
I use common sense and personal judgment. A long-standing member (who I sort of "know") gets more leeway than a new member who just signed up.
Everyone can have a bad day.
It's fair for me to ban someone after the first blasphemy while giving Tele a chance. I know there's more to Tele than blasphemy, while I DON'T know any such thing about a stranger who signs up here and starts posting blasphemy.
I'm deigning to explain myself in this case, but I don't have to. Most people (at least the members of CathInfo) appreciate my moderation style.
Matthew
-
That post I just made was more of an attempt to clarify myself to Raoul, not keep waving my hand yelling "When will Telesphorus be banned?". I do appreciate your moderating style, Matthew. Obviously if I didn't I would have left CatholicInfo months ago. Anyway, thanks for censoring his post, Matthew. By the way, I have Tele on ignore, so no more problems between him and I. :alcohol:
-
One other thing. My apologies for helping to derail the thread. When I saw Tele start cutting down the SSPX I flipped my lid (you couldn't exactly tell through my posts but I try not to totally lose it when posting in such situations). I'm not going to post on this thread anymore unless someone asks me a question or something. Otherwise I will just read. My apologies for acting arrogant.
-
The banhammer swingeth not this day.
-
SpiritusSanctus said:
Raoul teases me for being "young and naive" and for being an SSPX supporter
I did not tease you for being an SSPX supporter. I asked who was more likely to have a bias. Is it Raoul, who showed all through this thread that I was objective, or is it you, who came into this thread with a prejudice against Tele for what he said about SSPX, and then clung onto it no matter what?
At first I thought Tele was acting kind of pervy too, okay? His first account of what happened to him made no sense and was all garbled, making me think he was obsessed with this girl and couldn't think straight. So I didn't start out wanting to defend Tele because he is borderline sede. He has been a borderline sede for about eighteen years now, by my estimation, and never crosses over.
Whatever this priest at SSPX did, has nothing to do with SSPX as a whole anyway. I am not the type to use the logic "Oooh, bad things are happening at SGG, so this must mean all sedevacantists are wrong!"
You know I have to tread carefully as Matthew is in SSPX, so saying I'm teasing you for being an SSPX supporter makes me look bad, just like things you said about Tele made him look bad -- unfairly. It's funny how you just keep racking up comments like this that paint people in a negative light, but then you just say "Oops, it's an accident, at least I didn't blaspheme" and all is supposed to be forgiven. This happens over and over again. Is it an accident? That's a lot of accidents so far.
Here, let's try putting the shoe on the other foot. "I like Spiritus even though he murders people..." Then you will write a post saying "I don't murder people." Then I'll say "Okay, I apologize for saying he murders people, but last week when he was molesting children I thought he said that he did." Do you see that that's frustrating?
-
Raoul, I'm willing to admit I was wrong. I acted arrogant, pushy, and jumped to conclusions. And I'm not being sarcastic here either, I'm serious. My apologies to you, Raoul. I lost my cool, my posts were ridiculously off and if I could do it over I would have disagreed with Tele and would have left it at that. I still think the thing about me saying she was 14 wasn't as big of a deal as it was made out to be, but regardless I was wrong. I won't say anything about Tele on this thread anymore. I realize that I acted like a jerk. I'm just ready to learn from my mistakes and move on. That's all there is to it. I won't comment on this issue anymore.
-
Telesphorus, this gal is 5 years older than you. 38 and still good looking! Or am I delusional?
:
How old are you CS?
Young men don't always have the best judgement.
Speaking of which, my younger brother is 24 and in medical school, and I really worry about some unscrupulous woman getting her claws into him.
-
When I was his age there were all sorts of unsuitable women my age that I easily would have fell for - many of them older than me, I would have easily been hooked. I look upon it as providential that I was overweight and rather unnattractive at the time. I had a girlfriend 4 1/2 years older than me but she couldn't accept that I wanted many children. At that age I would have been afraid to pursue a woman near 18. At that age my attitudes were still heavily NO - I saw nothing wrong with disparity of cult so long as the children could be raised Catholic.
Time gives you perspective and common sense.
-
Yes, it is pure common sense that the incredible indignation and hostility to an older man (not an old man, a man who can still be called young) pursuing a younger woman has nothing to do with concern for the moral well-being of younger women. Absolutely nothing.
When a man is called a pervert for wishing to marry a young innocent woman, it is an attitude enabled by feminist imposed mass hysteria and driven by jealous spite.
-
When a man is called a pervert for wishing to marry a young innocent woman, it is an attitude enabled by feminist imposed mass hysteria and driven by jealous spite.
Bingo
-
That was a good apology, Stevus, but why is it directed to me? You didn't do anything to me. A certain man with a mustache is waiting for his turn.
He did cross the line by calling you evil and wicked. I'd be surprised if he really thinks that, but you have to know it's a sore subject when someone's name is besmirched and they can't get anyone to believe them. You were rubbing it in.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to Telesphorus Re-Orientation School where they will teach me that all men who don't want to marry ethnic teenage virgins are sick and under the influence of feminists who are overreacting to Latin machismo. The next time you see me, I will be engaged to Selena Gomez.
-
That was a good apology, Stevus, but why is it directed to me? You didn't do anything to me. A certain man with a mustache is waiting for his turn.
He did cross the line by calling you evil and wicked. I'd be surprised if he really thinks that, but you have to know it's a sore subject when someone's name is besmirched and they can't get anyone to believe them. You were rubbing it in.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to Telesphorus Re-Orientation School where they will teach me that all men who don't want to marry ethnic teenage virgins are sick and under the influence of feminists who are overreacting to Latin machismo. The next time you see me, I will be engaged to Selena Gomez.
You should think about the reasons feminists and fathers oppose early marriage and age differences. Their motivations are similar and related to each other.
-
Raoul, I think you meant SS, not Stevus.
Tele, not to say that you're implying this, but do you have any reason to believe that the specific father you were dealing with is opposed to his daughter marrying at a young age?
-
Tele, not to say that you're implying this, but do you have any reason to believe that the specific father you were dealing with is opposed to his daughter marrying at a young age?
I don't know, I'm speaking in general. A father thinks of what the world thinks - and so he's influenced in that way - it is seen as reflecting badly on him to allow his daughter to marry young - especially to someone older - but what is the attitude that fathers and feminists share?
They think some 30 something "loser" has no right to bind himself to a young woman who has so much to "accomplish" - they can't see that being a young mother with many children is a great accomplishment. Feminists of course would also be outraged by the fact that I'm a traditional Catholic. And in some sense, I can't help thinking many fathers would hold religious men in contempt.
The Latin idiosyncrasies are the way he forbade saying hello to me, ever talking to me freely, pretending that she never showed any interest in me - the way I was finally booted out of Church.
-
I once posted on a forum where a certain poster was called "ArrogantAtheist" - he was usually polite - and every now and then he made a good point:
Once he pointed out that 100 years ago no one is going to care about the jobs today's women had. No one is going to care about their "careers."
100 years ago what will matter is their descendants, how many they have, and what they are doing.
-
Tele, not to say that you're implying this, but do you have any reason to believe that the specific father you were dealing with is opposed to his daughter marrying at a young age?
I don't know, I'm speaking in general. A father thinks of what the world thinks - and so he's influenced in that way - it is seen as reflecting badly on him to allow his daughter to marry young - but what is the attitude that fathers and feminists share?
They think some 30 something "loser" has no right to bind himself to a young woman who has so much to "accomplish" - they can't see that being a young mother with many children is a great accomplishment. Feminists of course would also be outraged by the fact that I'm a traditional Catholic. And in some sense, I can't help thinking many fathers would hold religious men in contempt.
The Latin idiosyncrasies are the way he forbade saying anything to me, ever talking to me freely, pretended she never showed any interest to me - the way I was finally booted out of Church.
Tele you keep talking marriage, but all there was from her side, was just some flirtation. Your have taken this flirtation as if she had made some commitment to marry you, which is not at all the case.
-
Yeah, SS.
Telesphorus said:
You should think about the reasons feminists and fathers oppose early marriage and age differences. Their motivations are similar and related to each other.
I have received the information -- sifted the information -- probed and analyzed it -- then spit it back out, finding it wanting.
Feminists -- Aging and bitter and realizing that promiscuity has led them to a lonely existence, resentful of those who are younger and who have a chance at a happier life, acting for reasons that are never Catholic
Macho Latin fathers -- Wanting their children to make what they consider to be a more desirable match, for reasons that may or may not be Catholic
The fact is, this really may be an inappropriate match. You may not have enough money, there could be any number of problems her dad has with you besides your age. That doesn't make it right for him to try to sic the police on you, or for the priest to forbid her to talk to you, of course.
I think you are hurt and lashing out in all directions, not thinking clearly. Are you saying these are "feminists" in your church? I strongly, strongly doubt it. You are turning something simple and basic into some abstract and tormented ideological combat. What you describe as feminists would simply be jealous older women.
But even then, for your logic to hold, the same jealous women would be equally jealous of a couple where both parties are eighteen years old, because you're saying they're jealous of youth...
Therefore, my diagnosis is that we live in a country that has some traces of Puritanism even within its Catholicism, and that this has infected the traditional Catholic community, as I have seen with other issues. The women at your church, far from being jealous, genuinely find it ooky that you are courting a young girl, though it's not. Where you see feminism and machismo, I see American puritanism, that is also prevalent with trads and especially SSPX in this country.
-
It just seems you're muddying the difference between marrying young and marrying an older man.
I think a trad Dad would accept (even if he's a bit stuck in worldly ideas) his daughter marrying at age 18 before he'd cozy up to the idea of her marrying a man a decade older than herself.
-
I think a trad Dad would accept (even if he's a bit stuck in worldly ideas) his daughter marrying at age 18 before he'd cozy up to the idea of her marrying a man a decade older than herself.
Maybe so, but certainly if a girl wasn't 18 but 23 or 24, they would have much more difficulty imposing their will and preventing marriage to a 37 or 38 year old.
-
Something I can't believe no one has mentioned -- the moustache. That is a rather louche moustache, one that verily screams "Don't trust me." Now, Tele has a nice face, kind and intelligent eyes. But that kind of moustache he has is subliminally associated with villains in films, with womanizing rakehells, perhaps even with perverts.
Put this together with his mania for young girls and virgins, and it's easy to see why an inaccurate picture of Tele may be painted. Tele, you don't make it easy on yourself. You have to have some awareness of how you come off to the outside world, you can't just say "I'm nice and they should see it."
That is what I was saying earlier, I would not spend two hours talking to a 16-year old girl in the library at CMRI as I did this weekend with somenone nearer to 30. It's common sense. You have to understand the misgivings people have about that, right or wrong, and learn to work with them. If you don't listen to me, you will never have your virgin bride.
-
I think you are hurt and lashing out in all directions, not thinking clearly. Are you saying these are "feminists" in your church?
Yes, there are people strongly influenced by a feminist society. Including the priests - who I think are often much more liberal than they let on.
I strongly, strongly doubt it. You are turning something simple and basic into some abstract and tormented ideological combat.
There is an ideological component to it, I have no doubt about that. My political views even might have something to do with it.
But even then, for your logic to hold, the same jealous women would be equally jealous of a couple where both parties are eighteen years old, because you're saying they're jealous of youth...
No, that's dead wrong. They don't want some "loser" "pervert" marrying a young girl - and they don't want early marriage at all, generally speaking. It is hatred of men - in particular, older men that like younger women.
Therefore, my diagnosis is that we live in a country that has some traces of Puritanism even within its Catholicism,
I don't blame the Puritans. Americanism, Jansenism perhaps?
and that this has infected the traditional Catholic community, as I have seen with other issues. The women at your church, far from being jealous, genuinely find it ooky that you are courting a young girl, though it's not. Where you see feminism and machismo, I see American puritanism, that is also prevalent with trads and especially SSPX in this country.
I don't think women are really disgusted by it. More they are indignant about it. I caught one of the mothers - after all this had started to become a problem (the one whose daugher liked me, the one who waited to interview me after church) smiling at me out of the corner of my eye and when I went inside church one day. When I looked at her suddenly she started frowning intensely. Those mothers might be afraid of me and afraid for their daughters, but they aren't disgusted by me. The mother of the girl I liked even smiled at me when I greeted her leaving church one day - I think she had overheard me talking about my situation.
-
Seems to me, Tele's "story" keeps getting bigger and bigger.
-
Delayed marriage, women being pushed into work, and collapse of the birthrate is being seen in nearly all civilized countries now.
There really is a powerful world movement conspiring against Catholic marriage - and the chief weapon is the collective influence on those attitudes people take for granted without thinking about them.
Yes, traditional Catholics are profoundly affected by the propaganda of this movement, even when they defy it in various ways.
-
Telesphorus said:
I don't think women are really disgusted by it. More they are indignant about it. I caught one of the mothers - after all this had started to become a problem (the one whose daugher liked me, the one who waited to interview me after church) smiling at me out of the corner of my eye and when I went inside church one day. When I looked at her suddenly she started frowning intensely. Those mothers might be afraid of me and afraid for their mothers, but they aren't disgusted by me. The mother of the girl I liked even smiled at me.
I didn't say they were disgusted by you physically. These women can find you attractive without thinking you're an appropriate match for a teenage girl, okay? If Errol Flynn was in your church it would be the same dynamic. They may find him handsome, it doesn't mean they want him manhandling virgins.
One mother was smiling at you and then frowning at you. What does that mean? You mean when she saw your dashing matinee idol visage, she began dreamily smiling, but then when you saw her looking, she caught herself and pretended to disapprove?
I believe you're telling the truth, but that it is conceited to even say it out loud, and that this conceit is another strike against you at that church. You do seem very pleased with yourself.
Let's say all this is true and that you are the studball of the church. Then this still has nothing whatsoever to do with feminism. It's just what I said above -- they think you're handsome, but that you aren't an appropriate match for this girl, perhaps because you seem too enigmatic or dangerous or something, I don't know.
Tele, you are not innocent-looking. If I were in your position, I'd have a wedding ring on my finger by now, because I have a harmless look. You don't. I hate to break it to you. You're handsome, but not innocent-looking, even though you probably are more innocent than me. You have that mustache, you have grey hair, you dress tweedy, you smirk, you could be in your forties, you have the air of a distinguished gentleman but not of a man-child.
-
I didn't say they were disgusted by you physically. These women can find you attractive without thinking you're an appropriate match for a teenage girl, okay?
I'm not saying the mothers found me attractive. I think they were amused, to some degree, about the way their daughters had acted. It also frightened them.
I believe you're telling the truth, but that it is conceited to even say it out loud, and that this conceit is another strike against you at that church. You do seem very pleased with yourself.
Listen Raoul, you were saying they genuinely thought it was "ooky" - I don't think so. The opposition is intense because it is based mainly on fear of embarassment, not on disgust.
Let's say all this is true and that you are the studball of the church. Then this still has nothing whatsoever to do with feminism. It's just what I said above -- they think you're handsome, but that you aren't an appropriate match for this girl, perhaps because you seem too enigmatic or dangerous or something, I don't know.
It has nothing to do with that. I didn't mean it that way. I meant simply that if they really thought it was somehow disgusting they wouldn't have been partially amused by the situation.
-
The fathers never showed the slightest amusement - in contrast to the mothers.
-
So the young women but not the older women liked you?
Okay, so they were amused by the reactions of their daughters. The Puerto Rican may have felt like his daughter was in heat and it wasn't true love, and maybe some of the mothers went along with that. Mix this in with another mother who wanted you for her older daughter, and when she saw you weren't interested, she was offended and threw in her lot with the outraged mob.
There you go, simple gossip and rivalry. Not feminism.
-
There you go, simple gossip and rivalry. Not feminism.
No, it was feminism. And the priest had the same attitude. He even gave a sermon about how young people are "less mature" so it's natural to delay marriage.
-
But without having any glimpses into the mind of the "Puerto Rican," all speculation is futile. He shut you down without any explanation, unfortunately. At that point you have two choices, elope or move on to other pastures.
-
So the young women but not the older women liked you?
Okay, so they were amused by the reactions of their daughters. The Puerto Rican may have felt like his daughter was in heat and it wasn't true love, and maybe some of the mothers went along with that. Mix this in with another mother who wanted you for her older daughter, and when she saw you weren't interested, she was offended and threw in her lot with the outraged mob.
There you go, simple gossip and rivalry. Not feminism.
Raoul, one of the girls - the one I met at the opera, the one I foolishly confided in, had an account on fish eaters. I'll PM you a link to her posts - you might see what I mean.
-
An example:
I work a lot. I have a marketing job in a corporation. I'm 21, and I feel that in this environment I can't help but develop the distasteful qualities of being an independent, feminist career woman.
My question is: should I focus on being the very best marketing communications specialist I can be (since after all that is my state in life) and be satisifed that I am doing God's Will?
-
No, it was feminism. And the priest had the same attitude. He even gave a sermon about how young people are "less mature" so it's natural to delay marriage.
Ah, now we get down to brass tacks. I've heard you preaching this theory before and I could only ever agree halfway. You make good points, but there are holes.
That is not feminism. That is practical reality. We are not living in a Catholic society with a Catholic social structure, but we are in the midst of Babylon, in a very, very complicated era, financially, spiritually and everything else. There is nothing wrong with saying that girls should have a bit more maturity to get married. Bishop Williamson says it, my confirmation teacher at CMRI says it, I can't think of many trads who don't say it.
To chalk it up to feminism is a gross exaggeration. Feminism tells girls they need to be independent and to never rely on any man; what the trads are saying here is that it may take a bit of age to be able to see through the traps of our time. Do you know any teenage girls who can put together the whole geo-political situation as it is, who know about ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry, who are on their guard against the lies and snares of this illusory madhouse of a society?
This is the result of living in a feminist society known as America, yes. But it is a defensive reaction, not a shared ethos.
-
This is the result of living in a feminist society known as America, yes. But it is a defensive reaction, not a shared ethos.
Raoul it's the duty of the priest to teach Catholic doctrine not to argue that it is normal to delay marriage in this current time and place because of "immaturity" - the statement is morally relativistic and personalist.
The priests should be teaching that the modern world is wrong- that young people are being prevented from assuming responsibilities - not that they are somehow "immature" and therefore should conform to today's social customs. You can drive a truck through claims about "maturity" - that's what the annulment tribunals do.
When I heard that sermon I finally realized where the society was headed. I'd had clues up to then. You know I told this to a mission priest in confession - and he was a bit surprised and disturbed about it. He even made a point in one of his sermons to say that if a girl has a high school diploma she's ready for marriage.
That seemed to get the Puerto Rican's attention - he looked over at his wife.
-
I work a lot. I have a marketing job in a corporation. I'm 21, and I feel that in this environment I can't help but develop the distasteful qualities of being an independent, feminist career woman.
My question is: should I focus on being the very best marketing communications specialist I can be (since after all that is my state in life) and be satisifed that I am doing God's Will?
Okay, Tele. If a girl isn't married at 18, you call her a budding spinster. Now this girl is supporting herself, and you want to call her a feminist.
Bishop Williamson, who is quite insightful on these subjects, says that some girls simply have to work, and especially in the trad world, not everyone can get married. What do you want her to do? She's on her guard against the feminism inherent in her situation, she said it straightaway.
The answer to her second question is "No, you shouldn't be satisfied," you should hope for a husband to marry you and support you, but until then, you should make the "best of a bad job," in Bp. Williamson's words.
-
I work a lot. I have a marketing job in a corporation. I'm 21, and I feel that in this environment I can't help but develop the distasteful qualities of being an independent, feminist career woman.
My question is: should I focus on being the very best marketing communications specialist I can be (since after all that is my state in life) and be satisifed that I am doing God's Will?
Okay, Tele. If a girl isn't married at 18, you call her a budding spinster. Now this girl is supporting herself, and you want to call her a feminist.
Bishop Williamson, who is quite insightful on these subjects, says that some girls simply have to work, and especially in the trad world, not everyone can get married. What do you want her to do? She's on her guard against the feminism inherent in her situation, she said it straightaway.
The answer to her second question is "No, you shouldn't be satisfied," you should hope for a husband to marry you and support you, but until then, you should make the "best of a bad job," in Bp. Williamson's words.
I didn't say she was a feminist. I said she had feminist attitudes. When I confided in her the first thing she said was that "she's too young for you." Look at how she said she was going to miss G.W. Bush.
And her good friend is a pro-life advocate who lives in Washington DC - she talks about "authentic feminism" as part of her prolife message.
-
Raoul, one of the girls - the one I met at the opera, the one I foolishly confided in, had an account on fish eaters.
This should have been your first clue she was trouble! :idea:
-
Really, there are much more important issues at stake than the h0Ɩ0cαųst. i.e., matters of faith and morals that are confusing so many souls. Thank goodness Bishop Fellay is staying on the message so we don't all look like crackpots.
So Bush was dead-on in his last news conference this week when he said the biggest security threat facing Obama will be another attack on the United States:
"That will be the major threat," Bush said. "I wish that I could report that's not the case, but there's still an enemy out there that would like to inflict damage on America — on Americans."
I'm going to miss him. He's had a tough time of it and it really turned his hair grey. I heard he's thinking about converting to Catholicism.
-
Telesphorus said:
The priests should be teaching that the modern world is wrong- that young people are being prevented from assuming responsibilities - not that they are somehow "immature" and therefore we should conform to society.
Pharisaical. This is like the "back to Augustine" attitude of the Feeneyites and Jansenists. We're in the modern world, certain adjustments have to be made. It doesn't do any good to pretend we're in 12th century France and the farmer girl and the farmer boy can get married and have eighteen kids. We live in a society that puts immense pressure on people, that fools them, that traps them. I didn't even begin to have a clue about how evil this society was until I was 30.
Young people are more immature than ever, and the enemies of the faith are more mature than ever. That is the reality, Tele. Do I need to point you to the stats on foreclosed homes to show you why? The emphasis should be on spiritual maturity, not on diplomas, that much I agree with.
I don't understand why anyone would want to get married at all, seeing what's coming down the pike. But that's another story.
-
Raoul, one of the girls - the one I met at the opera, the one I foolishly confided in, had an account on fish eaters.
This should have been your first clue she was trouble! :idea:
I didn't realize it at the time Stevus.
-
Well, Tele, if you are scandalized by those quotes and think things will be better when you enter sede-land, think again :roll-laugh1:
-
Pharisaical. This is like the "back to Augustine" attitude of the Feeneyites and Jansenists.
Let the modernists talk about immaturity. The good mission priest told it how it is - a girl who has a high school diploma is generally ready for marriage.
Young people are more immature than ever,
Raoul, I don't agree, they grow up faster than ever, and the fact that young people can't get good jobs when they're young doesn't mean they're immature.
-
Was the SSPX priest telling girls to go to college, to get careers? I am willing to bet you money the answer is "No."
-
Was the SSPX priest telling girls to go to college, to get careers? I am willing to bet you money the answer is "No."
He was telling them it's normal to delay marriage. That's no different than telling them to get careers.
-
Telesphorus said:
Raoul, I don't agree, they grow up faster than ever,
You mean they sin at younger ages than ever before, they lose their innocence faster, that's not growing up, that is not spiritual maturity.
Telesphorus said:and the fact that young people can't get good jobs when they're young doesn't mean they're immature.
True, they can't get good jobs because the baby boomers sucked the well dry, our nation's economy is based on debt, and we are rapidly being deindustrialized. That is another reason why we are in a precarious spot. Our generation is doomed to an extreme poverty beyond compare, once the boom drops.
I don't see how it is a bad thing to take some time to prepare for hard days ahead, to think about what you're doing.
-
You mean they sin at younger ages than ever before, they lose their innocence faster, that's not growing up, that is not spiritual maturity.
So the problem is not a lack of maturity, it's a lack of innocence. But he sticks with that ugly word "maturity" - a word that really doesn't apply. Like I said, those annulment tribunals love that word "maturity."
"You were never really married because you were not mature enough to be married!"
The priest is playing right into that.
True, they can't get good jobs because the baby boomers sucked the well dry, our nation's economy is based on debt, and we are rapidly being deindustrialized.
Right - they "sucked the well dry" - and now they accuse us of immaturity while they are the ones in large part responsible for their children having fewer opportunities.
-
Telesphorus said:
He was telling them it's normal to delay marriage. That's no different than telling them to get careers.
***BUZZ*** Another untenable connection, like the one between feminism and machismo.
As Caminus is wont to say, there is a distinction here.
There is trust in providence, and then there is simply not using your noodle. We have had this argument on the site in other threads. What shows more trust in God, to prepare based on the signs of the times, or to just do what you're going to do and hope it all works out? Obviously I believe the former. Mary and Joseph fled Egypt when they had to, they didn't sit there at home and hope God would make them invisible.
-
***BUZZ*** Another untenable connection, like the one between feminism and machismo.
As Caminus is wont to say, there is a distinction here.
No, in practical terms there is not - if they aren't getting married, what will they be doing? Going to school. Starting a career. It really is that simple.
I've already posted from Feminism: Its Fallacies and Follies that college education of women is disastrous for marriage and fertility. What we can see around the world now, is that college education of women everywhere is having the same effect.
-
Right - they "sucked the well dry" - and now they accuse us of immaturity while they are the ones in large part responsible for their children having fewer opportunities.
Yes, and they accuse us of laziness and sloth. They form their little Tea Party based on the principle of economic liberalism i.e. sheer greed, the exact same one that resulted in jobs being shipped off for fifty cents an hour to slaves in third-world countries, which in turn resulted in the deindustrialization of the West, which in turn resulted in no one having any spending power, which is what will bring this nation and the entire world down.
Then they tell people who are starving because they can't find work that they just need to work harder and be more like the Chinese, to stop demanding benefits, to not join unions, to man up and pitch in for the win, to help those poor, poor corporations that sucked them dry in the first place ( you will hear them sometimes moan that the corporations are overtaxed and that's why they have to hire people in India, boo hoo hoo )... And then, to add insult to injury, they call this "freedom."
Capitalism and communism have merged into one hideous beast. I am well-aware of how unspeakably revolting American society is, Telesphorus. That is why preparation is necessary. It's a trap, don't you get it? Anyway, I doubt the priest qualifies as one of the baby boomers who put us in this situation.
-
All right, I have to get off, I'll be back tomorrow.
-
Tele you keep talking marriage, but all there was from her side, was just some flirtation. Your have taken this flirtation as if she had made some commitment to marry you, which is not at all the case.
"Just some flirtation"
So was she just teasing me for a year?
If I took her acting that way for a year seriously, somehow that means I think she was making a "commitment to marry me"? - I made the natural assumption she liked me and was interested in me. That is what I was accused of being crazy for saying - accused of being crazy for saying I was sure she liked me because of the way she acted. Accused of being crazy for saying that if they didn't let me speak to her alone, freely, that they couldn't expect me to believe them that she had no interest in me, based on her actions. For thinking she was a good Catholic, not a dirty tease. I still don't think she's a dirty tease, but who knows, may those people who say she was just teasing me are right. Her father knows how she acted. I suppose he really thinks his daughter is just a tease, so he really believes her when she told me, in a remark that was clearly prepared beforehand - that she had never had feelings for me?
As a Catholic, when I pursue a girl, I'm thinking of marriage. If she was just thinking of teasing and flirting, and doing it for a year, what does that say about her?
-
Tele you keep talking marriage, but all there was from her side, was just some flirtation. Your have taken this flirtation as if she had made some commitment to marry you, which is not at all the case.
"Just some flirtation"
So was she just teasing me for a year?
If I took her acting that way for a year seriously, somehow that means I think she was making a "commitment to marry me"? - I made the natural assumption she liked me and was interested in me. That is what I was accused of being crazy for saying - accused of being crazy for saying I was sure she liked me because of the way she acted. Accused of being crazy for saying that if they didn't let me speak to her alone, freely, that they couldn't expect me to believe them that she had no interest in me, based on her actions. For thinking she was a good Catholic, not a dirty tease. I still don't think she's a dirty tease, but who knows, may those people who say she was just teasing me are right. Her father knows how she acted. I suppose he really thinks his daughter is just a tease, so he really believes her when she told me, in a remark that was clearly prepared beforehand - that she had never had feelings for me?
As a Catholic, when I pursue a girl, I'm thinking of marriage. If she was just thinking of teasing and flirting, and doing it for a year, what does that say about her?
It says you made the wrong assumption.
And Tele, calling the girl a dirty tease shows that you cannot handle it when things don't go your way.
-
It says you made the wrong assumption.
Which one is that? You never answer the argument, you just make insulting pronouncements. Because you are a typical nasty illogical woman.
Either the girl is a dirty tease for flirting with me for a year, or she had feelings for me.
It has to be one or the other. Or are you going to now claim she never flirted with me?
That would be what the priest and her father would do.
First it would be one excuse, then the other. Always maliciously dishonest.
And they NEVER let me speak to her alone.
-
And Tele, calling the girl a dirty tease shows that you cannot handle it when things don't go your way.
No it certainly does not. Any girl who would flirt for a man for a year without any intentions or feelings at all - is a dirty tease.
Once again you show there's no reasoning with you - it's just one dirty insult after another.
It shows "I can't handle when things go my way" for saying that a girl who teases a man for a year with no feelings is a dirty tease?
Is she isn't a dirty tease, what is she? What do you call a girl who flirts for a man who clearly likes her a lot for a whole year, without having any feelings for him?
-
It says you made the wrong assumption.
Which one is that? You never answer the argument, you just make insulting pronouncements. Because you are a typical nasty illogical woman.
Either the girl is a dirty tease for flirting with me for a year, or she had feelings for me.
It has to be one or the other. Or are you going to now claim she never flirted with me?
That would be what the priest and her father would do.
First it would be one excuse, then the other. Always maliciously dishonest.
And they NEVER let me speak to her alone.
There you go Tele, maybe that is part of what the girl's father saw in you. Your un-hinged outbursts.
-
There you go Tele, maybe that is part of what the girl's father saw in you. Your un-hinged outbursts.
I don't take being insulted laying down. You call it "unhinged" if you like. When priests baldly lie to my face I don't take it lightly.
Once again, you don't answer the argument. Because you have no argument. You only have insults and mockery.
You're also trying to provoke me. Why don't you identify yourself?
Yes, the priest is a malicious liar relishing my humiliation, and you also relish my humiliation, and you think you're succeeding in making me look bad by provoking me. But everyone can see how malicious and twisted you are in trying to provoke me.
You're clearly invested in representing me as being crazy and being delusional. Why is that? Why the profound investment in seeing me that way?
-
I'll be perfectly honest with you Tele. If I had a daughter around the age that you target, I would not want her anywhere near you.
-
I'll be perfectly honest with you Tele. If I had a daughter around the age that you target, I would not want her anywhere near you.
Wow. another insult - what a surprise. You are only interested in insulting me. Why this profound desire to insult me?
And guess what LM. If your daughter was someone I would have any interest in, something I very much doubt, judging by your own lack of decency, you would have no authority to keep me away.
-
Either the girl is a dirty tease for flirting with me for a year, or she had feelings for me.
Possibility #3
She was simply not mature enough to know that she shouldn't be randomly flirting with guys... if she was even aware that what she was doing was flirting at all.
-
Possibility #3
She was simply not mature enough to know that she shouldn't be randomly flirting with guys... if she was even aware that what she was doing was flirting at all.
She knew exactly what she was told she should be doing Mater, and she was absolutely aware of it.
What you're saying is similar to the maneuver the priest and her father would do. First they'd give one explanation, one excuse, then another - when they were hemmed in there - then they would resort to saying I was imagining it, grossly exaggerating it, etc.
The girl followed me down a dark stair case with no one else around. That she was waiting for me, very enthusiastic about seeing me - was completely obvious.
Does that mean "she's not mature enough to know she shouldn't do that" -
-
Possibility #3
She was simply not mature enough to know that she shouldn't be randomly flirting with guys... if she was even aware that what she was doing was flirting at all.
She knew exactly what she was told she should be doing Mater, and she was absolutely aware of it.
What you're saying is similar to the maneuver the priest and her father would do. First they'd give one explanation, one excuse, then another - when they were hemmed in there - then they would resort to saying I was imagining it, grossly exaggerating it, etc.
The girl followed me down a dark stair case with no one else around. That she was waiting for me, very enthusiastic about seeing me - was completely obvious.
Does that mean "she's not mature enough to know she shouldn't do that" -
And I didn't try to touch her or talk to her. I thought it wouldn't be right. At the bottom of the steps I held the door for her. But the sick pharisees are so invested in making me out to be predatory and delusional. They are truly spiteful and malicious people.
-
Let's look at LM's insults and provocations:
First the claim I'm obsessed with teenagers because I said women my age are past the bloom of youth.
Then the claim I'm lying, imagining things.
Then talking about me being unhinged when I get after LM posts one insult after another to me.
Then lying and claiming I believed the girl "had committed to marrying me."
Saying "my story is getting bigger and bigger"
Bringing up that I said I had received the first message banning me from church after I'd posted the link to that study of Mexican marriage customs - as though it was some sort of "gotcha"
Then the standard childish line "well I don't want you near my daughter"
So infantile. This person is inspired by blind hatred.
-
Possibility #3
She was simply not mature enough to know that she shouldn't be randomly flirting with guys... if she was even aware that what she was doing was flirting at all.
This is where the priest's advice is warranted. For the young girls to wait a time before they contemplate marriage. This extra time allows them mature more fully in matters of romance and marriage.
-
Delete
-
This is where the priest's advice is warranted. For the young girls to wait a time before they contemplate marriage. This extra time allows them mature more fully in matters of romance and marriage.
Sorry LM, but the priest and her father have no right to tell her she may not even say hello to me. Never to speak to me privately. It's sick. You hate and despise me for daring to think it is acceptable for a man my age to want to marry a teenage girl. That's pure pharisaism.
You approve of this nonsense about "maturity", because you aren't concerned about what the Church teaches. You're concerned about modern values. Your values are like the values of the annulment tribunals who will dissolve any early marriage on the grounds of "immaturity." You regard adults who are fully capable of understanding their actions and of making decisions - as being "immature" - because in this context it's convenient for controlling fathers and for people who are opposed to early marriage.
But it has nothing to do with human nature or Catholic teaching.
-
I'm back. I have a problem, what can I say. I need CathInfo detox.
Tele knows the girl better than any of us. If he says she's not teasing, it's good enough for me.
I can imagine a young girl flirting without necessarily wanting to be married. It's like throwing the line out and seeing what she can catch. But if she continued flirting after some guy became desperately lovesick over her, while having no intention to have relationship with him, yeah, that would be unconscionable.
I can think of one young girl at my church that I believe tried to catch my eye but I always look away. In that case, it's all so ambiguous that the flirtation, if that's what it is, is harmless. I haven't taken any signals from it and don't pursue her. She can look up at me under lowered lashes for another year, but it's not going anywhere, it's harmless. It just feels like a young girl trying to get some attention.
But in Tele's case there was more, his paramour knew he was falling hard. Young girls aren't so stupid that they don't know what that means or that it's serious.
-
Possibility #3
She was simply not mature enough to know that she shouldn't be randomly flirting with guys... if she was even aware that what she was doing was flirting at all.
She knew exactly what she was told she should be doing Mater, and she was absolutely aware of it.
I'm not certain what you mean by this... can you rephrase?
The girl followed me down a dark stair case with no one else around. That she was waiting for me, very enthusiastic about seeing me - was completely obvious.
Does that mean "she's not mature enough to know she shouldn't do that" -
Absolutely.
It probably means she was interested in you, but that doesn't mean she was ready to ignore her father and run off with you. Until she was ready to toss aside her parents whom she knew disapproved, she shouldn't have been flirting with you.
Since I had to rock the baby just now, I was musing with Matthew about all that I did and didn't know at age 18. I hope this girl isn't as dumb as I was then but I know some nearly 30 year olds who are still quite naive about how they should and shouldn't act around single men when they aren't interested in a relationship.
-
Young girls aren't so stupid that they don't know what that means or that it's serious.
Many, many are exactly that stupid.
(OK, I'm not mean ... they're not stupid, just naive.)
-
She knew exactly what she was told she should be doing Mater, and she was absolutely aware of it.
I will give you an example. In choir the choir director would always have the girls facing the boys. Every now and then I'd catch her glance and our eyes would meet - and we'd both smile.
One day I saw her turn around and kneel down in the middle of choir practice. The choir director asked where she was.
That priest told me to "drop to my knees in prayer" when I was having troublesome thoughts.
-
I still can't agree with some of your sweeping generalizations, Tele, but I sympathize with your plight.
Mostly we're on the same page but we see it with two different sets of glasses with two different focal lengths.
It's good to take a breather and think. I realize that "maturity" is a nebulous concept. That much I agree with. Who is to define when "maturity" has been reached?
What are the criteria of this maturity?
However, I disagree that generally cautioning people against rushing into marriage is feminism or machismo or part of some giant conspiracy against marriage, or anything else but pragmatism. The SSPX has many huge families. To call them anti-marriage is off target.
There are many reasons why an 18-year old or even a withered crone of 22 might stop and think before rushing into marriage with you, or why her father might be against it. We don't know what those reasons are -- they might be good, they might be trash. But if they used her age as an excuse, have you considered that that's all it might be? An easy excuse? Her dad didn't want you around her, so using her youth was just an easy way to make that happen.
You are just making all these connections, someone says that the girl is too young for you, and instantly you connect this with the priest saying that young people should be mature. That is why you can't see the intent behind what the priest said, which was not to destroy the institution of marriage but simply to urge caution -- not the same as urging feminism or career-womanism.
To take your own personal disappointment and turn it into a conspiracy against marriage itself strikes me as over-the-top. This is just one of those awkward moments that can occur in the life of a "parish."
-
I'm back. I have a problem, what can I say. I need CathInfo detox.
I was thinking that just today -- I need to change my tagline to something like, "CathInfo -- because not everyone can afford Crack."
-
I still can't agree with some of your sweeping generalizations, Tele, but I sympathize with your plight.
Mostly we're on the same page but we see it with two different sets of glasses with two different focal lengths.
It's good to take a breather and think. I realize that "maturity" is a nebulous concept. That much I agree with. Who is to define when "maturity" has been reached?
What are the criteria of this maturity?
However, I disagree that generally cautioning people against rushing into marriage is feminism or machismo or part of some giant conspiracy against marriage, or anything else but pragmatism. The SSPX has many huge families. To call them anti-marriage is off target.
There are many reasons why an 18-year old or even a withered crone of 22 might stop and think before rushing into marriage with you, or why her father might be against it. We don't know what those reasons are -- they might be good, they might be trash. But if they used her age as an excuse, have you considered that that's all it might be? An easy excuse? Her dad didn't want you around her, so using her youth was just an easy way to make that happen.
You are just making all these connections, someone says that the girl is too young for you, and instantly you connect this with the priest saying that young people should be mature. That is why you can't see the intent behind what the priest said, which was not to destroy the institution of marriage but simply to urge caution -- not the same as urging feminism or career-womanism.
To take your own personal disappointment and turn it into a conspiracy against marriage itself strikes me as over-the-top. This is just one of those awkward moments that can occur in the life of a "parish."
There is clearly a movement in the society to discourage early marriages, and I would say there even seems to be more encouragement of NFP judging by some of the new families not growing as you would expect.
There's a movement for liberalization in the SSPX. It's not just a matter of the Jєωιѕн question, although any turn towards PC on the Jєωιѕн question would mean liberalization is inevitable anyway.
-
I'm back. I have a problem, what can I say. I need CathInfo detox.
Tele knows the girl better than any of us. If he says she's not teasing, it's good enough for me.
I can imagine a young girl flirting without necessarily wanting to be married. It's like throwing the line out and seeing what she can catch. But if she continued flirting after some guy became desperately lovesick over her, while having no intention to have relationship with him, yeah, that would be unconscionable.
I can think of one young girl at my church that I believe tried to catch my eye but I always look away. In that case, it's all so ambiguous that the flirtation, if that's what it is, is harmless. I haven't taken any signals from it and don't pursue her. She can look up at me under lowered lashes for another year, but it's not going anywhere, it's harmless. It just feels like a young girl trying to get some attention.
But in Tele's case there was more, his paramour knew he was falling hard. Young girls aren't so stupid that they don't know what that means or that it's serious.
Since we are not privy to the girls thoughts and we cannot make an assumption that she was ready to put on Tele's ring. She was 17 when she met him. I believe it was mention that the girl was home schooled, which more than likely means she grew up in a very sheltered environment. Maturity in the romance department would surely be lacking.
-
She may not have been ready to put on the ring, LM, but I still say young girls know when the flirting has reached a certain level of intensity and has become serious. They know the difference between flirting and getting some guy obsessed. Even animals have a sensitivity and awareness, let alone 17-year old girls. If she was frightened by Tele's avid, hungry gaze, she would have stopped giving him signs and looks.
Remember her father said she wasn't interested in Tele at all, and this much has been disproved almost conclusively. The worst-case scenario for Tele is that she was an unconscionable flirt who was playing with his heart. But she clearly showed interest.
-
This is where I have a problem with Tele's reasoning --
You regard adults who are fully capable of understanding their actions and of making decisions - as being "immature" - because in this context it's convenient for controlling fathers and for people who are opposed to early marriage.
Step back and look at this Tele. Look hard.
:tinfoil:
First of all, it wouldn't even BE early marriage, because you are 33. If this girl wanted to marry another 18-year old, for all you know, her dad would have approved. Your argument would then have fallen to dust.
Do you or do you not understand that someone can be against a marriage of a younger woman and older man without being an enemy of "early marriage" or the sacrament of marriage itself, that there are any number of reasons for this, reasons that you don't know because you don't have psychic insight into the mind of the "Puerto Rican"? Do you see you have made a connection between the priest's speeches about "maturity" and the Puerto Rican that isn't really there?
-
It's them PR's:
(Sorry -- all this talk about Puerto Ricans, particularly in a negative manner, reminds me of West Side Story...)
-
Step back and look at this Tele. Look hard.
:tinfoil:
First of all, it wouldn't even BE early marriage, because you are 33. If this girl wanted to marry another 18-year old, for all you know, her dad would have approved. Your argument would then have fallen to dust.
Raoul I was thinking of the priests sermon when he said young people today are immature. There are very few good jobs for young people because they are immature. They can't afford a house or property taxes because they are immature. Catholic marriages are "annulled" without a hitch on the basis of "immaturity" The girl couldn't be aware of what she was doing because she was "immature." It is part of a pattern - part of a global pattern that is being imposed on us.
Do you or do you not understand that someone can be against a marriage of a younger woman and older man without being an enemy of "early marriage" or the sacrament of marriage itself,
I think I got an inkling of the man's attitude towards early marriage in general, when the he looked over at his wife in dismay, when the mission priest said a girl with a high school diploma was ready for marriage, that he had no intention of letting his daughter marry early.
Opposition to early marriage is opposition to marriage itself. Yes, that is true. Because marriage has two purposes, procreation and allaying concupiscence. To delay marriage unnaturally for the sake of conforming to liberal society is to sabotage both of those ends of marriage. It also leads to less marital stability, since when women wait to marry they are less likely to be virgins at marriage.
that there are any number of reasons for this, reasons that you don't know because you don't have psychic insight into the mind of the "Puerto Rican"?
I don't think the girl's father cares about maturity or immaturity. He cares anything that might injure his pride or his aspirations.
Do you see you have made a connection between the priest's speeches about "maturity" and the Puerto Rican that isn't really there?
The priest's sermon was strange. Really it made me realize finally something was seriously wrong in the society.
-
She may not have been ready to put on the ring, LM, but I still say young girls know when the flirting has reached a certain level of intensity and has become serious. They know the difference between flirting and getting some guy obsessed. Even animals have a sensitivity and awareness, let alone 17-year old girls. If she was frightened by Tele's avid, hungry gaze, she would have stopped giving him signs and looks.
Remember her father said she wasn't interested in Tele at all, and this much has been disproved almost conclusively. The worst-case scenario for Tele is that she was an unconscionable flirt who was playing with his heart. But she clearly showed interest.
In her case it could be she was not aware that Tele was developing this obsessive attachment to her. She may not have been aware that when Tele looked at her, it meant I've made claimed to you and you are mine, mine, mine. I believe Tele stated that when she learned of his age she was disappointed, so it could well be that at the end, this could have been a factor in her decision to not have a romantic relationship with him.
-
I believe it was mention that the girl was home schooled, which more than likely means she grew up in a very sheltered environment. Maturity in the romance department would surely be lacking.
Yup.
These two are giving young girls much too much credit in thinking they know exactly what they're doing when it comes to dealing with a single man who's interested in them.
The girls who know what flirting is all about are the ones who've "been there, done that". This girl is a homeschooled trad and if she knows of flirting all that you give her credit for, Tele wouldn't want her in the first place.
-
I believe it was mention that the girl was home schooled, which more than likely means she grew up in a very sheltered environment. Maturity in the romance department would surely be lacking.
Yup.
These two are giving young girls much too much credit in thinking they know exactly what they're doing when it comes to dealing with a single man who's interested in them.
The girls who know what flirting is all about are the ones who've "been there, done that". This girl is a homeschooled trad and if she knows of flirting all that you give her credit for, Tele wouldn't want her in the first place.
I don't think one needs "maturity" to know about romantic feelings. In fact I think what is called "maturity" today is in fact a deadening of feeling - the woman who is willing to "settle" has "matured" - because she doesn't feel as much as before. There's no love like first love at 17. I certainly remember how it felt. She may well have had conflicting feelings once the girl I foolishly confided decided to do everything she could do to hurt my chances. (the same girl who hid my age from her mother - when I'd told her the day we met) But she still had feelings.
-
She knew exactly what she was told she should be doing Mater, and she was absolutely aware of it.
I will give you an example. In choir the choir director would always have the girls facing the boys. Every now and then I'd catch her glance and our eyes would meet - and we'd both smile.
One day I saw her turn around and kneel down in the middle of choir practice. The choir director asked where she was.
That priest told me to "drop to my knees in prayer" when I was having troublesome thoughts.
I can't let this post disappear in this deluge of posts.
Do you really think that a woman smiling at you from across the choir room would cause her to have "troublesome thoughts"? So much so that she'd be willing to drop to her knees in front of the whole choir in order to banish such thoughts?
You need to meet a few more women, my friend. She's not a man!
I've never in my life been caused to have troublesome thoughts by the mere appearance of a man walking past. There are millions of men who would be very happy if it were that easy ... the flower and chocolate industries, not so much.
-
I've never in my life been caused to have troublesome thoughts by the mere appearance of a man walking past. There are millions of men who would be very happy if it were that easy ... the flower and chocolate industries, not so much.
Mater - she was looking at me briefly, then she turned around, and dropped to her knees in the back of choir.
It was very unusual behavior, to say the least. I've never seen anything like it.
-
I believe it was mention that the girl was home schooled, which more than likely means she grew up in a very sheltered environment. Maturity in the romance department would surely be lacking.
Yup.
These two are giving young girls much too much credit in thinking they know exactly what they're doing when it comes to dealing with a single man who's interested in them.
The girls who know what flirting is all about are the ones who've "been there, done that". This girl is a homeschooled trad and if she knows of flirting all that you give her credit for, Tele wouldn't want her in the first place.
I agree.
-
Do you really think that a woman smiling at you from across the choir room would cause her to have "troublesome thoughts"? So much so that she'd be willing to drop to her knees in front of the whole choir in order to banish such thoughts?
Women must have a different subjective impression of their reactions than men do of their own. When I see a woman blush or leer I don't know what's going through their minds. But they seem to blush a lot more - react a lot more strongly than men.
Think of the women screaming and swooning at concerts.
-
I believe it was mention that the girl was home schooled, which more than likely means she grew up in a very sheltered environment. Maturity in the romance department would surely be lacking.
Yup.
These two are giving young girls much too much credit in thinking they know exactly what they're doing when it comes to dealing with a single man who's interested in them.
The girls who know what flirting is all about are the ones who've "been there, done that". This girl is a homeschooled trad and if she knows of flirting all that you give her credit for, Tele wouldn't want her in the first place.
I don't think one needs "maturity" to know about romantic feelings. In fact I think what is called "maturity" today is in fact a deadening of feeling - the woman who is willing to "settle" has "matured" - because she doesn't feel as much as before. There's no love like first love at 17. I certainly remember how it felt. She may well have had conflicting feelings once the girl I foolishly confided decided to do everything she could do to hurt my chances. (the same girl who hid my age from her mother - when I'd told her the day we met) But she still had feelings.
Having feelings for you comes very natually, but knowing how to handle herself in response to those feelings does not. She shouldn't be sending a man all the "I'm interested" signals unless she knows her parents approve or she is willing to go against their wishes.
-
I agree.
How predictable - of course - a girl can never be responsible for what she does, or know what she's doing. To immature to marry, to immature to even know she's flirting! These are feminist attitudes.
-
I agree.
How predictable - of course - a girl can never be responsible for what she does, or know what she's doing. To immature to marry, to immature to even know she's flirting! These are feminist attitudes.
Her immaturity is what attracts you to her.
-
There are many men who probably never experience women acting that way towards them - certainly I was one of them for many years when i was overweight and very badly dressed.
So it is a bit of a shock to see just how strongly women can react. When I got into shape, when my life seemed to improving drastically in every way - I was remembering what it was like when I was 17, when girls first paid attention to me.
Perhaps some men who never experience it have a completely skewed view of women's psychology.
-
Enough "crack" for one night.
:sleep:
-
Her immaturity is what attracts you to her.
Another insult. I'm not attracted to immaturity. You are sick to suggest it. She was not "immature" - she was young.
I am attracted to innocence, modesty, and beauty. And I am attracted to girls who show interest in me.
You want to call her innocence "immaturity" because you want to make it seem perverse to be attracted to innocence.
But that is your perverse mind at work.
-
I go to bed, get up, and there are 10 more pages on this one!
-
Ode to Tele...
"I wish I had a pencil thin mustache.
The "Boston Blackie" kind."
(http://murdermysteries.com/assets/tv/characters/boston_blackie.jpg)
A two-toned Ricky Ricardo jacket.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KrnLZRIMT4Q/TWaitSOTeyI/AAAAAAAABJA/lYTSMW5Os5E/s400/RickyRicardo.jpg)
And an autographed picture of Andy Devine.
(http://www.wallsoffame.com/assets/images/1199devine.jpg)
Oh, I could be anyone I wanted to be Maybe suave Errol Flynn
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_RnlFOOpc8ls/Sj0xtEPyM_I/AAAAAAAABNQ/ogDY8JGqZZk/s400/Errol+Flynn6.jpg)
or the Sheik of Araby.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/Sheik_of_Araby_cover.jpg/200px-Sheik_of_Araby_cover.jpg)
If I only had a pencil thin mustache Then I could do some cruisin' too."
-
Her immaturity is what attracts you to her.
Another insult. I'm not attracted to immaturity. You are sick to suggest it. She was not "immature" - she was young.
I am attracted to innocence, modesty, and beauty. And I am attracted to girls who show interest in me.
You want to call her innocence "immaturity" because you want to make it seem perverse to be attracted to innocence.
But that is your perverse mind at work.
No Tele, you dehumanize women and turn them into objects.
The older women are objects of secular reports. Objects that are on the way to loosing/lost their "luster". Like a car which is loosing/has lost that "new" car smell.
The 18 yr old becomes the object that feeds/satisfies your carnal desires. You almost make it a sin for a man not to marry a "young beautiful" girl.
The rich older man who uses his money to get the young beautiful girl is doing it "right". He is doing a "good job" of alleviating his concupiscence. The married man who decides his wife is not as "fresh" and moves on to younger woman, well who can blame him, the younger more beautiful one is better suited to alleviate his concupiscence.
quote=Tele
The secondary purpose of marriage is to alleviate concupiscence. Now if a man marries a woman who is unattractive or who will become older many years sooner that than another woman he could marry, his doing a bad job of alleviating concupiscence.
-
SJB told me on the Fatima page that American patriotism is not the same as Americanism, and that no one is saying that America is the greatest country ever. I wanted to show him just how wrong he is. He has no idea some of the things that I've heard from Catholics in this country.
Actually, all I said was that one can love his country without being an Americanist. Many traditional Catholics have wrong ideas about a number of things, including the overall "greatness" of America.
In my view, America has been in flux since it's inception, mainly because it was founded on some false principles, mainly indifferentism.
-
Telesphorus said:
There are many men who probably never experience women acting that way towards them - certainly I was one of them for many years when i was overweight and very badly dressed.
Does that mean you were a Tele-tubby? ( rim shot )
I was very nerdy in high school, Tele, braces, bandy legs, pimples, the works. I know about being rejected by women, I also know about becoming better-looking and more confident later. Yet somehow I don't share your fixation on young virgins.
So I stop to think, What is the difference? Well, you were Catholic and presumably were chaste, I wasn't either, and at one point when I was 22 had a 19-year old girlfriend. But I was still a virgin at 22, and I remember thinking like you at around that time: "The girls rejected me in high school and now I'm getting old and I'll never be with one of these young girls." It made me mad, I felt gypped. Then when I met the 19-year old it sort of calmed me down, at least she was a teenager on the cusp!
Virginity didn't matter to me then, at least not the girl's -- led on by the lies of the world, I wanted to lose my own. But I wasn't Catholic, and since you are, I can see how you would add a fixation on virginity to your feeling like you were gypped in high school or as a young man.
I think you feel like you missed out on young love and now they're telling you you're too old -- is that what might be behind this?
If so, just admit it. You just keep giving ammo to your enemies when you try to make this ideological or even theological, saying that someone who doesn't marry an 18-year old is doing a poor job alleviating concupiscence... Some young girls lose their looks instantly out of high school, so you're way off base there. Anyway, you really are nearly turning it into a sin not to marry a young virgin. Why can't you just leave this as what it is, a personal matter involving human weakness, mostly the church's but also a bit of yours, since you're a little over-the-top on this one.
-
As the parent of a 20-year-old (spinster) daughter, I have to say that red flags went up right away regarding Tele and it just kept getting worse. I think that the priest and the father acted in the best interests of the girl.
-
I'm definitely onto something with my last post. I just went back and read this:
Telesphorus said:
There's no love like first love at 17. I certainly remember how it felt.
LM and Mater don't get this, but lots of men are sentimental romantics. Just being interested in young girls isn't all about physicality. It could be about nostalgia, about wanting to experience un-jaded love.
Tele makes it about physicality because he's trying to explain his obsession using Catholic terms, and Catholic terms deal with alleviating concupiscence and the ends of marriage. They aren't always romantic. But my strong belief at this point is that there is nothing theological or ideological about what happened.
Tele, after having had his heart broken, tried to turn his bad experience into some kind of plot against the Church itself. This is probably a way of detaching from the pain and humiliation and making it abstract.
It's very, very apparent to me that Tele is not as clear-sighted as usual on this subject, though. He's constantly confusing the wishes of the girl's father with the sermons of the priest about "maturity" and then trying to blow this up into a feminist plot against early marriage, then tying Latin machismo into feminism, making wild connections, wild stabs in the dark. In reality, the father not wanting his daughter to marry early is just that, his choice, other girls there probably would be free at 18.
The reality, Tele, is that some people really aren't mature enough, they would be better-served waiting a little while, and that doesn't mean going to college and then becoming CEO of Hewlett-Packard. It means waiting until they have control over their emotions -- not "deadening" their emotions. Do you want every young girl to run off with the first guy that takes their fancy, never running their choice by their parents? The girl is technically free, and doesn't HAVE to obey her dad, but maybe she wants to, how about that, maybe she thinks he has a point?
You have to take it on a case-by-case basis, in determining who has the spiritual maturity to marry, but priests and fathers generally are considered to have more insight into this than swains and paramours... Not always, but generally.
If you give me this girl's Facebook page or something, I'll be able to give you an impression of her, if she is young or old for her age, but I don't know a hill of beans about her now. The story that Mater picked up on, about throwing herself on her knees in choir practice, is simply bizarre.
-
I agree with with Raoul76 said. It's a matter of degree and when someone crosses the line of acceptable / unacceptable most of us can sense something is off. It's the line between preference and fixation.
-
Dr. Raoul the Psychologist has done a great job of analyzing Tele.
I agree with his assessment; it's the same conclusion I came to as well.
It's personal for Tele; he has turned it into a theological/political issue. He doesn't want to let go of his chance to have "the best", etc.
(I'm a fellow amateur psychologist...)
Matthew
-
LM and Penitent, I think Tele has already lost your favor by making it sound like all women older than 18 are crones. There is a hostility in your posts, you paint him as a pervert, and just drive him further into his bunker of paranoia. You're not trying to see it from his point of view.
Tele went to the father first. The girl was the one who began flirting with him. He is, by all appearances, highly devout. You're not pointing out any of these positives.
This is why I told him that if I were his lawyer, I'd tell him to shut up. He's talking himself into a hole. But he can't see it, he has a mental block.
The real problem is not liking a young woman, it's trying to build a theology if not a dogma around liking young women. That is why I think this is really psychological and has to do with Tele feeling he missed out as a young man, wanting to recapture that innocence somehow.
True, this can be dangerous. Japanese society is fixated on young girls and innocence in a perverted way. But Tele wants to get MARRIED, so he is doing something positive with his taste for young women, always obeying God or trying to.
Has anyone noticed he isn't going out and chasing after young girls outside the Church? People get married partly to quell lust, so if you see that as wrong, by that standard, we're all perverted, we're all nasty filthy dirtbags.
-
As the parent of a 20-year-old (spinster) daughter, I have to say that red flags went up right away regarding Tele and it just kept getting worse. I think that the priest and the father acted in the best interests of the girl.
I do not think that the priest in question "kicking someone out" is lawful, either canonically or according to secular law. As I posted already, the SSPX has gotten sued over this type of behavior.
-
LM and Penitent, I think Tele has already lost your favor by making it sound like all women older than 18 are crones. There is a hostility in your posts, you paint him as a pervert, and just drive him further into his bunker of paranoia. You're not trying to see it from his point of view.
Tele went to the father first. The girl was the one who began flirting with him. He is, by all appearances, highly devout. You're not pointing out any of these positives.
This is why I told him that if I were his lawyer, I'd tell him to shut up. He's talking himself into a hole. But he can't see it, he has a mental block.
The real problem is not liking a young woman, it's trying to build a theology if not a dogma around liking young women. That is why I think this is really psychological and has to do with Tele feeling he missed out as a young man, wanting to recapture that innocence somehow.
True, this can be dangerous. Japanese society is fixated on young girls and innocence in a perverted way. But Tele wants to get MARRIED, so he is doing something positive with his taste for young women, always obeying God or trying to.
Has anyone noticed he isn't going out and chasing after young girls outside the Church? People get married partly to quell lust, so if you see that as wrong, by that standard, we're all perverted, we're all nasty filthy dirtbags.
I paint it with Tele's "paint". His idea of what makes a marriage is based on dis-ordered principles.
-
Thanks Matthew :detective: :detective: :detective: :detective:
We still don't know the whole story. We need to know more about the girl. Tele calls her brilliant ( nay, "the most brilliant," as well as the most beautiful, this is not just a girl but Super-Girl ). I need to know a little bit about her to be able to determine if I would want her to be married if I were her father.
Something that has been bothering me is Tele calling her dad "the Puerto Rican" or "that Puerto Rican" in a disparaging way when his daughter, obviously, is at least half-Puerto Rican. Boy, that is not guaranteed to win favors.
Just more proof, if any were needed, that Tele is not thinking clearly at all on this, he is emotion-driven. His outbursts prove the same thing. Tele is a guy who is very, VERY slow to anger, I used to think he was far too slow to anger. When he gets mad, it's because he has been pushed to the edge. He has been painted as a pervert and his way of defending himself is to, in turn, paint his accusers as pharisees. Since the priest crossed the line and kicked Tele out, he has some ammo, he really can claim to have been treated unfairly.
-
Thanks Matthew :detective: :detective: :detective: :detective:
We still don't know the whole story. We need to know more about the girl. Tele calls her brilliant ( nay, "the most brilliant," as well as the most beautiful, this is not just a girl but Super-Girl ). I need to know a little bit about her to be able to determine if I would want her to be married if I were her father.
Something that has been bothering me is Tele calling her dad "the Puerto Rican" or "that Puerto Rican" in a disparaging way when his daughter, obviously, is at least half-Puerto Rican. Boy, that is not guaranteed to win favors.
Just more proof, if any were needed, that Tele is not thinking clearly at all on this, he is emotion-driven. His outbursts prove the same thing. Tele is a guy who is very, VERY slow to anger, I used to think he was far too slow to anger. When he gets mad, it's because he has been pushed to the edge. He has been painted as a pervert and his way of defending himself is to, in turn, paint his accusers as pharisees. Since the priest crossed the line and kicked Tele out, he has some ammo for that.
I've been here at this site long enough and have read his posts at another site, to know that he is indeed quick to lash out at anyone. It really serves little to keep trying to do damage control.
-
LM said:
I paint it with Tele's "paint". His idea of what makes a marriage is based on dis-ordered principles.
Can you acknowledge he has the right to prefer young women and that the Church has nothing to say against it, though it may be immature at some level?
Go look at your posts, they have been unremittingly hostile from beginning to end. Tele just rubs you the wrong way. This could be for any number of reasons, I won't speculate, but women tend to be reactive and think with their emotions.
I suppose Tele doesn't have a right to a good reputation, we should all just say he's a pervert and then feel all puffed up with pride and self-righteous? Well, what's the proof? What did he do that was against CHURCH teaching?
All he can be blamed for is taking his theory about men wanting virgins too far, but that's not contrary to the faith, it's just a cockamamied theory like most of us have about something or other.
-
LM said:
I paint it with Tele's "paint". His idea of what makes a marriage is based on dis-ordered principles.
Can you acknowledge he has the right to prefer young women and that there is nothing wrong with that?
Go look at your posts, they have been unremittingly hostile from beginning to end. Tele just rubs you the wrong way. This could be for any number of reasons, I won't speculate, but women tend to be reactive and think with their emotions.
I suppose Tele doesn't have a right to a good reputation, we should all just say he's a pervert and then feel all puffed up with pride and self-righteous? Well, what's the proof? What did he do that was against CHURCH teaching?
All he can be blamed for is taking his theory about men wanting virgins too far, but that's not contrary to the faith, it's just a cockamamied theory like most of us have about something or other.
The principles behind his preference for selecting a young marriage partner are dis-ordered. No matter what type of "damage control" you throw at me, it does not change the fact.
-
LM said:
I paint it with Tele's "paint". His idea of what makes a marriage is based on dis-ordered principles.
Can you acknowledge he has the right to prefer young women and that the Church has nothing to say against it, though it may be immature at some level?
Can you acknowledge that all women age and that marriage is for life under Catholicism? Tele doesnt know this girl, yet he has "romantically" idealized and "romantic idealization" is no basis for a Christian marriage to grow upon. He has also labeled the SSPX a cult across the board and people who oppose his stance on this issue as "bad people". There is a lot more to this than his falling for an 18 year old. It really does appear anyway that he hasnt fallen for her as she really is but for an image of feminine perfection in his imagination that he has super imposed on her. If they get married that it will fade away and he will be left with a real woman and the problems of everyday life which will shock and anger him. Its the "romantic souls" that are the ones which turn into wife beaters most of the time.
-
There is a hostility in your posts, you paint him as a pervert, and just drive him further into his bunker of paranoia. You're not trying to see it from his point of view.
I did not intend any hostility or to paint Tele as a pervert.
Tele went to the father first.
If he spoke to the father the way he has spoken here, I think the father was right to tell him to stay away from his daughter.
The real problem is not liking a young woman,
I never said it was.
it's trying to build a theology if not a dogma around liking young women. That is why I think this is really psychological and has to do with Tele feeling he missed out as a young man, wanting to recapture that innocence somehow.
I wouldn't want a man to use my daughter to do that. What's in it for her?
But Tele wants to get MARRIED, so he is doing something positive with his taste for young women, always obeying God or trying to.
Marriage is forever. A taste for young women and a desire to alleviate concupiscence would not be a good enough reason to marry my daughter.
-
I do not think that the priest in question "kicking someone out" is lawful, either canonically or according to secular law. As I posted already, the SSPX has gotten sued over this type of behavior.
He was told to leave the girl alone and he did not!
-
Penitent said:
I wouldn't want a man to use my daughter to do that. What's in it for her?
First of all, your daughter is too old for Tele, age has withered her and custom has staled her infinite variety :laugh1:
But if she were younger, what's in it for her would be, first of all, a dashing husband that no woman can resist, and who is singlehandedly bringing back into fashion the thin Clark Gable mustache... :wink: But mostly, security and a faithful Catholic husband that took a vow to protect her and be with her until death, and who will be committing a mortal sin if he doesn't. Yes, even when she hits the wall at 19, he still can't walk out on her!
What's in it for a rich man that a woman marries at least in part for his wealth?
Catholics "use" each other in all sorts of ways, just look at Catholic terminology, speaking of sex as "mutual help." If Tele had an attraction to experienced women, what would be the difference? He would be acting on his attraction. Would you marry someone you're repulsed by, Penitent? Do you have completely selfless motives in relationships?
The women that are outraged about this, I believe, are really outraged because he is treating them as old bags and withered crones. I see that very clearly in the way they see this snafu as very black-and-white, they don't see the shades of grey in what happened to him at church.
But he is right to say it is natural to like younger women. It's also natural to like beautiful older women, or less-beautiful older women if they have some trait that appeals to you.
-
Clovis said:
It really does appear anyway that he hasnt fallen for her as she really is but for an image of feminine perfection in his imagination that he has super imposed on her. If they get married that it will fade away and he will be left with a real woman and the problems of everyday life which will shock and anger him. Its the "romantic souls" that are the ones which turn into wife beaters most of the time.
Good post, I agree. His attitude may or may not be indicative of a lack of readiness for the ups and downs of marriage, only God knows his heart, but the issue of whether Tele is THE model Catholic husband is not the issue here. I'm sure plenty of Catholics marry for the wrong reasons or are driven more by their loins than by loftier considerations.
The issue is, did they have a right to kick him out of church? The answer is no, unequivocally.
-
Dr. Raoul the Psychologist has done a great job of analyzing Tele.
I agree with his assessment; it's the same conclusion I came to as well.
It's personal for Tele; he has turned it into a theological/political issue. He doesn't want to let go of his chance to have "the best", etc.
(I'm a fellow amateur psychologist...)
Matthew
Well, it obviously is a theological political issue, because the Church has its teachings on permission to marry and the SSPX doesn't care about them.
It's obviously a theological issue, because you can go to Traditional Catholic forums and hear women who have bogus annulments saying they were "young and immature" when they got married.
It obviously is a moral issue, since the delay of marriage for women's "education" is one of the main reasons for the breakdown of the family - this was seen 100 years ago.
It obviously is a moral issue, because many of these people see no problem in vilifying and insulting someone, lying to someone, kicking someone out of church, if they fall in love with a girl who has passed majority.
It is obviously an issue of feminism - and I think there is more - it's about the liberalization of the SSPX.
The SSPX is selling out, being liberalized - I'm not going to claim there's a direct connection between my situation and the behavior of the leaders of the SSPX - but there is a connection, and the connection is this - there is a lack of principle and moral decency among many of these priests - and they've formed a clique that's taken over the SSPX.
-
I do not think that the priest in question "kicking someone out" is lawful, either canonically or according to secular law. As I posted already, the SSPX has gotten sued over this type of behavior.
He was told to leave the girl alone and he did not!
Not by the girl.
Get this through your thick head: a priest has no right to bind a girl who is 18 not to talk to me, and he has no right to threaten to kick me out because a father doesn't want me talking to his daughter.
If you can't admit this, you can't admit what the Church teaches about freedom to marriage.
-
Penitent said:
Jehanne said:
I do not think that the priest in question "kicking someone out" is lawful, either canonically or according to secular law. As I posted already, the SSPX has gotten sued over this type of behavior.
He was told to leave the girl alone and he did not!
Penitent --
18-year old girls are of age and the father cannot prevent a marriage legally, or through the Church
A priest has no right to bind a girl who is of age not to speak to a man or boy she likes, just based on the wishes of the father, since she is a grown woman
The father can counsel his daughter not to marry a certain man. He can, though the morality of this is dubious, sic some Latin thugs onto said man and trail him to make sure he doesn't get near the girl. He can also call the police to put a scare into the man, but it won't do any good because, as Tele, has pointed out, what he's doing is perfectly legal.
Knowing this, what is the priest's justification, in terms of Church law, for kicking Tele out? There is none. You could say he was causing a disturbance, but what was the disturbance really? Did he throw a chair at the girl's father and launch himself bodily at the man, with intent to do physical damage? What did he do, what was his crime? Showing interest in a legally of-age girl? That doesn't work.
-
Depending on the state, even if the girl is 16 or 17, if she can legally have sex with you, then she can legally talk to you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#State_laws
-
That was a good apology, Stevus, but why is it directed to me? You didn't do anything to me. A certain man with a mustache is waiting for his turn.
He did cross the line by calling you evil and wicked. I'd be surprised if he really thinks that, but you have to know it's a sore subject when someone's name is besmirched and they can't get anyone to believe them. You were rubbing it in.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to Telesphorus Re-Orientation School where they will teach me that all men who don't want to marry ethnic teenage virgins are sick and under the influence of feminists who are overreacting to Latin machismo. The next time you see me, I will be engaged to Selena Gomez.
Actually I did owe you an apology. I accused you of taking up for Tele just because you were a sede, this why I apologized to you. I have already apologized to Tele for saying he tried to date a 14 year old, and I will say again I am sorry for that, and for being rather harsh in stating that I thought he was wrong. And finally, I apologize to Matthew for being a pest and constantly saying I thought Tele should be banned. In the future I will not ask for anyone to be banned. I don't know what came over me, I guess I just had enough and without really thinking lost my cool. That isn't the way I normally act. And in the future I'll have to make sure it doesn't happen again.
-
The principles behind his preference for selecting a young marriage partner are dis-ordered.
A raw assertion without anything backing it up. You accused me of being attracted to "immaturity" - that's simply not true. If you think being attracted to youth and innocence are disordered - you're the twisted one, not me.
No matter what type of "damage control" you throw at me, it does not change the fact.
You have a very funny concept of "fact" - what you feel to be true, you think is true.
Well it's not.
-
Something that has been bothering me is Tele calling her dad "the Puerto Rican" or "that Puerto Rican" in a disparaging way when his daughter, obviously, is at least half-Puerto Rican. Boy, that is not guaranteed to win favors.
He's acting in a stereotypical way. If I like a girl and her family wants to beat me up for it because of their ethnicity - that's fair game.
-
That was a good apology, Stevus, but why is it directed to me? You didn't do anything to me. A certain man with a mustache is waiting for his turn.
He did cross the line by calling you evil and wicked. I'd be surprised if he really thinks that, but you have to know it's a sore subject when someone's name is besmirched and they can't get anyone to believe them. You were rubbing it in.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go to Telesphorus Re-Orientation School where they will teach me that all men who don't want to marry ethnic teenage virgins are sick and under the influence of feminists who are overreacting to Latin machismo. The next time you see me, I will be engaged to Selena Gomez.
Actually I did owe you an apology. I accused you of taking up for Tele just because you were a sede, this why I apologized to you. I have already apologized to Tele for saying he tried to date a 14 year old, and I will say again I am sorry for that, and for being rather harsh in stating that I thought he was wrong. And finally, I apologize to Matthew for being a pest and constantly saying I thought Tele should be banned. In the future I will not ask for anyone to be banned. I don't know what came over me, I guess I just had enough and without really thinking lost my cool. That isn't the way I normally act. And in the future I'll have to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Just posting this apology again to make sure people see it. My apology is above.
-
Come to think of it, Tele, if the father had you tailed, and you felt threatened, I'm guessing he came far closer to breaking the law than you did. He was the one creating the disturbance at church, because he couldn't let the girl speak for herself. I don't see how that can't be intimidation.
What the father can do within the bounds of God's law is give her his advice -- I don't want you to marry this man. He can kick her out of the house if she does marry him. He can use various methods of persuasion. But it is absolutely wrong to get a priest involved and to gang up on Tele and kick him out of Church, when he didn't do anything except flirt with this girl.
I will just leave Tele's theories alone about the conspiracy against early marriages, I don't want the thread to get too bogged down. It's just like when I thought the rhythm method was responsible for Vatican II, he has his own personal shibboleth he's blowing out of proportion.
-
No Tele, you dehumanize women and turn them into objects.
Preferring young beautiful women is turning them into objects? No, I don't think so. To tell you the truth, before I met this girl I was not limiting myself to younger women. What I realized, in meeting this girl, is that I very much prefer younger women. It's completely natural.
The older women are objects of secular reports. Objects that are on the way to loosing/lost their "luster". Like a car which is loosing/has lost that "new" car smell.
Older women are not as attractive as younger women. That doesn't mean I think they are objects. If you can't comprehend that you have a problem.
The 18 yr old becomes the object that feeds/satisfies your carnal desires. You almost make it a sin for a man not to marry a "young beautiful" girl.
Nonsense.
The rich older man who uses his money to get the young beautiful girl is doing it "right". He is doing a "good job" of alleviating his concupiscence.
If a man loses attraction to a woman he marries it will make married life more difficult. This seems elementary. It's not wise to marry someone if one does not believe there is significant attraction.
The married man who decides his wife is not as "fresh" and moves on to younger woman, well who can blame him, the younger more beautiful one is better suited to alleviate his concupiscence.
The whole point of marrying a woman who is appealing is to avoid temptation. Many men tire of their wives because they married women they should never have married when they were young and foolish.
-
Okay, that does it. I wouldn't want Tele to marry my daughter either. But it was still wrong to kick him out of church.
Telesphorus said:
"If a man loses attraction to a woman he marries it will make married life more difficult. This seems elementary. It's not wise to marry someone if one does not believe there is significant attraction.
Listen, you bull-headed mustachioed Iowan you, she is not going to be 18 forever. You're not a good bet as a husband. You don't see it, but you're coming off as superficial. Plead about how "natural" your desires are all you want.
You are a hard man to defend sometimes. Maybe I shouldn't have taken this case.
-
Come to think of it, Tele, if the father had you tailed, and you felt threatened.
lol, no, I'm a fairly burly fellow, her brothers are skinny boys - well her older brother is 20 now.
-
Listen, you bull-headed mustachioed Iowan you, she is not going to be 18 forever.
I'm in Ohio. I'm from Cincinnati. My mother grew up in Jehanne's locale.
You're not a good bet as a husband. You don't see it, but you're coming off as superficial. Plead about how "natural" your desires are all you want.
That's nonsense Raoul, when I decide a girl is the one I love then I'm totally committed.
When Isaac saw Rebekah was a beautiful young woman who had not known man, was that disordered?
You are a hard man to defend sometimes. Maybe I shouldn't have taken this case.
It's hard for anyone who wants to defend common sense against the insane attitudes of this time and place.
-
Listen, you bull-headed mustachioed Iowan you, she is not going to be 18 forever.
She isn't 18 now.
The point is it's completely natural for a man to marry a woman who will give him 15-20 years of youth, beauty and childbearing as opposed to wanting to marry a woman who will give him only 5-10.
-
Yes, it's getting harder and harder to try to justify the things that are now being said. The fact is, as has just been stated, everyone ages.
The most beautiful young woman is, God willing, to live to an old age, and she will reach and pass the dreaded age of 40. If a man is only attracted, or mostly attracted to young teenage girls, what happens when his wife (and after having a large Catholic family .. and likely in this case, living on a very modest income with all the stresses that is likely to cause) gets older than that?
You say it's perfectly natural to prefer young women. What happens when you're 50 and she's 40? Do you understandably lose interest/attraction and begin looking for a way out? What are you going to do with your "natural" preferences then?
Also, you just stated that you are planning on being the beneficiary of up to 20 years of her magnificent beauty. Not everyone ages the same way and sometimes people get sick or have accidents or even gain a lot of weight after 6-10 babies. What then?
There are no guarantees obviously ... and it seems best to choose someone who is very spiritually mature, even if she's not a perfect "10" on the international males measure of absolute beauty or youth.
As Catholics we are called on to overcome our natural tendencies and reach for the supernatural graces that will make it possible for us to someday, hopefully, attain heaven. There's far too much emphasis here on the temporal world. From youth and fertility to the seeking of a sinless teenager ...
It's a matter of degree and I think that a line has been crossed somewhere from understandable preference to somewhat obsessive and lacking in a more Christian outlook.
-
Tele's reasoning behind his preferences can be a bit unusual but nonetheless if his intention is sacramental marriage then there is nothing sinful about preferring a younger bride.
I do think he's carrying on about this one girl and his claim of "falling" for her when he only spoke to her once does border on obsession though.
-
Yes, it's getting harder and harder to try to justify the things that are now being said. The fact is, as has just been stated, everyone ages.
Mrs. Z - what statement in particular?
The most beautiful young woman is, God willing, to live to an old age, and she will reach and pass the dreaded age of 40.
So because every woman will eventually be 40, I should cut to the chase and marry a 40 year old woman?
If a man is only attracted, or mostly attracted to young teenage girls,
Mrs Z - it was one girl. A girl. One girl, I hoped to be able to marry, for life.
what happens when his wife (and after having a large Catholic family .. and likely in this case, living on a very modest income with all the stresses that is likely to cause) gets older than that?
She'd still be much younger than me - as opposed to being my own age. Once again, why wouldn't a man prefer to have a younger woman at his side if he can?
You say it's perfectly natural to prefer young women. What happens when you're 50 and she's 40? Do you understandably lose interest/attraction and begin looking for a way out? What are you going to do with your "natural" preferences then?
I'll be older and preoccupied with family things.
Also, you just stated that you are planning on being the beneficiary of up to 20 years of her magnificent beauty. Not everyone ages the same way and sometimes people get sick or have accidents or even gain a lot of weight after 6-10 babies. What then?
Nothing is a sure thing Mrs. Z, but 20 years is a lot longer than 5 - 10. If a man marries a woman and finds she's unattractive after 5 or 10 years - that's a much heavier burden than finding she's unattractive after 20. Why should a man voluntarily take such a burden on himself? So that older women don't feel old?
There are no guarantees obviously ... and it seems best to choose someone who is very spiritually mature, even if she's not a perfect "10" on the international males measure of absolute beauty or youth.
She seemed to be very devout. She is also incredibly talented. I liked her because she liked me. If I meet someday the girl of my dreams who likes me - I'm supposed to turn her down and say "no, I must marry an older woman who needs someone to take care of herself after her misspent youth - so she doesn't feel bad about being old."
As Catholics we are called on to overcome our natural tendencies and reach for the supernatural graces that will make it possible for us to someday, hopefully, attain heaven.
Sure, but Mrs Z, should we begrudge prosperous people their prosperity? Fortunate people their good fortune? Because they should be focused on spiritual things?
There's far too much emphasis here on the temporal world. From youth and fertility to the seeking of a sinless teenager ...
no one ever said sinless Mrs. Z. It's not a pleasant thought to think another man has been with your wife. I'm so sick and tired of feminist Catholics who try to say it's sick and wrong to want to marry a maiden.
It's a matter of degree and I think that a line has been crossed somewhere from understandable preference to somewhat obsessive and lacking in a more Christian outlook.
Mrs Z, what you said earlier in the thread, about women being naturally resentful of men preferring younger women, was fine.
I'm defending my position from people who are obsessed with proving me to be somehow disordered for preferring to marry a young maid.
-
I do think he's carrying on about this one girl and his claim of "falling" for her when he only spoke to her once does border on obsession though.
Once again, it's not my fault I was never able to speak to her freely. All this could have been dealt with correctly and decently. When obstacles are put in one's path it makes one more determined.
I've been kicked out of church, ostracized - because of pharisaic attitudes, and I'm ticked off.
Unprincipled and dishonest priests in the SSPX are destroying Traditional Catholicism.
-
Telesphorus, I am hoping that this conversation at least gets you to think through your motivation and what you would do in the event of either winning your preference or making a different decision ultimately about marriage.
As I've said before, I do understand the preference. It just seemed to be that there was a bit of an overfocus on the bride of your choice being 18. The thread may in fact be somewhat responsible in making it seem that you are only interested in that aspect to the exclusion of all others.
I don't know if I used the word "resentful" about older women feeling somehow slighted by this type of talk. I don't know that this bothered women a century ago as it may bother us now. Our youth-obsessed culture has taken a toll on all of us .. and even those among us who try to live their faith devoutly can't help but have concerns at times about the world presented to their H's via TV or movies or in the world in general, i.e., workplace, for example. We're all threatened by the attitude of our disposable society.
The only other thing I'd like to say about this thread is that it too bothered me that you've been so angry at this girls' father and also that you have resorted to calling him "The Puerto Rican" instead of "her father." I realize you believe you've been unfairly maligned and attacked from all sides. However, even if every single thing you've said here is completely true, with no embellisment or leaving out of certain details .. what now? What are you going to do proactively about it?
Frankly, I think it's a good idea to let this go. I think you need to forgive people their idiosyncrasies, prejudices and fears. This situation may have been exactly as you've said .. and still you have to try to forgive and not become embittered by it.
-
There's far too much emphasis here on the temporal world.
Marriage is a natural institution.
-
"It's Natural, Completely Natural"
The song sensation of 2011. Lyrics and music by Raoul76, insipred by the writings of Telesphorus.
__________________________________________
It's natural, completely natural
To love a girl for her age.
It's natural, completely natural,
Nubiles are all the rage.
If you see a teenager,
And your heart says "Hooray!"
Just remember
Nature made you that way.
It's natural, completely natural
To love a girl for her age
It's natural, completely natural
Nubiles are all the rage.
Her hair is like velvet,
Her lips are bee-stung,
Her eyes pale like moonbeams,
Eh, main thing, she's young!
It's natural, completely natural
To love a girl for her age
It's natural, completely natural
Nubiles are all the rage.
If her dad tries to stop you,
What does he know?
It's common knowledge
Those Puerto Ricans are slow.
It's natural, completely natural
To love a girl for her age
It's natural, completely natural.
Nubiles are all the rage.
Girls of twenty are spinsters it's true
But if she's past thirty,
Dead horse!
Need some glue?
It's natural, completely natural
To love a girl for her age
It's natural, completely natural
Nubiles are always the rage.
Some dare to say
An older lady is nice
Please disregard
Their macho-femin'st advice
It's natural, completely natural
To love a girl for her age
It's natural, completely natural
Nubiles are all the rage.
:guitar: :guitar: :guitar: :guitar:
-
I don't know that this bothered women a century ago as it may bother us now. Our youth-obsessed culture has taken a toll on all of us .. and even those among us who try to live their faith devoutly can't help but have concerns at times about the world presented to their H's via TV or movies or in the world in general,
MrsZ, the fact that women are more resentful of men marrying younger women is precisely because of the youth obsession. Would those women be resentful if they married young? When they were young they were interested in having fun - and they want to feel that the girl who has "enjoyed her youth" has that security of a man who believes he should marry a woman near him in age. Who is totally resigned to her "past."
All these girls read Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte, maybe even Tolstoy. In all those books you have men older than me interested in girls as young or younger than the one I'm interested in.
This feminist taboo that I'm violating is just that - an anti-Christian, anti-marriage, feminist taboo.
And yes, I will keep calling him a "Puerto Rican" because he acts in that steretypically unjust way.
-
Yes, it's getting harder and harder to try to justify the things that are now being said. The fact is, as has just been stated, everyone ages.
Mrs. Z - what statement in particular?
The most beautiful young woman is, God willing, to live to an old age, and she will reach and pass the dreaded age of 40.
So because every woman will eventually be 40, I should cut to the chase and marry a 40 year old woman?
If a man is only attracted, or mostly attracted to young teenage girls,
Mrs Z - it was one girl. A girl. One girl, I hoped to be able to marry, for life.
what happens when his wife (and after having a large Catholic family .. and likely in this case, living on a very modest income with all the stresses that is likely to cause) gets older than that?
She'd still be much younger than me - as opposed to being my own age. Once again, why wouldn't a man prefer to have a younger woman at his side if he can?
You say it's perfectly natural to prefer young women. What happens when you're 50 and she's 40? Do you understandably lose interest/attraction and begin looking for a way out? What are you going to do with your "natural" preferences then?
I'll be older and preoccupied with family things.
Also, you just stated that you are planning on being the beneficiary of up to 20 years of her magnificent beauty. Not everyone ages the same way and sometimes people get sick or have accidents or even gain a lot of weight after 6-10 babies. What then?
Nothing is a sure thing Mrs. Z, but 20 years is a lot longer than 5 - 10. If a man marries a woman and finds she's unattractive after 5 or 10 years - that's a much heavier burden than finding she's unattractive after 20. Why should a man voluntarily take such a burden on himself? So that older women don't feel old?
There are no guarantees obviously ... and it seems best to choose someone who is very spiritually mature, even if she's not a perfect "10" on the international males measure of absolute beauty or youth.
She seemed to be very devout. She is also incredibly talented. I liked her because she liked me. If I meet someday the girl of my dreams who likes me - I'm supposed to turn her down and say "no, I must marry an older woman who needs someone to take care of herself after her misspent youth - so she doesn't feel bad about being old."
As Catholics we are called on to overcome our natural tendencies and reach for the supernatural graces that will make it possible for us to someday, hopefully, attain heaven.
Sure, but Mrs Z, should we begrudge prosperous people their prosperity? Fortunate people their good fortune? Because they should be focused on spiritual things?
There's far too much emphasis here on the temporal world. From youth and fertility to the seeking of a sinless teenager ...
no one ever said sinless Mrs. Z. It's not a pleasant thought to think another man has been with your wife. I'm so sick and tired of feminist Catholics who try to say it's sick and wrong to want to marry a maiden.
It's a matter of degree and I think that a line has been crossed somewhere from understandable preference to somewhat obsessive and lacking in a more Christian outlook.
Mrs Z, what you said earlier in the thread, about women being naturally resentful of men preferring younger women, was fine.
I'm defending my position from people who are obsessed with proving me to be somehow disordered for preferring to marry a young maid.
Tele, you are in no position to contract marriage. Certainly not the kind of marriage ordained by God.
The first is pure vanity. Look at the "young girl" hanging from my arm. The second, what can be said, the shallowness of the "much heavier burden" if she ages sooner than what meets your needs.
-
Tele, you are in no position to contract marriage. Certainly not the kind of marriage ordained by God.
Another insult.
Yes, it is a burden to be married to an older woman compared to being married to a younger woman. She will age sooner, she will be less attractive. It is called the "marriage debt" after all - it's something that's owed. Now certainly it is more of a burden to have to pay the debt to a woman who is no longer attractive.
The first is pure vanity. Look at the "young girl" hanging from my arm.
Nonsense. It's not vanity. It's about attraction. You really seem to be incapable of reasoning.
The second, what can be said, the shallowness of the "much heavier burden" if she ages sooner than what meets your needs.
If one has natural desires then being married to a woman who is unnattractive is more difficult than being married to one who is. Stating that simple truth doesn't make me "unfit for marriage." What it shows me is that most women today, particularly those who have imbibed feminism and who have no ability to patiently listen to reason, are totally unfit for marriage.
-
Telesphorus said:
She seemed to be very devout. She is also incredibly talented. I liked her because she liked me.
You were mocking her friend for believing in the official story of the h0Ɩ0cαųst and for being a neo-con. Give me this girl's Facebook account, and I'll bet you there is garbage of the same kind all over it. Do you think she questions the h0Ɩ0cαųst? No, but you don't care, because she's young and pretty.
Telesphorus said:
If I meet someday the girl of my dreams who likes me - I'm supposed to turn her down and say "no, I must marry an older woman who needs someone to take care of herself after her misspent youth - so she doesn't feel bad about being old."
Yeah, those are the only two options, virginal dream-girls and worn-out party girls. Nothing in between, nooooo... :rolleyes:
Telesphorus said:
All these girls read Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte, maybe even Tolstoy. In all those books you have men older than me interested in girls as young or younger than the one I'm interested in.
That's exactly right, these FEMINIST books try to make girls dependent on a daddy figure that they can sleep with. You are the one out to destroy Christian marriage, marriage that should be between two young people of around the same age. You are a feminist and a macho.
A little reductio ad absurdum for you.
Telesphorus said:
When they were young they were interested in having fun - and they want to feel that the girl who has "enjoyed her youth" bla bla bla
Okay, you have said this enough times that it's become pretty clear you resent and fear women and have a misogynist streak. Sorry if that makes me sound like a feminist but maybe some things they say are true and only twist Catholic principles around to their own purposes. After all, you are using Jane Austen to defend yourself, so it's hard to totally escape that taint, I guess.
Try some Christian forgiveness. Forget about what you think their pasts are and take each woman / girl as they come. You speak in generalizations, each individual is just that, an individual. What is frustrating people in this thread are your sweeping generalizations and your absence of nuance.
Telesphorus said:
This feminist taboo that I'm violating is just that - an anti-Christian, anti-marriage, feminist taboo.
Do you see you have ZERO support on this? Are you right and everyone else wrong?
Telesphorus said:
If a man marries a woman and finds she's unattractive after 5 or 10 years - that's a much heavier burden than finding she's unattractive after 20. Why should a man voluntarily take such a burden on himself? So that older women don't feel old?
That is the most utilitarian and depressing thing I've ever read, why would anyone want to marry someone that thinks like that? It's all about how many "good years" you can get out of your wife's flesh before you have to put her in the cupboard.
Poetic justice, you marry an 18-year old who develops a fancy for Snackwell's cookies and loses her perfect figure within months. Then come back and talk to me about your 20 years.
Apparently you can read the future, do you use tea leaves or chicken guts? News flash -- some thirty-year old women will be attractive at fifty, some eighteen-year olds won't be attractive at twenty. What people are trying to tell you here is to look at inner beauty, you Ohioan.
-
Since the issues of natural and nature have come up, I think that we maybe using these terms in different ways. They can be used in different senses. Example: Nature can mean creation or the creational order, or it can mean the fallen (human) nature that inclines the person to sin.
-
You were mocking her friend for believing in the official story of the h0Ɩ0cαųst and for being a neo-con. Give me this girl's Facebook account, and I'll bet you there is garbage of the same kind all over it. Do you think she questions the h0Ɩ0cαųst? No, but you don't care, because she's young and pretty.
No, I don't think she'd say Bishop Williamson was making us all look like crackpots.
Yeah, those are the only two options, virginal dream-girls and worn-out party girls. Nothing in between, nooooo... :rolleyes:
I never said they were the only two options. But lots of these Trad Catholic girls go to drinking parties.
That's exactly right, these FEMINIST books try to make girls
Are they really feminist? If they are feminists, feminists today still hate early marriage and older men marrying younger women.
So it shows you just have far society has fallen. Yesterday's feminists and freemasons were rejecting today's pharisaism about early marriage and age differences totally and completely.
dependent on a daddy figure that they can sleep with. You are the one out to destroy Christian marriage, marriage that should be between two young people of around the same age. You are a feminist and a macho.
I believe in natural femininity and natural masculinity - not in vicious vindictive pride that jealously attacks an innocent attraction.
Okay, you have said this enough times that it's become pretty clear you resent and fear women and have a misogynist streak.
Am I supposed to like today's women and the standards they set? If I don't like them I'm misogynist? I chat with young women, women my age - I very much enjoy chatting with them. They tend to disagree with my ideas but they don't hate me for it - unlike American women. "Thank Allah all men don't think like you" - "you are like a Libyan man" "you are like an Eastern man" etc. They are good friends
Sorry if that makes me sound like a feminist but maybe some things they say are true and only twist Catholic principles around to their own purposes. After all, you are using Jane Austen to defend yourself, so it's hard to totally escape that taint, I guess.
The simple fact is that these girls read those books about "the good old days" and their parents encourage it - but the actual "good old days" their parents don't want any part in.
Do you see you have ZERO support on this? Are you right and everyone else wrong?
Were the novelists of the 19th century wrong to speak of what is natural? Or are the pharisaic, feminist trads of the 21st Century jabbering on about "disordered attractions" and "immaturity" wrong. I'm 100% confident I'm right about this.
That is the most utilitarian and depressing thing I've ever read, why would anyone want to marry someone that thinks like that?
Listen Raoul, I don't "calculate" who I like.
It is a legitimate practical consideration. Should a man hesitate to marry a woman 10 years older than him because she will likely age and become unattractive to him while he's still in his prime? Obviously he should.
Apparently you can read the future, do you use tea leaves or chicken guts? News flash -- some thirty-year old women will be attractive at fifty, some eighteen-year olds won't be attractive at twenty. What people are trying to tell you here is to look at inner beauty, you Ohioan.
Raoul, I'm not after youth by itself. Not at all. This girl was literally the girl of my dreams.
-
Since the issues of natural and nature have come up, I think that we maybe using these terms in different ways. They can be used in different senses. Example: Nature can mean creation or the creational order, or it can mean the fallen (human) nature that inclines the person to sin.
But it is not disordered to want to be attracted and seek to marry a young woman. The people who say it is disordered are pharisees.
-
"It's Natural, Completely Natural"
The song sensation of 2011. Lyrics and music by Raoul76, insipred by the writings of Telesphorus.
__________________________________________
It's natural, completely natural
To love a girl for her age.
It's natural, completely natural,
Nubiles are all the rage.
If you see a teenager,
And your heart says "Hooray!"
Just remember
Nature made you that way.
It's natural, completely natural
To love a girl for her age
It's natural, completely natural
Nubiles are all the rage.
Her hair is like velvet,
Her lips are bee-stung,
Her eyes pale like moonbeams,
Eh, main thing, she's young!
It's natural, completely natural
To love a girl for her age
It's natural, completely natural
Nubiles are all the rage.
If her dad tries to stop you,
What does he know?
It's common knowledge
Those Puerto Ricans are slow.
It's natural, completely natural
To love a girl for her age
It's natural, completely natural.
Nubiles are all the rage.
Girls of twenty are spinsters it's true
But if she's past thirty,
Dead horse!
Need some glue?
It's natural, completely natural
To love a girl for her age
It's natural, completely natural
Nubiles are always the rage.
Some dare to say
An older lady is nice
Please disregard
Their macho-femin'st advice
It's natural, completely natural
To love a girl for her age
It's natural, completely natural
Nubiles are all the rage.
:guitar: :guitar: :guitar: :guitar:
I can't help but say that this is one of the funniest things I have ever read on here.
:roll-laugh2:
-
If Tele had an attraction to experienced women, what would be the difference?
None. I've never said this had anything to do with age. I don't know why you keep going on about it.
The women that are outraged about this, I believe, are really outraged because he is treating them as old bags and withered crones. I see that very clearly in the way they see this snafu as very black-and-white, they don't see the shades of grey in what happened to him at church.
Well, I'm not outraged, so I guess this doesn't apply to me.
-
Get this through your thick head:
That's not helping.
-
I was probably confusing you with LM, Penitent, I apologize. You're just saying you wouldn't want your daughter to marry him and I agree with you now ( if I had a daughter ). It must be because I'm jealous. Women want to be with Tele; men want to BE him. There are no exceptions, except for those deceived by feminist machismo Zionist propaganda.
When Tele began using Jane Austen, the ne plus ultra of proto-feminist authors, to defend his point, I tuned out.
Tele, Jane Austen has nothing to say about what is natural. Nothing is more unnatural than Jane Austen. Those books teach girls to be scheming, calculating wenches who use passive-aggressive tactics in order to land the handsome but slightly dim hunk of their dreams, taking him away from the prettier and richer girls. They foment envy and dissatisfaction among women.
This has led to a phenomenon that you see around us in society that I call Personality Girl and Handsome Dim Guy, you know, those couples with a plain-Jane but verbal and brainy female partner, and her hunky and near-mute boyfriend who is unable to wipe his chin without her, being under a sort of magical spell.
-
Listen Raoul, I don't "calculate" who I like.
Raoul, I'm not after youth by itself. Not at all. This girl was literally the girl of my dreams.
Do the words "bloom of youth", "passed their prime", "innocent love", ring a bell. You may not "calculate" who, but you do "calculate" the age.
-
Yeah. He also said that he used to date older girls, but then he met this one, and now he KNOWS he wants a "maid." So that is the driving factor.
I'm not taking sides here, except the side of truth, as I see it in my limited way.
-
Do the words "bloom of youth", "passed their prime", "innocent love", ring a bell. You may not "calculate" who, but you do "calculate" the age.
I'm not the one who's upset about age. It's other people who are calculating - they put two numbers in their minds, my age and her age - and they get indignant. They get upset. They're not upset because of what the church teaches - it's about their own petty resentments.
And boy do they do a bad job of calculating. The father would talk about me being "20 years older" - being "double her age" - the priest would say I was 35 when I was 32.
It was really insufferable - they were so incapable of telling the truth about anything that they couldn't even refrain from misrepresenting my own age to myself! Not only am I accused of imagining how this girl acted towards me - I'm also wrong about my own age!
-
This has led to a phenomenon that you see around us in society that I call Personality Girl and Handsome Dim Guy, you know, those couples with a plain-Jane but verbal and brainy female partner, and her hunky and near-mute boyfriend who is unable to wipe his chin without her, being under a sort of magical spell.
Raoul - I'm not a Jane Austen fan. The point is those girls read those books - and the books represent early marriage and age differences with sanity - not with today's insane feminist prejudices.
-
Thanks, SS, I'm glad you liked my ditty.
Telesphorus said:
I'm not the one who's upset about age. It's other people who are calculating - they put two numbers in their minds, my age and her age - and they get indignant. They get upset. They're not upset because of what the church teaches - it's about their own petty resentments.
No, you are calculating, you are talking about how you want a young virgin.
You are contradicting yourself more than Joseph Ratzinger in this thread.
-
Yeah. He also said that he used to date older girls, but then he met this one, and now he KNOWS he wants a "maid." So that is the driving factor.
I'm not taking sides here, except the side of truth, as I see it in my limited way.
Was this that one girl he mentioned. I believe he was in his teens (or there abouts) and this girl was about 4 yrs older than him.
-
No, you are calculating, you are talking about how you want a young virgin.
There was nothing calculated about the way I met her. I didn't know her age, she didn't know mine. I knew she was young and beautiful - although at the time I had no idea how brilliant and talented she is.
Raoul, there's nothing "calculating" about wanting to marry a virgin. I'm so sick and tired of people acting as though someone should be ashamed to want a woman who hasn't been with another man - as though it's not "holy" - as though it's somehow a defect to want a virgin.
You are contradicting yourself more than Joseph Ratzinger in this thread.
The people who calculated are the people scowling at the age difference. I wasn't calculating.
-
Was this that one girl he mentioned. I believe he was in his teens (or there abouts) and this girl was about 4 yrs older than him.
No, I was 24 when I dated that woman. Yes I'm shy and inexperienced. I guess that's bad - I'm supposed to be an experienced man who likes "mature" and "experienced" women.
-
Telesphorus,
I asked this question twice on this very long thread. Maybe you've already answered it. Anything could have gotten buried in these many many pages.
If I may ask again, are you currently in a financial position to support a wife and family?
It goes without saying that this is a necessary prerequisite for a man BEFORE he begins to court a young lady.
If you are NOT in a financial position to get married, that may be a reason why your attempts to court a young lady were not successful. It is a father's responsibility to make sure that his daughter will be taken care of financially before he gives her away in a marriage.
-
Telesphorus said:
To tell you the truth, before I met this girl I was not limiting myself to younger women. What I realized, in meeting this girl, is that I very much prefer younger women. It's completely natural.
It's natural, completely natural :guitar:
-
A priest has no right to bind a girl who is of age not to speak to a man or boy she likes, just based on the wishes of the father, since she is a grown woman
In the meeting with the priest, father and daughter, the girl said she was not interested in Tele and that she did not remember acting the way she was accused of acting toward him. Was she lying? I don't know. We've only heard one side of the story. And from what I'm reading here, I'm getting the feeling that Tele is not exactly socially adept.
So, if we take the girl at her word, his trying to contact her after being told not to, is certainly cause for concern. Better to err on the side of caution, no?
-
If I may ask again, are you currently in a financial position to support a wife and family?
It goes without saying that this is a necessary prerequisite for a man BEFORE he begins to court a young lady.
This is my business. I will be the judge of it. The priest told me in confession I could talk to the girl platonically. Talking to a girl after mass isn't dating.
If you are NOT in a financial position to get married, that may be a reason why your attempts to court a young lady were not successful.
They didn't know anything about me when they forbade contact. They never let me talk to the girl, never explained anything. My confessor said I could talk platonically to her. They never let me talk to her. A man does not have to forgo all thought of marriage until he satisfies some arbitrary criterion set by other people. It's up to me to decide when I'm ready.
I'm certainly competent to be a teacher. I scored 2330/2400 on the GRE. 99% in each category. I have joined the ISPE on the basis of that score - which is a high IQ society for the top 0.1% I have a degree in mathematics. It's not my fault the feminist dominated schools won't hire me!
The priest had first let me teach at the school - and when I was completely innocent - he told me not to come back after two weeks - because I said I didn't think it was right to be alone in the room with the girl I was teaching. It's not my fault those girls had crushes on me! I did nothing wrong! But the priest used the same tactic he always did - whenever I spoke of the way girls acted towards me - he'd pretend I was imagining it, act like it was in my head.
Literally, I asked him - why did you fire me, I did nothing wrong! And he responded, yes, okay - then he turned around and said "we gave you a chance, you said you didn't want to be alone with the girl"! The man is an abject liar!
It is a father's responsibility to make sure that his daughter will be taken care of financially before he gives her away in a marriage.
No, it isn't. You keep failing to admit that the father doesn't have veto power. No matter how poor I am, his authority doesn't come into it.
-
In the meeting with the priest, father and daughter, the girl said she was not interested in Tele and that she did not remember acting the way she was accused of acting toward him. Was she lying? I don't know.
You know very well, but you prefer to believe their lies.
We've only heard one side of the story. And from what I'm reading here, I'm getting the feeling that Tele is not exactly socially adept.
Another insult to me. Wow, one insult after another. What does being socially adept have to do with it?
So, if we take the girl at her word, his trying to contact her after being told not to,
I was banned immediately after that meeting. The priest threatened me with banning for contacting her months before. The very day before he threatened me she had been looking in my eyes and smiling at me.
is certainly cause for concern. Better to err on the side of caution, no?
You're not "erring on the side of caution"
If they were really afraid of me they would never have treated me this way. Because they have done their utmost to taunt and humiliate me.
-
It's natural, completely natural :guitar:
Well, the people who hate me for it think it's perverse - they are the perverse ones.
-
What does being socially adept have to do with it?
Quite a lot actually.
-
What does being socially adept have to do with it?
Quite a lot actually.
What does being socially adept have to do with recognizing a girl flirting with me for a year, following me down the steps, or seeing that she was forbidden from speaking to me - since before confession she tried to talk to me very upset - saying I'm sorry - and I didn't look up because I was praying - I curse myself for that - and after that confession she wouldn't say hello to me even though we'd already met. What does being socially adept have to do with recognizing that?
Throwing it out there that I'm "not socially adept" - trying to make me sound like some defective person - that is what you malignant people are all about.
-
Matthew asks:
"Why would people be against you"
And I tell him - look at this thread - look at the compulsive need to tear me down. These people are spiteful.
-
Matthew asks:
"Why would people be against you"
And I tell him - look at this thread - look at the compulsive need to tear me down. These people are spiteful.
Do you live in Iowa? If so, did you attend the SSPX Mass in Waterloo?
-
Matthew asks:
"Why would people be against you"
And I tell him - look at this thread - look at the compulsive need to tear me down. These people are spiteful.
Do you live in Iowa? If so, did you attend the SSPX Mass in Waterloo?
No, my grandmother lives in Dyersville, Iowa, what a wonderful town.
I live in Cincinnati, Ohio
-
Was this that one girl he mentioned. I believe he was in his teens (or there abouts) and this girl was about 4 yrs older than him.
No, I was 24 when I dated that woman. Yes I'm shy and inexperienced. I guess that's bad - I'm supposed to be an experienced man who likes "mature" and "experienced" women.
You are right Tele, you were 24 and afraid to pursue a women near 18, but according to you, time has given you "new perspective" and "common sense". Yea, you have a "new perspective" but not a healthy one.
As to your claim of being "shy". No, I don't believe that can be said of a man who keeps posting his picture, followed by " you be the judge if girls find me attractive" (or words to that respect).
-
You are right Tele, you were 24 and afraid to pursue a women near 18, but according to you, time has given you "new perspective" and "common sense". Yea, you have a "new perspective" but not a healthy one.
You keep repeating these claims without anything to back them up. "It's not healthy" - How so?
The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it wrong or unhealthy. There are plenty of girls 18 who have married men my age throughout history - the Church blessed those unions. So all this pharisaic cant about "attraction to immaturity" and an "unhealthy" attraction to 18 year olds is just that - you are an unapologetic pharisee who thinks you have the right to judge me as some sort of head case for liking a young girl. Feminist inspired resentment that brings you back to this thread over and over again is very unhealthy.
As to your claim of being "shy". No, I don't believe that can be said of a man who keeps posting his picture,
I am shy, you can be sure of that. I post my picture because I'm exasperated at the way people try to tear me down by refusing to countenance anything I say.
followed by " you be the judge if girls find me attractive" (or words to that respect).
And I get no answer from you - because you're invested in denigrating me.
-
If I may ask again, are you currently in a financial position to support a wife and family?
It goes without saying that this is a necessary prerequisite for a man BEFORE he begins to court a young lady.
This is my business. I will be the judge of it. The priest told me in confession I could talk to the girl platonically. Talking to a girl after mass isn't dating.
Ahhh, but haven't you made so much of what could've remained private, our business, by contributing to the vast majority of these past 47 pages? The subject of whether or not you are financially prepared to get married should indeed have a major bearing on this thread if you really want our advice. Or maybe you aren't really looking for advice.
-
Ahhh, but haven't you made so much of what could've remained private, our business, by contributing to the vast majority of these past 47 pages? The subject of whether or not you are financially prepared to get married should indeed have a major bearing on this thread if you really want our advice. Or maybe you aren't really looking for advice.
When did anyone say this thread is about asking for advice?
This is about what happened.
As I said, whether or not I'm prepared to marry is not for you to judge, or for the girl's father to judge. My confessor told me I could talk to her platonically - that's good enough for me to talk to the girl. It's no one's right to threaten to kick me out of church for that.
This thread has gone on for 47 pages because of people who want to tear me down -to represent me as a defective - in order to defend malicious priests who do not teach what the Church teaches.
-
You are right Tele, you were 24 and afraid to pursue a women near 18, but according to you, time has given you "new perspective" and "common sense". Yea, you have a "new perspective" but not a healthy one.
You keep repeating these claims without anything to back them up. "It's not healthy" - How so?
The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it wrong or unhealthy. There are plenty of girls 18 who have married men my age throughout history - the Church blessed those unions. So all this pharisaic cant about "maturity" and an "unhealthy" attraction to 18 year olds is just that - you are an unapologetic pharisee who thinks you have the right to judge me as some sort of head case for liking a young girl. Feminist inspired resentment that brings you back to this thread over and over again is very unhealthy.
As to your claim of being "shy". No, I don't believe that can be said of a man who keeps posting his picture,
I am shy, you can be sure of that. I post my picture because I'm exasperated at the way people try to tear me down by refusing to countenance anything I say.
followed by " you be the judge if girls find me attractive" (or words to that respect).
And I get no answer from you - because you're invested in denigrating me.
Tele, you, yourself, has provided the evidence through out this thread. You just refuse to see that your principles in choosing a marriage partner and of marriage are dis-ordered. It is all about some type of feminist etc. etc. etc. "agenda" , that keeps you from the Object of your desire.
-
Tele, you, yourself, has provided the evidence through out this thread. You just refuse to see that your principles in choosing a marriage partner and of marriage are dis-ordered.
Another naked assertion without any backup. Explain to me how it is disordered to want to marry a young innocent woman? You can't because you haven't a leg to stand on.
It is all about some type of feminist etc. etc. etc. "agenda" , that keeps you from the Object of your desire.
Indeed it is your agenda - the agenda of the bitter harpee who is happy to see a man punished for trying to get what you think is too good for him.
-
Telesphorus said:
What does being socially adept have to do with recognizing a girl flirting with me for a year, following me down the steps, or seeing that she was forbidden from speaking to me - since before confession she tried to talk to me very upset - saying I'm sorry - and I didn't look up because I was praying - I curse myself for that - and after that confession she wouldn't say hello to me even though we'd already met. What does being socially adept have to do with recognizing that?
Being socially adept gives you some awareness of the effect you're having on others. It's not all about who's right and who's wrong. It's about seeing which way the wind is blowing. When you see it's not in your favor, you should keep a low profile. You are so convinced you're right about everything that you keep bulling forward with no comprehension of how you appear to others.
That is extremely apparent from this thread. You are showing a worrisome autistic streak. You and LM BOTH seem not listen to what the other side is saying, and reveal an inflexibility of thought, you cannot bend one inch or look at the situation from any other angle but that of your own prejudices.
It has been proven to you conclusively that your theory about feminism is bunk, that a priest counseling "maturity" has nothing to do with feminism. You can't acknowledge it. You have bull-headed pride and you never, ever admit you're wrong. Ever. That is a bad quality.
-
Being socially adept gives you some awareness of the effect you're having on others. It's not all about who's right and who's wrong.
Raoul, when it comes to kicking me out of church and maligning me pharisaically for liking a young girl, it is about right and wrong. The SSPX doesn't care if its wrong, it just cares about getting its way.
It's about seeing which way the wind is blowing. When you see it's not in your favor, you should keep a low profile.
All these people had to do was act justly - they were determined to treat me unjustly.
It has been proven to you conclusively that your theory about feminism is bunk,
Utter nonsense. Do you really think the claim that young women are too immature to be married at 18 does not have to do with feminism? To say my theory is bunk is ridiculous.
that a priest counseling "maturity" has nothing to do with feminism.
The priest wasn't counseling maturity. He said people marry later because of "lack of maturity" - in reality they marry later because of feminism. Because of the college education and mass employment of women, because of the long period of contraceptive fornication that most women today go through before "settling down."
You can't acknowledge it. You have bull-headed pride and you never, ever admit you're wrong. Ever. That is a bad quality.
I'm not wrong about feminism being the motive for all this cant about "maturity" and "immaturity" - the idea that a girl can't be responsible for her actions.
That's feminism.
You know Raoul - the priest and her father, in trying to make it look like I was acting with no encouragement, it is just like claiming a man who has consensual sex is guilty of rape if the woman claims it afterwards.
It is pure feminism.
-
Yes, in principle, the priest and the father are like men who tell a woman to falsely cry rape - they see no problem in besmirching my reputation - making me look like a mad man who was interested in a girl without any encouragement.
They think just like feminists and "conservatives" - you know so many "conservatives" say about men falsely accused of rape: "well if you weren't fornicating you wouldn't have to worry about it" - in the same way they think that because I like a woman whose younger than me and because the girl is so helpless and vulnerable and not responsible for her actions that they are justified in making it look like I had no reason for pursuing that girl.
-
Certainly American laws on marriage and divorce are something upon which feminists have had a great influence.
And how has the NO Church accommodated itself to these feminist family laws?
Through "Catholic divorce" - the bogus annulment!
And how does one get the bogus annulment!
By arguing an "immature" woman is incapable of validly committing to marriage!
So the woman is not responsible - so yes - you can kick out your husband - take his house - and commit bigamy with the Church's blessing - because you were so immature when you married!
And let's not forget - the priest that caused the lawsuit in Post Falls was sued for his influence in breaking up the marriage.
-
"So immature" - it sounds like an expression out of southern California - not something that has anything to do with Catholic moral theology.
-
You are showing a worrisome autistic streak.
That was my thought as well.
-
You are showing a worrisome autistic streak.
That was my thought as well.
Right, you're one of those whose primary concern is to mark me as a defective.
-
Right, you're one of those whose primary concern is to mark me as a defective.
No, Telesphorus, it is not my primary concern to mark you as defective. Very early on in this thread, based on your behavior here, I thought that you might have Aspergers. So when Raoul brought up autism, I agreed with him. That's all.
-
No, Telesphorus, it is not my primary concern to mark you as defective.
Sure it is. I'm some defective troublemaker who was justly kicked out - that's your premise.
Very early on in this thread, based on your behavior here, I thought that you might have Aspergers. So when Raoul brought up autism, I agreed with him. That's all.
You're not competent to say that, and even if it were true, it isn't "autism" or anything like it.
(I've known people who definitely qualify, and I'm not remotely like them)
The main reason I've been rejected in life - is that I have tried to stand up for Catholicism and for the truth.
Now I see that the truth doesn't matter - even to many Trad Catholics - since they approve me being kicked out of church.
The fact that I don't need a father's consent to talk to a daughter past majority doesn't matter.
The fact that the priest and the girl's father told her to lie about the way she felt and acted doesn't matter.
All that matters is getting rid of the "defective" troublemaker.
The same way I had my high school transcript ruined for standing up to fake Catholics at a liberal NO school.
-
You know it was interesting - that priest once did a sermon about the things that disqualify one for the seminary.
And he really seemed to relish it - when he talked about various disqualifications - people who have been depressed or "schizophrenic" - people who are missing limbs - it really seemed to be something that filled him with satisfaction to about how the priesthood is too good for such people.
Let's not forget the priest who was sued at Post Falls was sued for slandering a man about his mental condition.
-
You are showing a worrisome autistic streak.
That was my thought as well.
We ought not to diagnose each other. (And, Matthew, just my 2 cents, but I think that you should shut this thread down.)
-
I live in Cincinnati, Ohio
That's the problem. :smile:
-
Matthew, just my 2 cents, but I think that you should shut this thread down.
I agree with Jehanne. Now there are four cents.
-
The priest wasn't counseling maturity. He said people marry later because of "lack of maturity" - in reality they marry later because of feminism. Because of the college education and mass employment of women, because of the long period of contraceptive fornication that most women today go through before "settling down."
Do you honestly believe that this is true about most Traditional Catholic girls?
By the way, Tele, virtually everyone in this thread agrees that your being kicked out had at least some measure of injustice. I think it was unjust.
However, you need to listen to some of the vary salient points made here by the likes of Raoul, MrsZ, and myself.
Don't you acknowledge that Raoul is genuinely trying to understand the situation? You certainly can't just dismiss him like many others "wanting to mark you as a defective" -- just read the thread! He was like your lawyer, for crying out loud.
Matthew
-
Do you honestly believe that this is true about most Traditional Catholic girls?
Matthew, I don't know. I can't know how people really are - I can make guesses. I just know some the older girls seemed more immature than some of the younger. And more anxious to be married - rather aggressive, not as shy. That's part of the problem of delaying marriage unnaturally. And yes, these girls go to drinking parties and post pictures of themselves drinking on facebook - and make jokes about not having to drink underage anymore. Anyway, as I said, I was interested in the girl who paid attention to me first.
By the way, Tele, virtually everyone in this thread agrees that your being kicked out had at least some measure of injustice. I think it was unjust.
Don't you acknowledge that Raoul is genuinely trying to understand the situation? You certainly can't just dismiss him like many others "wanting to mark you as a defective" -- just read the thread! He was like your lawyer, for crying out loud.
Matthew
No, I don't think Raoul is trying to mark me out a defective, I think he likes to find things to criticize - and since I've been a rather manic participant in this thread - and because I'm rather impervious to the indignation felt towards me, he uses the term "autistic."
-
I used the term autistic because you show no comprehension of other points of view and are locked in your own programmed mindset. Just go look at your posts. Each one unspools the same pre-programmed speech about feminism and pharisees and how you are standing up for what's natural and right. You don't internalize what the other person says, then question yourself and make adjustments if necessary. You are an absolutely immovable object.
I'm not saying you have to agree with me personally on everything or else risk being called a name. But you have not budged one iota or accepted ANYTHING that ANYONE has said, whether Matthew, Mater, Penitent, Clovis, or other reasonable people, people you can't blame of holding a grudge against you like LM. You were the same in the beginning of this thread as at the end.
Penitent barely posts anywhere, she barely says anything. She is even slower to criticize than you used to be. If I were you, I'd be a little concerned that she is concerned about you. But no, you want to pretend that people just have some prejudice against you, that they're against youth and early marriage. It has been explained that the objection is that you fixate on young virgins and can't or won't try to understand that it is your OPINION that younger women are always the most attractive, and you won't acknowledge that other men are attracted to other qualities.
Now you are going right back to how you're persecuted and people are defending the priest that kicked you out -- no we're not, not most of us. But you don't see yourself, so it's useless to talk. One day you'll get it, hopefully. I've been in states where I was sure I was right and I wasn't.
-
I used the term autistic because you show no comprehension of other points of view and are locked in your own programmed mindset. Just go look at your posts.
Oh no, I understand completely. Some of these people keep suggesting I'm delusional, crazy, perverted for liking a young woman.
Each one unspools the same pre-programmed speech about feminism and pharisees and how you are standing up for what's natural and right.
Well what else is it? They keep repeating the same accusations and insinuations and don't ever countenance anything I say about what happened.
You don't internalize what the other person says, then question yourself and make adjustments if necessary. You are an absolutely immovable object.
What am I supposed to internalize? What point? I haven't seen anything. I see you've dropped saying that my theory about feminism is bunk.
I'm not saying you have to agree with me personally on everything or else risk being called a name. But you have not budged one iota or accepted ANYTHING that ANYONE has said, whether Matthew, Mater, Penitent, Clovis, or other reasonable people, people you can't blame of holding a grudge against you like LM. You were the same in the beginning of this thread as at the end.
I don't think I've called them names.
Penitent barely posts anywhere, she barely says anything. She is even slower to criticize than you used to be. If I were you, I'd be a little concerned that she is concerned about you.
No, her concern is about justifying what the priest did. Read.
But no, you want to pretend that people just have some prejudice against you, that they're against youth and early marriage.
Pretend? The people I am arguing with most certainly are arguing against my position.
It has been explained that the objection is that you fixate on young virgins
There you go Raoul - because I like a woman like that it's called "fixating on young virgins." It's not wrong to pursue a young virgin for marriage. You call it "fixate" - well - she fixed her eyes on me most steadily - so if I was transfixed by her - it isn't because there is something intrinsically wrong with the attraction.
and can't or won't try to understand that it is your OPINION that younger women are always the most attractive, and you won't acknowledge that other men are attracted to other qualities.
Raoul, I don't know where you come up with this stuff.
Now you are going right back to how you're persecuted and people are defending the priest that kicked you out -- no we're not, not most of us.
The long time posters on here have largely defended me except for SS. But most of the other posters have attacked me.
But you don't see yourself, so it's useless to talk. One day you'll get it, hopefully. I've been in states where I was sure I was right and I wasn't.
You still haven't told me what in particular I'm wrong about and why.
-
Telesphorus said:
Do you really think the claim that young women are too immature to be married at 18 does not have to do with feminism?
Who said that, the priest said in a blanket statement that young women are too immature to be married at 18? Or did he simply side with the Puerto Rican that his daughter was too young to be married at 18?
Even if it was a blanket statement, no, I don't think it's necessarily feminism. I already explained that we live in a complex society that takes great spiritual depth to navigate. That would be a completely different reason for supporting slightly delayed marriages. It would be feminism if the priest urged women to go to college and have careers and said this was necessary for their development, but from what I've seen this is the very opposite of the ethos of Bp. Williamson and presumably of the SSPX.
Yeah, I think the connections you're making are paranoiac and way off. You bring up annulments due to "immaturity" in the Novus Ordo. Your point is...? Do you see this happening in the SSPX, are there lots of annulments? The Novus Ordo uses a myriad of reasons to annul marriages, they scramble to find any justification, that is just one.
You see the word "immaturity" and it's like a bull seeing a red flag. But as you yourself have admitted, this is a vague word that can mean lots of things. It doesn't necessarily mean the same thing when a priest says it as when a feminist says it or when a Novus Ordo marriage tribunal says it.
-
Telesphorus said:
What am I supposed to internalize? What point? I haven't seen anything.
Raoul76 said:
But you don't see yourself, so it's useless to talk.
You cast a wide net trying to show that the entire world is part of a conspiracy against your attempts to woo a girl you talked to once. It's so wide that it's self-defeating, it's practically the size of the whole ocean and it can't be drawn in. There is about sixteen logical fallacies in the theory. Just to name a couple --
( 1 ) That talking about immaturity is automatically feminism
( 2 ) That feminism has a root cause, or at least a cause, in Spanish or Latin machismo
( 3 ) That everyone at SSPX is jealous of youth because they didn't support your quest for this virgin, when they may have supported an 18-year old marrying her
Any one of those three undermines your argument entirely, and there are many more. Matthew has also said that your ideological sweeping statements are blown out of proportion.
-
Let me give you my interpretation of events.
I think this Latin didn't want you for his daughter for reasons only known to himself, and that may very well have been unjust.
I think he got the priest involved and the priest unfortunately crossed the bounds set by the Church.
I think the others at the church didn't say anything because people generally don't in situations like this, using the excuse that "they just want to stay out of it."
A handful of them may have resented you, or been jealous, or felt you were inappropriate for the girl, who can say.
I think this predicament is about simple human nature and not about some feminist-macho conspiracy. I don't think it reveals much about SSPX except that some of their priests will bend Church law, but then their entire theological position bends canon law, so why stop there?
Telesphorus said:
There you go Raoul - because I like a woman like that it's called "fixating on young virgins." It's not wrong to pursue a young virgin for marriage. You call it "fixate" - well - she fixed her eyes on me most steadily - so if I was transfixed by her - it isn't because there is something intrinsically wrong with the attraction.
This shows you don't want to understand. You didn't just court one virgin. You have developed an entire philosophy around young virgins and have made that a requisite condition for a potential mate. That is why I said "virgins" plural, not "virgin."
I am beginning to wonder if this girl really was a huge tease. I have had some very bizarre experiences with women at church despite their outward piety. So bizarre that sometimes it is unnerving.
-
Who said that, the priest said in a blanket statement that young women are too immature to be married at 18? Or did he simply side with the Puerto Rican that his daughter was too young to be married at 18?
The priest was saying that delayed marriage today was because of immaturity. That is not the cause. It is lack of innocence, not lack of maturity, that is destroying marriage.
Even if it was a blanket statement, no, I don't think it's necessarily feminism.
What is it then? I'm sorry, but if a priest can't see that delayed marriage is an objective and a result of feminism he has a defective understanding of modern society.
He said something else that really bugged me - during a marriage sermon - he said St. Paul's statement about a wife's duty to obey her husband applied to "final decisions." I had remarked in the Legion of Mary meeting that the English ritual for marriage mentioned nothing about the wife's duty to obey her husband. I was satisfied at the time he mentioned it - but when he said obedience applied to "final decisions" - it seemed like undermining what St. Paul said. When does a decision become final?
I already explained that we live in a complex society that takes great spiritual depth to navigate. That would be a completely different reason for supporting slightly delayed marriages.
Raoul, the reason Catholics go along with delayed marriage is the social stigma against early marriage - it has everything to do with the bad customs feminism and liberalism have established, and nothing to do with being unprepared. His argument that "people are more immature" today is just an excuse to clamp down on young people who want to get married.
It would be feminism if the priest urged women to go to college and have careers and said this was necessary for their development, but from what I've seen this is the very opposite of the ethos of Bp. Williamson and presumably of the SSPX.
Raoul, you don't seem to get it - Bishop Williamson no longer has influence. There is an interview by by Stephen Heiner of Bishop Williamson where the Bishop says that well-off people int he parish should help out young couples. The Society's stances are being liberalized. This priest really showed a lot indications of having liberal attitudes. I remember confessing how I hated Freemasons in confession and he just laughed and laughed.
Yeah, I think the connections you're making are paranoiac and way off.
Then you're not thinking.
You bring up annulments due to "immaturity" in the Novus Ordo. Your point is...? Do you see this happening in the SSPX, are there lots of annulments?
There are people who have had annulments who were remarried before coming to the SSPX, yes. The SSPX even grants its own annulments.
The connection is very clear Raoul. If you say immaturity is a reason people must marry later instead of talking about the social stigma attached by feminism to early marriage - if you talk about how young people need good paying jobs to get married and blame the fact that it is harder and harder to get them today on "immaturity" - if you start suggesting we should accept a delay in marriage because that's what modern people do - well - you're not arguing like a Catholic. The determination of the age when marriage is appropriate should be based on natural reason and should be universal - it should not be based on the expectations of feminists and liberals as to what is proper way to spend one's youth in the 21st Century.
In 17th Century France marriage was often delayed because of poverty. Not because of immaturity!
Archbishop Fenelon alluded to in in his Télémaque:
At that time the city and adjacent villages were filled with the youth of both sexes, who had long languished in dejection and indigence, and did not dare marry for fear of increasing their distress . . .
link (http://books.google.com/books?id=2p9EAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA364&lpg=PA364&dq=adventures+of+telemachus+pan+indigence&source=bl&ots=kTbIF-pmrx&sig=EqcnJVa26dBllnQo6Bl1Qo7WWZY&hl=en&ei=LFWMTYyQBZO3twebkaioDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Now the Archbishop was truthful - he explained the real reason for this unnatural delay of marriage - the society of that time was sacrificing the family life of the nation for the consumption of the government and the rich.
In this nation we are sacrificing the family life of the nation for college "education" - feminism, affirmative action, for the massive debts that were used to fatten the aging population and keep them content. And of course, for the large class of overpaid liberal professionals in government, academia, law, media, finance, etc.
These people who argue young people are not ready to marry sacramentally - not ready to make their own decisions - the parish priest quoted Bishop Tissier saying that the age of majority should be increased to higher than 21 instead of being lowered to 18! (although in fact I do not think the age of majority was defined in the 1917 Code) - they are thwarting young Catholics and making it harder for them to have a decent family life and marry rather than burn, instead they are trying to accommodate the demands of those who have conformed to this anti-marriage culture we live in.
As I said before, the delay of marriage today has absolutely nothing to do with maturity. In the NO they simply pretend that young people aren't capable of validly marrying whenever two people who marry young divorce. Two young people raised with Catholic morality are certainly capable of marrying young. The SSPX doesn't like it because it's a money issue - they don't want young families on their hands begging for help - and also because it's likely parents don't want early marriages either. So they are denying the rights of Catholic young people to make their own decisions - on the grounds that such people are not really responsible actors, unable to put their destiny in their own hands.
The Novus Ordo uses a myriad of reasons to annul marriages, they scramble to find any justification, that is just one.
Alas, 95% of the declarations of nullity made by post-Conciliar tribunals base them on canon 1095. We must consider these judgments as null and void. "Catholic divorce" is even spoken of —so easy is it to obtain a favorable judgment in virtue of this canon.
http://www.sspx.org/Canonical_Commission/legitimacy_and_status_of_our_tribunals.htm
You see the word "immaturity" and it's like a bull seeing a red flag. But as you yourself have admitted, this is a vague word that can mean lots of things. It doesn't necessarily mean the same thing when a priest says it as when a feminist says it or when a Novus Ordo marriage tribunal says it.
No, when the SSPX uses the phrase they mean what the NO means.
But this "defectu discretionis judicii" [grave lack of discretionary judgement] that is to say lack of maturity in judgement concerns necessarily personal fulfillment, nay inter personal fulfillment as an essential obligations of marriage, which is traditionally outside the object of the matrimonial contract and concern the subjective aspect of the matrimonial bond. Certainly the growing lack of maturity in young people often render marriage less viable and imprudent, but to establish an incapacity on the grounds of lack of maturity is to put forward a personalist and subjective conception of the marriage contract and open the door to abuses. Only a stricter impediment of age would be an objective remedy.
http://whyiamacatholic.com/SSPX/Tissier1.htm
How could it be an acceptable remedy? It is crazy to claim that the Church can automatically invalidate the matrimonial promises of a girl if she happened to be just 17. (and some might suggest an even higher impediment than 18 - they might try to argue no one can marry under 20 and how could the SSPX leaders say that's an objective remedy? "Because today people are more immature" - no - that's not the reason they suggest the age impediment. It has nothing to do with immaturity - just as "annulments" on such a ground have nothing to do with an invalid sacrament - it has everything to do with the ideas society has about what age liberal feminist society considers acceptable for young women to marry. In fact there are those who argue for an age impediment of 20.
Raoul, don't you see how perverse it is to claim that attraction to innocence is considered attraction to "immaturity" - as LM claimed? The NO is even more perverse - they would take it as a matter of principle in their tribunals that a young innocent woman can't marry - but is what LM is saying really much different? It is perverse for a young maiden to marry because of "immaturity" - ergo she shouldn't marry - and in the NO - the marriage is even declared invalid.
They have a hostility to early marriage like Cato's hostility to Carthage - they want it to be theologically impossible. Now this hatred is feminism, and behind the feminism, is Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, and behind that, is the spirit of Antichrist.
-
I am beginning to wonder if this girl really was a huge tease. I have had some very bizarre experiences with women at church despite their outward piety. So bizarre that sometimes it is unnerving.
Raoul if she was a tease I would have seen less depth of emotions. There was sadness and on occasion the appearance of being "love-lorn" and of course, remember what convinced you I wasn't delusional: she was very upset when she tried to talk to me before confession the week after we met.
-
Bruckner never married; he was attracted to teenage girls, who turned down the proposals of the older man. One such was the daughter of a friend, called Louise; in his grief he is believed to have written the cantata "Entsagen" (Renunciation). His affection for teenage girls led to an accusation of impropriety where he taught music, and while he was exonerated, he decided to concentrate on teaching boys afterwards. His calendar for 1874 details the names of girls who appealed to him, and the list of such girls in all his diaries was very long. In 1880 he fell for a 17-year-old peasant girl in the cast of theOberammergau Passion Play. His interest in girls appears to have been based on the assumed virtue retained through their being young, and lasted as long as they seemed worthy of marriage; he feared sin. His unsuccessful proposals to teenage girls continued into his seventies; one potential relationship that might have been suitable when he was older came to nothing because the girl would not convert to Catholicism.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Bruckner#See_also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvpXqAjnBFI&feature=related
-
( 1 ) That talking about immaturity is automatically feminism
It is in this case - without a doubt. "Immature" is just a meaningless word used to disguise indignation at the idea of a girl marrying before college - while she has "her whole life ahead of her." And an 18 year old girl is not immature.
When a woman's character is formed it tends to stay the same or get worse. Women do not change as much as men - and some of them become more and more like children as they get older, especially if they do not marry. My sister's personalities have not changed at all since they were teenagers. Whereas my brother's personality has steadily changed as he has gotten older (he's 24 now)
( 2 ) That feminism has a root cause, or at least a cause, in Spanish or Latin machismo
I didn't claim that. You don't understand my argument. I said that there is a connectoin between the 18th Century war on Church jurisdiction in marriage (which led to Latin fathers controlling who their daughters could marry for - for example, in Puerto Rico they still have control until the age of 21) and the modern feminist hostility to early marriage and age differences. Caraffa suggested the double standard could play a role - I agree - the power of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ in Latin countries was fertile ground for virulent strains of Leftism.
( 3 ) That everyone at SSPX is jealous of youth because they didn't support your quest for this virgin, when they may have supported an 18-year old marrying her
First of all I doubt they would support that. And I am talking about the way they try to call it perverted. That is based on jealousy, fundamentally. From all sides.
Any one of those three undermines your argument entirely, and there are many more.
Well you don't seem to understand the argument.
Listen Raoul - there is a conspiracy against Catholic marriage.
It's not just against me.
-
You know, I have tried to see this subject and the poster Telesphorus in the best light possible. I don't believe I wrote that older women "resented" younger women. I just said that many women perceive older men to be of a more manipulative/ predatory nature when it's comes to a very young girl. I described the reasons why this might be the case, and tried to logically figure it out.
That women are afraid of becoming invisible or even repulsive to men after the age of 40, is a given due to our awful, shallow culture. I understand the preference for youthful beauty in a bride .. and specifically the hope that purity goes along with those attributes, and I do not begrudge a groom from choosing that. This whole thing was about a seeming fixation on a number, an age: 18 .. when the potential groom was quite a bit older than that.
All that aside, I must point out that throughout this thread, Telephorus has repeatedly described how basically everyone is out to get him. He mentioned time and again how he is the victim of evildoers intent on making his life miserable. He said his high school transcripts were ruined, he said that he was fired from a teaching job (at the SSPX school?) because the girls there all had crushes on him and now this latest where he's been supposedly maligned, attacked and kicked out of church because a girl there was controlled by her father and others and forced to tell lies about her interest in him.
He also says things now like the girl was for some reason overcome with emotion during choir practice and fell to her knees to prayer due to some disturbing thoughts. More recently we are learning that this girl showed a "love-lorn" look on her face on several occasions during Mass .. and that she was thwarted in her attempt to speak to him prior to Confession, by her interfering (and obviously "jealous") mother.
I don't know ... something seems wrong here. There seems to be paranoia, victim-identity thinking and also strange delusional-fantasy type stuff. I have a really hard time believing that Telesphorus is being maligned due to the impact he's having on "love-lorn" young virgins who are being prevented from contact with him due to evil teachers, administrators, fathers and priests.
-
Note: I should have written my post to Telephorus not about him. Also, I just want to say that this posting comes from reading through the entire thread and reaching some conclusions based on that. I understand that I could be incorrect in my conclusions and I intend no disrespect to Telephorus. These conclusions have caused a great deal of concern and I would only hope that he try to discern through thought and prayer whether or not he may have misread these and other situations he's experienced.
-
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais said:
But this "defectu discretionis judicii" [grave lack of discretionary judgement] that is to say lack of maturity in judgement concerns necessarily personal fulfillment, nay inter personal fulfillment as an essential obligations of marriage, which is traditionally outside the object of the matrimonial contract and concern the subjective aspect of the matrimonial bond. Certainly the growing lack of maturity in young people often render marriage less viable and imprudent, but to establish an incapacity on the grounds of lack of maturity is to put forward a personalist and subjective conception of the marriage contract and open the door to abuses. Only a stricter impediment of age would be an objective remedy.
:roll-laugh1: Okay, yeah, that is a problematic quote. SSPX theology is often very twisted, as I have said numerous times on this site, remember?
Everything in that paragraph up to the last sentence makes it sound like the bishop is disagreeing with the Novus Ordo and their subjectivist outlook on marriage, which leads to so many annullments. Then he tries to apply some kind of remedy of his own devising which also comes from his subjectivist viewpoint ( that people are less mature these days ).
I agree that people are less mature, actually. The difference is that I wouldn't try to apply an "objective remedy" that goes beyond Church teaching. I would just try to be a better teacher and give better advice to young people to help them make good decisions.
To me this is redolent of the entire SSPX position -- by trying to stay in the middle, an impossible place, they have developed this completely alien and strange theology, stretched on the bed of Procrustes. This is just one example. They're just making things up as they go along.
There may be something to what you say. I don't agree it's feminism, but if you recall, I spent about a year railing against the constant contradictions and condescension of the SSPX. The problem is that I wasn't at your church and didn't see how the whole thing developed. Since it was the father who is at fault, and the father is simply an overprotective man, not a Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, from what I can tell, there is no connection between your personal grievance and contorted SSPX theology EXCEPT that the priest used some of this contorted SSPX theology to support the father over you.
My theory since the time Tele convinced me he was unfairly kicked out, is that he is mostly in the right, but he has blown it out of proportion in a self-obsessed way. I have a little sympathy with the father here, too. He is going too far but what do you do about someone you think is an unsuitable beau making a beeline for your daughter? Telesphorus, what if you had a daughter and some guy you thought was a smarmy arrogant jerk you just didn't like was using intricate theological arguments to try to find an excuse to see her, and he just would not stop ( by the way, your attitude is slightly unlikable, to say the least, so I can easily see this happening )? You keep saying they are against "young marriage" and maybe they are, but that doesn't apply in your case, you aren't that kind of young.
So there are many competing controversial strands of thought going on. You are seeing them all from your perspective. You are using things that are truly wrong about your chapel, and perhaps about SSPX as a whole, to justify yourself and try to get what you want. But you are missing the other human side of this, the father's side. There are many that are uncomfortable with the age difference, or maybe with your personality which comes off as self-obsessed. This isn't pharisaical, it isn't feminism, it's just a dad who doesn't approve of you, for reasons I don't know, but can sympathize with at least a little based on how you're acting in this thread, thinking everyone is jealous of you, going on and on about virgins, etc.
-
By the way, I'm an obsessive classical music collector and know of course about Bruckner. I wouldn't hold him up as an example to follow there. I haven't heard of any saints acting like that.
I think a better way of appreciating young virgins than keeping lists of their names and lurking around them with a half-sɛҳuąƖ, half-paternal concern, is to commend them to God and be on your own way.
Obsessing over virgins who reject you and then writing lovelorn hymns like "Entsagen," this is the life you've chosen for yourself? I'm not saying Bruckner isn't a Catholic, but there are better Catholic examples.
-
Can't believe this thread is this long...
-
This is / was the best thread on the site. It's a change from the endlessly repetitive sede-SSPX debates, or Feeneyite debates, that never go anywhere, it brings up lots of prickly and interesting questions, it's psychologically complex.
-
I looked on this thread yesterday and realized that the reason I thought Tele dated a 14 year old was because in one of his posts he said she was 14 years rounger than him and I misunderstood what he said. At the time there was so much going on that I obviously just skimmed over his post. So that's why I mistakenly thought the girl was 14. By the way Raoul, I don't think you saw the post I made yesterday, but what I said in it was that I apologized to you because I accused you of sticking up for Tele only because you are a sede. So in case you didn't see my post, I'd like to apologize to you again for that.
-
I have a really hard time believing that Telesphorus is being maligned due to the impact he's having on "love-lorn" young virgins who are being prevented from contact with him due to evil teachers, administrators, fathers and priests.
Mrs. Z, I stood up for the Faith to a bullying NO religion teacher - and it was a major factor in ruining my transcript. I was tied for top student in the class the year before - I could have become co-valedictorian, and this non-Christian NO teacher gave me an F. No one stood up for me then either. Not my parents, no one.
Mrs Z, yes, the priest was out to make me look like a lunatic. Whenever I asked him for a straight reason as to why I was told he would first he would admit I did nothing wrong then he said "I gave you a chance." I was teaching at the school, and the girl I was teaching did have a crush on me. One time I was going to be left alone with her, and I said I didn't want to be alone in the same room. The next Sunday I was called and told I wasn't wanted back. I did nothing wrong! Nothing.
Whenever I would tell this priest about the way girls were acting towards me, he'd always brush off what I was saying, act as though I was imagining it. As I said, the strategy was to make me look like a lunatic who was acting with zero encouragement. It was sick and dishonest. (the cynical side of me makes me think this priest is used to treating devout people this way - he has contempt for them, and thinks because he's a priest he can get them even to deny what they've seen with their own eyes)
Yes I'm convinced that if a false complaint was made against me, this priest and the parish sycophants would be right behind it, and nothing I said would make any difference.
I was doing much better than ever before, my life seemed to be coming into order. My spiritual life had greatly improved, my physical condition, my self-discipline - everything had greatly improved. I told people about myself. I was honest with people. I wasn't lying - this priest was never honest with me - he had some sort of resentment against me.
-
Another woman told me that the family that had a grudge (I'm not talking about the family of the girl I liked) against me had made a terrible accusation against her. The chapel has a terrible reputation for vicious gossip and among SSPX priests.
Elizabeth can attest to that.
-
To be frank, I have seen this over and over, certain Catholics seem to be undergoing persecution within their little church groups. We've seen this with Eamon, with Tele, I've seen it with a friend of mine at CMRI.
I am kind of surprised that I am so popular at my church, since I never was before in any social setting. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. Or maybe the hammer is yet to drop... I do feel a kind of constant tension.
But I have had very strange things happen to me at church, subtle things. The devil plays with me in a particular way -- my life is full of "funny" events, but if I talk about them, it makes me sound crazy, or narcissistic, like I think I'm the center of the universe. So I don't talk about them much, or try not to.
I think that's what's happening to Tele. Funny things are happening to him, he is being persecuted, but he is falling for the trap by lashing out.
You have to turn the other cheek. Whenever I get into one of these weird situations now, I stifle my curiosity, I don't try to get to the bottom of it, I just say "I don't know why these people are acting the way they are, nor do I care, let God take care of it, and let the angels protect me."
I have learned "soft as a dove" to go with "wise as a serpent." It is very powerful. I let God fight for me, instead of trying to be on the defensive myself, and it works.
Instead of seeing ourselves as geniuses who are going to go out there and correct everyone, it's best to realize that in truth we are little goobers who don't know squat and that if we do say anything right, it's because God put it in our mouths. We don't deserve to have easy lives, we deserve the opposite. So grin and bear.
-
I saw the apology SS, thanks, it really wasn't a big deal.
-
Another woman told me that the family that had a grudge (I'm not talking about the family of the girl I liked) against me had made a terrible accusation against her. The chapel has a terrible reputation for vicious gossip and among SSPX priests.
Elizabeth can attest to that.
Just to clarify: The woman who told me she had a terrible accusation made against her is not Elizabeth.
-
Interesting link while we are on the subject of Countries.
http://apostates.weebly.com/what-exactly-is-sharia-law.html
Yuck! What a gross site!! I hope that is not a real hand. In any case, Catholic princes, in the Middle Ages, were guilty of the same atrocities. In this sense, I do agree somewhat with Vatican II's "dignity of man," in that I do feel that "cruel and unusual punishment" should be a thing of the past, although, Popes prior to Vatican II were expressing the same humanity without the accompanying heresies.
It depends on where you live. I knew about amputations but never saw a pic of them before. Yes it is a law that a theaf must be amputated. But it is not the same everywhere. Saudi Arabia does so, we don't, (at least when theft is concerned).
-
Another woman told me that the family that had a grudge (I'm not talking about the family of the girl I liked) against me had made a terrible accusation against her. The chapel has a terrible reputation for vicious gossip and among SSPX priests.
Elizabeth can attest to that.
Just to clarify: The woman who told me she had a terrible accusation made against her is not Elizabeth.
Thank God for small favors.
-
51 pages after how many days?! Damn... and I thought I could write novellas about my family's dramas. Tele's love life would make a seasons worth of film for Telemundo if he just filled in the details.
:laugh1:
-
Samurai, you need to stop listening to that junk. That woman is not attractive, she's harsh-looking.
I guess you didnt get the memo. I quite well over a year ago. That doesn't mean Im automatically going to forget who's who.
-
Fortunetly, it seems that this subject is closed for now. But it appears that Tele is having a hard time letting the topic go, he's talking about it on another thread.
-
Telesphorus, this gal is 5 years older than you. 38 and still good looking! Or am I delusional?
:
How old are you CS?
Young men don't always have the best judgement.
Speaking of which, my younger brother is 24 and in medical school, and I really worry about some unscrupulous woman getting her claws into him.
I was just lightly teasing you with the pics. Though I sympathize with you, Tele, I think your infatuation with this girl is baseless. I mean, a year of flirtation (on her part) is not the same thing as getting to know her! Personally I dont know how a person can fall in love with someone without getting to know them first. I can understand how you've developed this emotional attachment for this girl, as well as your frustration in finding a spouse, but I just dont see anything there to solidify it besides some romantic idea.
If I wasn't sick for the past several days I would have probably actually contributed to this thread, but I think Rauol and some other people have already said what I would have (and better than what I would have).
But to answer your question, Im 20.
I already know what I'm looking for in a wife, but it's not looks (which is merely a bonus). Im actually looking for someone close to how Matthew describes his wife. I think that sums it up right there. But while I would prefer someone my own age, I dont mind if she's younger (or older) than I am. *And preferably she has that dark charm and has some fire to her personality... I dont expect a picturesque saint.
I think what you should carry away from this experience, Telesphorus, is that next time around you get acquainted with a girl you need to look MUCH more deeper into her soul (get to actually KNOW her damnit), as well as that of her family, because you're going to be putting up with both for the rest of your life. If you like what you see on the inside you will find you love what is on the outside afterwards, whatever it's age is.
-
Fortunetly, it seems that this subject is closed for now. But it appears that Tele is having a hard time letting the topic go, he's talking about it on another thread.
Oh. I didnt notice these posts were from yesterday. I'm just catching up on everything. :facepalm: :plant:
-
What's interesting is that this thread is only about a week old. One thing Tele did succeed in doing is causing the most activity here since November. :cowboy:
-
What's interesting is that this thread is only about a week old. One thing Tele did succeed in doing is causing the most activity here since November. :cowboy:
Hopefully this wont become as long as the Ode thread. :laugh1:
LM can RP Robert Rawhide. :wink:
-
That Ode thread was the longest I've ever seen on CatholicInfo. One thing about these long threads though, is that it's only a matter of time before a debate of some sort erupts. Next thing you know we'll be arguing about the dancing banana. :dancing-banana:
:laugh1:
-
That Ode thread was the longest I've ever seen on CatholicInfo. One thing about these long threads though, is that it's only a matter of time before a debate of some sort erupts. Next thing you know we'll be arguing about the dancing banana. :dancing-banana:
:laugh1:
Actually we have had some small arguments about that before. :laugh1:
-
That Ode thread was the longest I've ever seen on CatholicInfo. One thing about these long threads though, is that it's only a matter of time before a debate of some sort erupts. Next thing you know we'll be arguing about the dancing banana. :dancing-banana:
:laugh1:
Actually we have had some small arguments about that before. :laugh1:
You're right, I almost forgot about that.
-
You are a wise young man, Samurai. Wow.
I was thinking about this today, because I have been going through a kind of temptation lately.
Tele thinks that objectively, young virgins are the most attractive of the female sex. I tend to be more attracted to brainy women. When I think back to the sinful relationships I had before converting, there was always a love-hate kind of dynamic, more or less. It seems that what excites me physically is friction, being with a girl who doesn't agree with me ideologically, who has something enigmatic and dangerous about her.
I have seen virgins, or girls who at least I think of as virgins, who I find adorable. Or, said another way, I can see how they're adorable to God. But when I see a young virgin, I don't want to marry her. I want her to stay a virgin and consecrate herself to God. There is a massive spiritual attraction there, but not a physical OR an intellectual one. It seems too white-bread and too easy or something. I have a mind that craves constant challenges.
For Tele, I think the spiritual translates into the physical; for me, the physical is a lure away from the spiritual, they are always opposed. It is the intellectual that translates into the physical, and the spiritual tries to stop this from happening.
Now that I write this all out, it shows exactly why I should be celibate. I'm better served living an entirely intellectual existence.
-
I was just lightly teasing you with the pics. Though I sympathize with you, Tele, I think your infatuation with this girl is baseless. I mean, a year of flirtation (on her part) is not the same thing as getting to know her! Personally I dont know how a person can fall in love with someone without getting to know them first. I can understand how you've developed this emotional attachment for this girl, as well as your frustration in finding a spouse, but I just dont see anything there to solidify it besides some romantic idea.
If I wasn't sick for the past several days I would have probably actually contributed to this thread, but I think Rauol and some other people have already said what I would have (and better than what I would have).
With all due respect CS, I don't think you can judge what it's like to be in such a situation without being in it. 20 months ago I thought to myself how foolish I'd been in the past - foolish to think so much was lost when I'd been disappointed in the past. I went to the opera Carmen and had a rather scornful pity for Don Jose. I thought how lucky I was, to have not have been married before I found a traditional Catholic chapel where young attractive women who seemed to share my values showed interest in me.
I'll say something more CS - this isn't an ordinary girl. There aren't many girls like this one out there.
Don't be so proud CS. Yes I realize I must seem a bit pathetic - but I have been embittered and discouraged because I realize just how much other Catholics - jealous, condescending, callous and even ruthless people do whatever they can to thwart someone else's hopes and dreams when it interferes with their own schemes, or runs afoul of a 21st Century "sense of propriety" that has nothing to do with genuine morality.
But to answer your question, Im 20.
I already know what I'm looking for in a wife, but it's not looks (which is merely a bonus). Im actually looking for someone close to how Matthew describes his wife. I think that sums it up right there. But while I would prefer someone my own age, I dont mind if she's younger (or older) than I am. *And preferably she has that dark charm and has some fire to her personality... I dont expect a picturesque saint.
Dark charm and fire, eh? Watch out.
I think what you should carry away from this experience, Telesphorus, is that next time around you get acquainted with a girl you need to look MUCH more deeper into her soul (get to actually KNOW her damnit), as well as that of her family, because you're going to be putting up with both for the rest of your life. If you like what you see on the inside you will find you love what is on the outside afterwards, whatever it's age is.
I've tried to explain - it wasn't possible to get to know her. All I asked for was the chance to get to know her, to talk to her as a friend after church. That was just an outrageous scandal, an intolerable affront to pride and self-righteousness.
-
I was just lightly teasing you with the pics. Though I sympathize with you, Tele, I think your infatuation with this girl is baseless. I mean, a year of flirtation (on her part) is not the same thing as getting to know her! Personally I dont know how a person can fall in love with someone without getting to know them first. I can understand how you've developed this emotional attachment for this girl, as well as your frustration in finding a spouse, but I just dont see anything there to solidify it besides some romantic idea.
If I wasn't sick for the past several days I would have probably actually contributed to this thread, but I think Rauol and some other people have already said what I would have (and better than what I would have).
With all due respect CS, I don't think you can judge what it's like to be in such a situation without being in it. 20 months ago I thought to myself how foolish I'd been in the past - foolish to think so much was lost when I'd been disappointed in the past. I went to the opera Carmen and had a rather scornful pity for Don Jose. I thought how lucky I was, to have not have been married before I found a traditional Catholic chapel where young attractive women who seemed to share my values showed interest in me.
I'll say something more CS - this isn't an ordinary girl. There aren't many girls like this one out there.
Don't be so proud CS. Yes I realize I must seem a bit pathetic - but I have been embittered and discouraged because I realize just how much other Catholics - jealous, condescending, callous and even ruthless people do whatever they can to thwart someone else's hopes and dreams when it interferes with their own schemes, or runs afoul of a 21st Century "sense of propriety" that has nothing to do with genuine morality.
* I have to reply in multiple posts because, like a feminist, the quote within a quote post is a bitch to me.
Im sorry, but to be honest, I've never seen the Carmen opera, so Im afraid I dont get it. *blush*
Im not doubting there were people jumping on you. It sounds evident to me. But that aside, Im serious.
-
But to answer your question, Im 20.
I already know what I'm looking for in a wife, but it's not looks (which is merely a bonus). Im actually looking for someone close to how Matthew describes his wife. I think that sums it up right there. But while I would prefer someone my own age, I dont mind if she's younger (or older) than I am. *And preferably she has that dark charm and has some fire to her personality... I dont expect a picturesque saint.
Dark charm and fire, eh? Watch out.
It's a German/Hispanic mix thing. :wink:
-
I've tried to explain - it wasn't possible to get to know her. ....
Which proves my point. You DONT know her!
-
I've tried to explain - it wasn't possible to get to know her. ....
Which proves my point. You DONT know her!
I do know her, and know a lot about her - "get to know her" is an expression. Know her well? Talk to her much? No, that was impossible - in part because of my own scrupulosity - that doesn't make it easier to take - that makes it harder to take.
All this "getting to know someone" is really overblown. I can talk and talk with women for months and get to know them - and it has nothing to do with whether I wish to pursue them or not. It's pretty rare that "getting to know someone" causes you to fall in love.
Like I said CS, don't be so proud. I thought you were better than to join in with these people who are so condescending.
If you meet a girl who has "dark charm and fire" - and is a German/Hispanic mix like I did - watch out.
-
Tele, you shouldn't interpret any slight criticism (or questioning of your situation) as some kind of ganging-up against you.
Again, I've witnessed several members who have shown genuine concern and charity for their brother in Christ (Telesphorus), and have tried to better understand the situation, hoping thereby to perhaps point out some wisdom for you and/or help you in some way.
I also have seen a couple members who were a bit harsh -- I'm sure you know who they are.
Anyhow, it would be an injustice to throw Raoul (for example) in with them. If he came out critical of you, he certainly got there in all honesty and truth-seeking! I still don't think he's any more critical of you than he should be.
-
I don't think it's slight criticism to make light of my "infatuation." I keep talking about how I was kicked out of church unjustly - and many of these people want to make it out to be about how I'm supposedly delusional and infatuated and even "disordered" because I wanted to talk to a beautiful girl who encouraged me.
Won't be long before I'm in negative rep territory. Matthew, if you don't want certain types of people going after someone, why put in the neg reps?
I had one of the lowest reps on fisheaters because I defended the teaching that a wife should obey her husband.
Here I am defending the right of a young woman to marry who she wants to marry without the father's consent - and that's one reason I'm getting neg-repped.
In both cases, so-called traditional Catholics are willing to put what the Church teaches second to their American values.
-
I don't think it's quite that simple.
Your situation is a bit more complicated than anything that could be described in a sentence or two.
In fact, most people will agree that a young woman can marry who she wants. The disagreement is over how much authority does the father have over her at different ages, while she is still at home.
BTW, I thought it wise to design the program so that people can't go into "negatives" -- no one should have to deal with a big "hole" they can't escape from.
I've been on message boards long enough to see that things blow over, and threads are forgotten. Many of your other posts are more popular (at least here, compared to FE)
And if you haven't read my "announcement" thread -- you get 1 point for each "like" and lose 1/3 of a point for each "dislike".
Matthew
-
I don't think it's slight criticism to make light of my "infatuation." I keep talking about how I was kicked out of church unjustly - and many of these people want to make it out to be about how I'm supposedly delusional and infatuated and even "disordered" because I wanted to talk to a beautiful girl who encouraged me.
I don't think there is any one "theme" to this thread. There's the issue of what the priest did to you, the issue of the father's authority, the issue of your preference for 18-year-old virgins, etc.
That's why we're on page 53. There's a lot of material, and some of the topics are going round-and-round.
-
Yes. Tele had an abysmal "fishie" score because libs and Neo-Trads kept docking him. An inverse fishie score became a badge of orthodoxy. Here a low score would probably mean you've pissed off Sedes as they are currently overrunning the forum and dominate all discussion in the Crisis section. I'm not sure where to go on here to get a good Neo-Cath/ SSPX discussion going....
-
I don't think it's quite that simple.
Your situation is a bit more complicated than anything that could be described in a sentence or two.
In fact, most people will agree that a young woman can marry who she wants. The disagreement is over how much authority does the father have over her at different ages, while she is still at home.
Well Canon Law is pretty clear is pretty clear that the age is 18. If one rejects the 83 Code (and the SSPX would have no standing to reject the Code on an issue like this that doesn't have to do with the Faith), the fact remains that traditionally girls were free to marry without parental consent even at ages younger than 18. Certainly 100 years ago girls could marry in most US states by age 18 without parental consent. So it's not like the 26 Amendment or the 83 Cod of Canon law is the reason for the change. St. Thomas didn't say "the maid is in her father's power not as a slave but until the maid is out on her own working in her own household she can only speak to suitors her father approves of."
He also said slaves are not bound by masters too - so it's pretty obvious that being in the house does not decide the principle.
-
That's one point that no one has "demolished" yet, at least not that I have read --
What should we make of that quote from St. Thomas?
Just that the woman is free to marry, as she has Free Will? That is something that most people on here will concede.
But Tele brings up a thorny point -- how does this woman look into other vocations and/or suitors if the father forbids it?
I suppose she could go against him then -- but she'd have to A) be strongly convinced she was right -- she'd have to feel strongly for the suitor or vocation, and B) be prepared to live with the consequences (including, but not limited to, moving out).
So Tele would have to have an apartment ready for this young lady if she was going to go against her father's wishes. Also, it doesn't appear this young lady was prepared to go against her father.
When her father told her, "It's him or me". She responded, "I choose you, dad". She didn't seem to be prepared to court Tele against the wishes of her father.
Matthew
-
Matthew, I don't see how a father can threaten to kick someone out of the house for talking to someone he disapproves of at Church.
-
One thing is certain, the quote from St. Thomas cannot be read to imply a statement against local customs. The local custom here is 18. Being at the cusp of the age of majority is not so clear cut. This is perfectly normal. As I said, if he would have just been patient, things probably would have worked out. Spouting off against priests and fathers and getting historically and canonically dogmatic over a girl is simply foolish.
-
Matthew, I don't see how a father can threaten to kick someone out of the house for talking to someone he disapproves of at Church.
He knows his daughter better than you do. Can you be humble enough to respect at least that much?
-
It would be similar to telling your daughter regarding a vocation to religious life, "I don't want you talking to order X. I think they are shady. But you can talk to any other order. If you want to talk to order X, you are on your own and need to find another place to live."
-
It would be similar to telling your daughter regarding a vocation to religious life, "I don't want you talking to order X. I think they are shady. But you can talk to any other order. If you want to talk to order X, you are on your own and need to find another place to live."
St. Thomas had to escape his parents to join the Dominicans Stevus.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
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.
-
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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=6Req0mi3GVUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=to+love+honor+and+obey+in+mexico&source=bl&ots=D8ASfY0l94&sig=dIdx1cYR8Z63jXpZsYy92VHSWSU&hl=en&ei=WTqPTar7B5K4tgfntrmkDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
-
Looks like someone wants to downrate every post I make about this. But they can't argue with points I've laid out. They can only try to peck away.
-
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
This is a very long thread.
Matthew makes good point above. If Tele was successful in acquiring a working relationship with miss virgin, and successful again in securing a marriage with her, he is now married into her family. Of course that means that he will have to deal with Mr. Puerto Rican on a regular basis for his duration. Tele will have to celebrate holidays with Mr Rico and see him at church every Sunday. If there's bad blood between the two, it won't make for a good situation. :dwarf:
The problem though, is that in current times, I don't believe that it would be an easy thing to find a family that would be entirely agreeable.
Therefore, those courting from outside of the Church, like the NO or elsewhere, a conversion would need to occur, and while she may convert, it's not likely that the rest of the family will jump on board, so, again, more family discord in the manner of religion and values.
While church is probably the best place to locate a potential spouse, as the likelihood of finding a devoted woman here, as opposed to elsewhere in the world, would be much greater, demand is probably higher than the supply and again, the family may not always be half-way agreeable, such as Mr Puerto Rican; and all this before an operable relationship can occur.
So, hanging out with any man's very young daughter (who is, if I understand correctly, homeschooled and therefore very sheltered and not very experienced with regards to dealing with many people in the manner that Tele is interested in) without his permission, or knowledge, if applicable, is going to be a sticky situation. Try looking at it from his point of view, Maybe they don't know you that well, or perhaps they're simply not prepared for a daughter to be out in the world courting a man, as in his mind, he's probably still getting used to the fact that she's over 16, sees her as a teenager, and therefore is probably not ready for that kind of adjustment (probably does not see his daughter as an adult yet). So he probably thinks it awkward (to say the least) that a man your age would be soliciting a romantic relationship with someone who he still thinks of as a child (even if there were no objections to your person). His objection would probably not be as great if Tele were ten years younger, as it would seem much more "normal", although he would still probably not be prepared for her engagement. Mr. Rico will probably need another 18-24 months to adjust to the fact that his daughter is indeed now an adult and has the faculties to make her own decisions (as he may be very used to making them for her).
This is America in the 21st century, and american family values are reality, and they will be part of this process as long as that's the case (unless Tele has a time-machine). Not that I defend them, but merely that, from my observations, that seems to be the way it is.
Although, it would be more appropriate if Mr. Rico would take you aside and explain himself man to man, rather than seeking your ejection from the congregation, as this is rather extreme, even in such a case.
-
Try looking at it from his point of view
I understand it his point of view perfectly.
He would throw me in jail if he could. He's not ashamed to behave unscrupulously to get his way. He thinks it's sick for a man my age to like a girl his daughter's age. It's all about gratifying his twisted pride.
None of those "points of view" have any legitimacy.
I've noticed some of the people at this parish have a tendency towards wanting to manipulate and impose on others - they even boast about how they are "choleric" - there's quite a perverse streak of self-righteousness and going around harping on the "pride" of others - while at the bottom of it all it's all about their place in the pecking order.
-
I really think it's time that Tele dropped this subject. There are many other girls out there. It's time to just scratch one single 18 year old girl off the list. That leaves a lot more girls who are also Traditional Catholic.
-
I really think it's time that Tele dropped this subject. There are many other girls out there. It's time to just scratch one single 18 year old girl off the list. That leaves a lot more girls who are also Traditional Catholic.
I was kicked out of church unjustly. I'm not going to drop this. (maybe I will drop it here on this forum - when people stop responding ). I want an apology from these people.
And the SSPX is in dire need of being straightened out.
-
I just have to say:
Matthew, getting your wife to vote for all your posts is pretty low, man...
:laugh2:
-
I really think it's time that Tele dropped this subject. There are many other girls out there. It's time to just scratch one single 18 year old girl off the list. That leaves a lot more girls who are also Traditional Catholic.
I was kicked out of church unjustly. I'm not going to drop this. (maybe I will drop it here on this forum - when people stop responding ). I want an apology from these people.
And the SSPX is in dire need of being straightened out.
Yeah, I meant on this forum. It's a rather old subject.
-
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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=6Req0mi3GVUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=to+love+honor+and+obey+in+mexico&source=bl&ots=D8ASfY0l94&sig=dIdx1cYR8Z63jXpZsYy92VHSWSU&hl=en&ei=WTqPTar7B5K4tgfntrmkDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Thanks, I probably skimmed past it before.
-
I just have to say:
Matthew, getting your wife to vote for all your posts is pretty low, man...
:laugh2:
You'd think he'd return the favor! :rolleyes:
(and he took my "smirk" smilie away too, so Mr. Rolleyes will have to do)
-
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.
Translation: Yes, I don't really know what specifically Leo XIII meant by the proposition, but it seems useful for my personal situation. This is simply evasion. Even if I grant you the above, it's still no explanation of Leo XIII's words in concrete terms and 'often' implies the converse as well. How do you know that your particular circuмstance would have been defended or advocated by the Church if sometimes local authorities did not approve of such actions? Historical references are very tricky in that when one attempts to cite an example, the circuмstances must also be considered. Thus, if there is a substantial difference in circuмstances, the conclusion or adaption doesn't necessarily follow.
From the little that has been indicated of your actions thus far, it seems at very least you publicly accused the parents and the girl of lying and the priest of being uncatholic because he didn't accept your proof-texts. I would say that if that is the case, the priest was justified in separating a trouble maker. Secondly, why would you complain about being ejected from a congregation full of liars headed by uncatholic priests? It seems to me that you should be glad to be freed from such deception, not eternally complaining about the injustice of it all.
-
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.
I don't need to know precisely what he meant - the reason to cite it is to show that the Popes have authoritatively taught that the father's authority is limited and that rightful freedom to marry exists. The details are confirmed in other sources - because there are many other sources by which to judge what Catholic teaching is on this point. It is the teaching of a pre-conciliar Pope, at any rate, that shows that the authority of fathers regarding freedom to marry is limited. And it doesn't mean it's limited once a girl has a career and a place of her own! Certainly in Pope Leo's or St. Thomas's day it wasn't expected for a woman to move away from home before she decides who she may marry.
These people attacked me - I'm defending myself against them. They deserve to be exposed. They wouldn't hesitate to have me locked up if they could - they are morally dangerous bullies.
Translation: Yes, I don't really know what specifically Leo XIII meant by the proposition, but it seems useful for my personal situation. This is simply evasion. Even if I grant you the above, it's still no explanation of Leo XIII's words in concrete terms and 'often' implies the converse as well. How do you know that your particular circuмstance would have been defended or advocated by the Church if sometimes local authorities did not approve of such actions? Historical references are very tricky in that when one attempts to cite an example, the circuмstances must also be considered. Thus, if there is a substantial difference in circuмstances, the conclusion or adaption doesn't necessarily follow.
There's nothing vague about it Caminus, either you accept the freedom to marry if you don't. You're asking what was the practical application of what Leo XIII stated there. And I've shown historical evidence as to what it was. And don't pretend that was the only quote. There's Canon Law. There's St. Thomas Aquinas, there's civil law. And you you only quote Pope Leo's Encyclical. Either the SSPX accepts Catholic teaching on this point or they don't - if they don't they have a serious problem.
The SSPX doesn't teach freedom to marry. Nearly every SSPX parishioner I've spoken to believes the opposite - the "under the parents' roof" line is a mantra. The father of the girl I foolishly confided in told me that I shouldn't have told his daughter, a young woman of 22 a "secret" because she's "under his roof." (I didn't even know she lived at home) That's ridiculous. It shows the extent to which the SSPX is leading people into error. The fact that the Church was forced by anti-clerical civil authorities to stop marrying children against their parents will should mean something to any real Catholic.
From the little that has been indicated of your actions thus far, it seems at very least you publicly accused the parents and the girl of lying
When they lied to my face in a private meeting, yes, I accused them of lying. I'm not going to let people lie to my face. A priest who sanctions that sort of behavior is a rotten priest.
and the priest of being uncatholic because he didn't accept your proof-texts.
They aren't "proof texts" Caminus - they're Catholic teachings. If a priest won't teach St. Thomas or Leo XIII from the pulpit because he wants children to believe they must have parental permission to marry then he wants people to be deceived. If he threatens to kick someone out of church if he attempts to contact a girl past 18 without the parents consent then he obviously doesn't believe in freedom to marry or that he is bound by Canon Law.
Caminus, your strategy in debate is to always refuse to accept any reasoning. It reminds me of what the modernists do. If we were to take your criticisms seriously, no one could ever reach a conclusion, no one can ever advance, because you obstinately pretend that what your opponent says is somehow dubious. It gets to be like debating whether or not we're actually brains in a vat somewhere. We can never figure out what the Pope really intends, we can never actually point out that he contradicts Catholic doctrine because somehow we're unable to really know. To defend a modernist you have to accept some of their premises at some point.
I would say that if that is the case, the priest was justified in separating a trouble maker.
No, the priest should humbly apologize and repentantly admit that the SSPX has failed to properly explain Catholic teachings because of a misguided desire to "protect" young women.
Secondly, why would you complain about being ejected from a congregation full of liars headed by uncatholic priests? It seems to me that you should be glad to be freed from such deception, not eternally complaining about the injustice of it all.
There are many good people there. They unjustly ejected me. They need to be held accountable for that.
-
I was threatened with being kicked out on Palm Sunday 2010. They day before I'd received quite a bit of encouragement from the girl.
At that point the priest said that if I tried to contact her without the father's permission I would be kicked out - and that it was society "praxis."
Any reasonable person can see that sending an innocent message to an 18 year old girl isn't hurting anyone.
If she didn't want me to attempt to contact her at that point she could have spoken for herself. At age 18, according to Canon Law, she has "all the rights of the faithful."
If a suitor is banned by a priest from contacting an adult without the father's permission, there is only one conclusion to draw - the priest effectively insisting that there is not freedom to marry.
It's not Catholic.
-
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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=6Req0mi3GVUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=to+love+honor+and+obey+in+mexico&source=bl&ots=D8ASfY0l94&sig=dIdx1cYR8Z63jXpZsYy92VHSWSU&hl=en&ei=WTqPTar7B5K4tgfntrmkDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Thanks, I probably skimmed past it before.
Unfortunately most of the preview has been cut. Previously nearly the entire book was available - in fact, it was available within the past couple days.
Google has done worse than that.
A certain article from Arthur Preuss's Journal entitled "Is Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ Responsible for the Great War" was simply expunged from the preview and the download.
-
IMO, 18 is too young to marry. Anywhere from 22-25 would be a good age to marry. There's nothing wrong with dating at 18, but marriage at 18 is too young. If I were you, I would just pray that God sends another girl into your life (old enough to marry). God clearly didn't will that you marry this girl.
-
IMO, 18 is too young to marry.
What is the basis for that opinion?
Anywhere from 22-25 would be a good age to marry. There's nothing wrong with dating at 18, but marriage at 18 is too young.
How is it right to date if one is not intending marriage for four years?
If I were you, I would just pray that God sends another girl into your life (old enough to marry). God clearly didn't will that you marry this girl.
SS - you don't have anything to say. "18 is too young" - what possible basis is there for stating that?
Why was it that the vast majority of the states set majority at 18 for women 100 years ago, while setting it at 21 for men?
What could have accounted for the change in attitudes that sees marriage at 18 as somehow being wrong?
There's only one answer SS - and it doesn't have to do with Catholic teachings or "maturity" - it has to do with feminist and liberal values.
-
IMO, 18 is too young to marry. Anywhere from 22-25 would be a good age to marry. There's nothing wrong with dating at 18, but marriage at 18 is too young. If I were you, I would just pray that God sends another girl into your life (old enough to marry). God clearly didn't will that you marry this girl.
If you're too young to marry, then you're too young to date.
-
There's only one answer SS - and it doesn't have to do with Catholic teachings or "maturity" - it has to do with feminist and liberal values.
Only point of your post I didn't like...
It does have to do with maturity, but it is our society (call it feminist/liberal or whatever you want) that causes young ladies, by and large, to not be very mature at age 18. It's possible for a young lady to be ready for marriage at that age, just not probable given the way things are today.
A homeschooled young lady from a Catholic family has a better chance than most at being ready for marriage at 18.
-
I didn't see this before MrsZ:
He also says things now like the girl was for some reason overcome with emotion during choir practice and fell to her knees to prayer due to some disturbing thoughts.
You'd have to have been there. The choir practice before she had been paying me attention. In this one she seemed like she was about too but instead she turned around and was kneeling. She seemed a bit perturbed. She certainly was turned around and kneeling - and it was peculiar enough that the choir director asked where she was. Whether or not you interpret the action the way I do is up to you
More recently we are learning that this girl showed a "love-lorn" look on her face on several occasions during Mass
There are many different kinds of looks MrsZ. I don't know why you'd find it hard to believe. Sometimes a girl smiles at you, sometimes she looks in a longing half-melancholy way. I don't expect the latter to be teasing.
.. and that she was thwarted in her attempt to speak to him prior to Confession, by her interfering (and obviously "jealous") mother.
No, that's not what happened, and not what I said. The confession line was on the other side of church. She first walked past me on my side, and when she did she tried to speak to me, saying "I'm sorry" - being very upset - really upset. I didn't raise my head because I was praying, but really, I'm ashamed of doing that - I recognize it partly as false piety, partly as trying to appear unconcerned, and partly because I was genuinely unconcerned. I didn't realize what a big deal it was.
When she got in line on the other side of church curiosity got the better of me and I looked over. She seemed to get very upset with her mother and snap at her. And then her mother sighed. Certainly not because of jealousy. Why would you suggest such a thing.
Listen MrsZ - this is just what I remember. I don't know why you too decided to start casting aspersions on my sanity.
I don't know ... something seems wrong here. There seems to be paranoia, victim-identity thinking and also strange delusional-fantasy type stuff.
No, it really isn't. I do think there's something wrong with women though, when I find them so willing to attack the veracity of what I'm saying. This priest and this father, and one of the older girls, who I thought was a friend, and her mother, did what some of the other posters on this thread did. They decided I was sick, twisted, for liking a young girl, and they were never going to admit anything I said about what happened. Now I see you taking the same tack, I can't help wondering if your motivations are coloring what you're saying.
I have a really hard time believing that Telesphorus is being maligned due to the impact he's having on "love-lorn" young virgins who are being prevented from contact with him due to evil teachers, administrators, fathers and priests.
Why not? You've heard plenty of people on here suggest it's "disordered" to like a young virgin. Do you really think the people at that church are any different?
-
It does have to do with maturity, but it is our society (call it feminist/liberal or whatever you want) that causes young ladies, by and large, to not be very mature at age 18.
I don't believe women become so much more mature after 18, to tell you the truth. I think this concept of "maturity" (other than physical maturity) - especially when it comes to women, is something of a myth.
It's possible for a young lady to be ready for marriage at that age, just not probable given the way things are today.
Well the mission priest said that a high school diploma was good enough. I certainly think it is. Like I said before - if a girl is old enough for college she's old enough to marry.
A homeschooled young lady from a Catholic family has a better chance than most at being ready for marriage at 18.
It's absolutely clear in my mind that resistance to marriage of girls at 18 has nothing to do with maturity and everything to do with social mores.
-
IMO, 18 is too young to marry. Anywhere from 22-25 would be a good age to marry. There's nothing wrong with dating at 18, but marriage at 18 is too young. If I were you, I would just pray that God sends another girl into your life (old enough to marry). God clearly didn't will that you marry this girl.
If you're too young to marry, then you're too young to date.
Not exactly. Relationships these days generally take anywhere from 2-5 years to "mature" if you will before marriage takes place, with the exception of some of the modern-day couples who think they're ready to marry after only a year or so. My brother dated for 5 years before marriage came, and he started dating at 18.
-
IMO, 18 is too young to marry.
What is the basis for that opinion?
Anywhere from 22-25 would be a good age to marry. There's nothing wrong with dating at 18, but marriage at 18 is too young.
How is it right to date if one is not intending marriage for four years?
If I were you, I would just pray that God sends another girl into your life (old enough to marry). God clearly didn't will that you marry this girl.
SS - you don't have anything to say. "18 is too young" - what possible basis is there for stating that?
Why was it that the vast majority of the states set majority at 18 for women 100 years ago, while setting it at 21 for men?
What could have accounted for the change in attitudes that sees marriage at 18 as somehow being wrong?
There's only one answer SS - and it doesn't have to do with Catholic teachings or "maturity" - it has to do with feminist and liberal values.
Many relationships that result in marriage after a very short amount of time spent dating don't end up working out. Marriage is a big thing, you can't just date for a year and then say "Ok, let's get married". It takes a bit more time that that. The SSPX has a dating web-site set up where the lowest age allowed is 18.
-
It does have to do with maturity, but it is our society (call it feminist/liberal or whatever you want) that causes young ladies, by and large, to not be very mature at age 18.
I don't believe women become so much more mature after 18, to tell you the truth. I think this concept of "maturity" (other than physical maturity) - especially when it comes to women, is something of a myth.
It's possible for a young lady to be ready for marriage at that age, just not probable given the way things are today.
Well the mission priest said that a high school diploma was good enough. I certainly think it is. Like I said before - if a girl is old enough for college she's old enough to marry.
A homeschooled young lady from a Catholic family has a better chance than most at being ready for marriage at 18.
It's absolutely clear in my mind that resistance to marriage of girls at 18 has nothing to do with maturity and everything to do with social mores.
What is your basis for the opinion that women stop maturing at 18? I don't think I've ever heard anything like that before.
-
I don't believe women become so much more mature after 18, to tell you the truth. I think this concept of "maturity" (other than physical maturity) - especially when it comes to women, is something of a myth.
Wow. You really[/i] don't get it do you :fryingpan:
You don't believe women become more mature after 18 and you think its a myth??? :roll-laugh2:
-
is something of a myth.
If my daughter's were 18 I would definitely make sure you stayed away with that sort of mentality...
but hey- blame the evil priests and the parents
-
Tele, I told you to shut it. You should have listened.
You don't see how you're coming off. It doesn't matter if you're wrong or right. You are coming off as hard-headed and obsessive.
This is why innocent people, even though innocent, have LAWYERS, because just going up there and spewing out the full truth, unfortunately, often makes us sound crazy. You have to have an objective sense of how you sound.
-
It's the anger and the petty attacks on the girls' father (who remember, she must love and respect dearly) and the priest and the SSPX. My comment about your mental state had more to do with my perception that you were becoming obsessive about the girl, about the way the other's acted and that you really need to move on from this.
I don't know if you're right or if they're right. Some of the things you said didn't add up to me .. I'm not going to list them here .. I'm saying that after spending far too long reading page after page of your side of the story ... there are still things not adding up for me.
You still need to forgive, even when you're right. You still need to act in charity even if other's have been unkind.
-
Also, I would like to apologize to Telesphorus for my amateur "diagnosing" of what I perceived to be some issues that might have been mental health issues . I don't know any such thing and it's not my place to suggest something like that when I don't know that to be the case.
-
I don't believe women become so much more mature after 18, to tell you the truth. I think this concept of "maturity" (other than physical maturity) - especially when it comes to women, is something of a myth.
Wow. You really[/i] don't get it do you :fryingpan:
You don't believe women become more mature after 18 and you think its a myth??? :roll-laugh2:
What is the basis for it?
The way older women behave is childish, generally more childish than the way younger women behave. I find childishness off-putting.
-
I don't believe women become so much more mature after 18, to tell you the truth. I think this concept of "maturity" (other than physical maturity) - especially when it comes to women, is something of a myth.
Wow. You really[/i] don't get it do you :fryingpan:
You don't believe women become more mature after 18 and you think its a myth??? :roll-laugh2:
It really is. I think if you look at the women you know with more insight you'd realize that.
These threads, judging by some of the reactions I've had, are evidence of that.
I have chatted online for months with several women from overseas - sympathetic women, who are very kind to me - two of whom are my age, on 27 one who is 19 - I would have to say the one who behaves in the most serious manner and with the most judgement is the 19 year old.
-
Many relationships that result in marriage after a very short amount of time spent dating don't end up working out. Marriage is a big thing, you can't just date for a year and then say "Ok, let's get married".
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. A year is too short? SS - you're proving my point that the objections to my point of view are coming from non-Catholic sources - from this culture and its non-Christian attitudes.
Saying it takes a few years to get married is really just a hop skip and jump away from authorizing pre-marital cohabitation. It's not normal to see a woman one is thinking about marrying for years without consummating the relationship.
It takes a bit more time that that. The SSPX has a dating web-site set up where the lowest age allowed is 18.
Don't you see SS, that's how your mind works. The SSPX does something a certain way - ergo that's the way it should be done.
-
Tele, I told you to shut it. You should have listened.
You don't see how you're coming off. It doesn't matter if you're wrong or right. You are coming off as hard-headed and obsessive.
It does matter that I'm right - and it matters that they're wrong. Because these people with their modern liberal attitudes are destroying traditional Catholicism.
This is why innocent people, even though innocent, have LAWYERS, because just going up there and spewing out the full truth, unfortunately, often makes us sound crazy. You have to have an objective sense of how you sound.
Sure Raoul, but I'm not on trial. If stating my views makes people angry it says more about them than about me.
-
IMO, 18 is too young to marry. Anywhere from 22-25 would be a good age to marry. There's nothing wrong with dating at 18, but marriage at 18 is too young. If I were you, I would just pray that God sends another girl into your life (old enough to marry). God clearly didn't will that you marry this girl.
If you're too young to marry, then you're too young to date.
Not exactly. Relationships these days generally take anywhere from 2-5 years to "mature" if you will before marriage takes place, with the exception of some of the modern-day couples who think they're ready to marry after only a year or so. My brother dated for 5 years before marriage came, and he started dating at 18.
That's what the Church teaches SS - you're not supposed to date before you're old enough for marriage. Not that most trads actually put that into practice.
-
Tele, I basically meant that in order to marry at 18, you'd have to start dating at around the age of 16 or so, that's pretty young. Surely you believe in dating and THEN marrying after a while, don't you?
-
Tele, I basically meant that in order to marry at 18, you'd have to start dating at around the age of 16 or so, that's pretty young. Surely you believe in dating and THEN marrying after a while, don't you?
Catholic courtship has one end in mind, and it's not to "gain experience."
The idea that one should date for two years before marrying is not a Catholic idea SS. Sorry.
-
Tele, I basically meant that in order to marry at 18, you'd have to start dating at around the age of 16 or so, that's pretty young. Surely you believe in dating and THEN marrying after a while, don't you?
Catholic courtship has one end in mind, and it's not to "gain experience."
The idea that one should date for two years before marrying is not a Catholic idea SS. Sorry.
I didn't say two years specifically. Do you think a couple should get engaged after just a few days of knowing each other?
-
It's the anger and the petty attacks on the girls' father (
I have plenty of reason to be angry at him. He is the petty one. It would cost him nothing to treat me with decency and respect - he can't and he won't. Telling your daughter not to say hello -telling your daughter not to admit anything? Getting someone kicked out of church over this?
That's pettiness.
The man is twisted and arrogant. His pride is what matters - if he does evil to someone else it's nothing to him so long as he keeps his "honor" that smells like chicken droppings.
-
Many relationships that result in marriage after a very short amount of time spent dating don't end up working out. Marriage is a big thing, you can't just date for a year and then say "Ok, let's get married".
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. A year is too short? SS - you're proving my point that the objections to my point of view are coming from non-Catholic sources - from this culture and its non-Christian attitudes.
Saying it takes a few years to get married is really just a hop skip and jump away from authorizing pre-marital cohabitation. It's not normal to see a woman one is thinking about marrying for years without consummating the relationship.
Spot on, Tele.
Our priest said the same during our pre-marriage classes. The period of engagement is a necessary evil, and a long engagement (or courtship) is an occassion for sin.
I first spoke wrote to my husband less than 9 months before our wedding day. We haven't been married exceptionally long, but we're certainly not a dismal failure.
-
It's the anger and the petty attacks on the girls' father (
I have plenty of reason to be angry at him. He is the petty one. It would cost him nothing to treat me with decency and respect - he can't and he won't. Telling your daughter not to say hello -telling your daughter not to admit anything? Getting someone kicked out of church over this?
That's pettiness.
The man is twisted and arrogant. His pride is what matters - if he does evil to someone else it's nothing to him so long as he keeps his "honor" that smells like chicken droppings.
Well, Tele, fathers are very protective of their daughters. My husband chased my oldest daughter's boyfriend off our 10 acre property with an ATV! My daughter persisted seeing him and they got married (mixed marriage). She later divorced him.
I think you should go and privately talk to the father, and find out his objections.
Any relationship takes virtue. Perserverence and humility are important. If the girl is woth having as a wife, YOU have to put your pride aside, not the father! [/b]
-
Many relationships that result in marriage after a very short amount of time spent dating don't end up working out. Marriage is a big thing, you can't just date for a year and then say "Ok, let's get married".
That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. A year is too short? SS - you're proving my point that the objections to my point of view are coming from non-Catholic sources - from this culture and its non-Christian attitudes.
Saying it takes a few years to get married is really just a hop skip and jump away from authorizing pre-marital cohabitation. It's not normal to see a woman one is thinking about marrying for years without consummating the relationship.
Spot on, Tele.
Our priest said the same during our pre-marriage classes. The period of engagement is a necessary evil, and a long engagement (or courtship) is an occassion for sin.
I first spoke wrote to my husband less than 9 months before our wedding day. We haven't been married exceptionally long, but we're certainly not a dismal failure.
We were both older and more "mature" than someone right out of high school, so we got to know each other sufficiently in that time. We were done growing up (NOT TRUE for someone only 18). We knew ourselves well, and what we wanted in a spouse.
Our time spent together was all quality time, getting to know the important things about each other. When you talk for hours about important topics -- you learn a lot. Watching TV or playing mini-putt golf -- not so much.
I'd like to add:
Once you decide you're going to marry someone, it's better to "get going and do it", just for reasons of prudence. Six months is a good trade-off between lowering the period of temptation, while not making it look like a shotgun wedding.
Six months is a good length of engagement; which is why you shouldn't fraternize with the opposite sex unless you're ready to be married. Have two more years of college? Keep your nose in the books. I know it's hard, but it's even harder to want to marry someone for YEARS. A year would seem like a decade.
-
Well, Tele, fathers are very protective of their daughters. My husband chased my oldest daughter's boyfriend off our 10 acre property with an ATV! My daughter persisted seeing him and they got married (mixed marriage). She later divorced him.
[/b]
Yall didn't have a shotgun? A round would have changed the course of history! :stare:
-
Well, Tele, fathers are very protective of their daughters. My husband chased my oldest daughter's boyfriend off our 10 acre property with an ATV! My daughter persisted seeing him and they got married (mixed marriage). She later divorced him.
[/b]
Yall didn't have a shotgun? A round would have changed the course of history! :stare:
:roll-laugh1: :roll-laugh1: Yes it would have, Samurai. And you dont really know how much it would have!!!!
-
Six months is a good length of engagement;
Really it's probably too long most of the time if you ask me.
I think Pre Cana is very bad.
Once again I think Catholics need to look to their history and to reject modern customs which have been put in place because of the war against Christianity.
As was pointed out in another thread, only 14% of Catholics polled objected to premarital sex. If they really believed Catholic teachings they would think that avoiding temptation is far more important than having a long engagement.
-
Yall didn't have a shotgun? A round would have changed the course of history! :stare:
Making light of shooting someone.
I've come to understand why there are so many murders south of the border. Pride and murder walk hand in hand.
-
Six months is a typical length; however if you had older individuals involved it might be reduced by even half.
I find that it takes several months just to plan a wedding.
Have you ever planned a wedding, Tele?
I'm not talking about the over-the-top, go into debt for 10 years wedding where the woman wants to be "queen for a day" with a consultant, wedding insurance, and swan rental.
We had a pretty basic wedding, and we were kept plenty busy with all the mundane details of the Mass (music) and reception.
Remember, everyone involved still has a job. Life goes on even during your wedding planning. Wedding planning can't be done "full time" unless you're both unemployed or something.
-
Yall didn't have a shotgun? A round would have changed the course of history! :stare:
Making light of shooting someone.
I've come to understand why there are so many murders south of the border. Pride and murder walk hand in hand.
1. He was kidding.
2. I think he was suggesting shooting over his head, as a warning shot -- not aiming right for the guy :)
He was saying that if the aim was the scare the guy away, an ATV just doesn't do the job. You need firearms.
-
As was pointed out in another thread, only 14% of Catholics polled objected to premarital sex. If they really believed Catholic teachings they would think that avoiding temptation is far more important than having a long engagement.
Tele, you're as bad as me about adding to your posts after the fact. :)
Again, you're confusing the issue GREATLY by bringing Novus Ordo Catholics into the mix. What are we talking about here, pagans, Novus Ordo Catholics (very similar), or trad. Catholics?
I'm sure most trad Catholics are against pre-marital sex.
And what is a "long engagement"? 6 months is NOT.
-
Six months is a typical length; however if you had older individuals involved it might be reduced by even half.
I find that it takes several months just to plan a wedding.
Well if it really takes that long then there's something wrong with the size and scope of weddings.
I mean it seems ridiculous to me that the idael length of engagement should be determined by the wedding party preparations.
A marriage is a brief ceremony that's easy to carry out.
Most people don't plan parties 6 months in advance. If weddings are different it's because they've become a racket.
Just like diamond rings are virtually a criminal racket - a DeBeer's Oppenheimer tax on Christians who want to marry.
In Poland the Jews would often hold the keys to churches and demand people pay them for services like marriage. The diamond ring industry is no different.
-
If the man has asked and the woman has accepted, I do not see the need for any delay. Six months is, IMO, an arbitrary period with little to no support. If a man and woman have already courted for some period, however short or long, and desire to be wed, it does not take six months (or four, etc.) to ascertain their fitness and resolve. IMO, waiting for several months is asking for trouble -- especially during this era.
I do not believe that was the way of things in saner eras (among which I am NOT including how things were done in the 50s).
As for the plans, that, too, is more of a modern phenomenon. IMO, normal people did not invite guests from all over creation, nor arrange for mega-parties, etc.
-
Again, you're confusing the issue GREATLY by bringing Novus Ordo Catholics into the mix. What are we talking about here, pagans, Novus Ordo Catholics (very similar), or trad. Catholics?
I'm sure most trad Catholics are against pre-marital sex.
But they follow customs set up by Novus Ordo Catholics who had stopped worrying about premarital sex when they started approving of unreasonably long engagements, coeducation, and delay of marriage of women for "education."
And what is a "long engagement"? 6 months is NOT.
The idea that an engagement should be at least six months is causing most engagements to be too long.
Any Catholic would weight the importance of avoiding temptation caused by waiting with infinitely more gravity than they would weight the time needed to prepare a wedding party.
-
And what is a "long engagement"? 6 months is NOT.
When and how did this become the 'norm'? It MAY have always been so, but I have seen no evidence to support the idea. Sure, it is the norm in trad chapels (and even Novus), but whence did it arise? [As an aside, the NO chapel where I grew up requires eight months' notice.]
FWIW, it is funny that trad priests lay down this rule, as they do not even have the faculties to marry people.
-
In our culture -- the one in which we live -- it would be scandalous to have a wedding 2 months out.
It would look like the woman is already pregnant, or that the wedding is no big deal.
This isn't the Middle Ages.
And I think the woman (at least) would like to celebrate a life-long commitment a little bit. A wedding is worth celebrating.
The man can wait and practice the virtue of patience -- it won't kill him.
-
And what is a "long engagement"? 6 months is NOT.
When and how did this become the 'norm'? It MAY have always been so, but I have seen no evidence to support the idea. Sure, it is the norm is trad chapels, but whence did it arise?
FWIW, it is funny that trad priests lay down this rule, as they do not even have the faculties to marry people.
In the Islamic world they actually care that a woman is a virgin - and they have elaborate wedding parties.
After a few meetings a couple is often already deciding the future.
That's normal. This society has practically abolished marriage - there is almost nothing normal about any of its customs pertaining to marriage.
-
In our culture -- the one in which we live -- it would be scandalous to have a wedding 2 months out.
Scandalous to whom?
It would look like the woman is already pregnant, or that the wedding is no big deal.
That "scandal" would die down considerably when the mother gave birth a sufficiently long period after the wedding.
This isn't the Middle Ages.
Correct Matthew - we live in an anti-Christian time, not a Christian time. So I don't understand why people are arguing for customs that put more importance on imaginary scandals and parties than they put on the importance of a bride being a virgin on her wedding night.
And I think the woman (at least) would like to celebrate a life-long commitment a little bit. A wedding is worth celebrating.
Sure. She doesn't need a stereotypical wedding party.
The man can wait and practice the virtue of patience -- it won't kill him.
When these long engagements are broken off it compromises the reputation of the girl - and often the long engagement could very well be the reason for the breakup of what would otherwise be a happy marriage - if there were a real commitment on both sides.
Marriage is about commitment.
Everything in the modern world is about rejecting that, about not holding to your word, about keeping options open, and long engagements fall right into that category.
-
Yall didn't have a shotgun? A round would have changed the course of history! :stare:
Making light of shooting someone.
I've come to understand why there are so many murders south of the border. Pride and murder walk hand in hand.
1. He was kidding.
2. I think he was suggesting shooting over his head, as a warning shot -- not aiming right for the guy :)
He was saying that if the aim was the scare the guy away, an ATV just doesn't do the job. You need firearms.
He's kidding but it doesn't change the murder rate connected to the sort of people who defend that ruthless way of dealing with people.
Some of these Latin states have ghastly murder rates - and it isn't all tied to drugs - there are a lot of killings over "honor"
-
In our culture -- the one in which we live -- it would be scandalous to have a wedding 2 months out.
Has that always been so? If NOT, when did the shift take place? While it MAY be true that SOME would take scandal, that does not make something, in se, scandalous.
This isn't the Middle Ages.
That is irrelevant, but it is plain Christendom had many things right that we have turned upside down. Again, do you know when the shift occurred? I do not, but I also do not think my great-grandparents were made to wait six months, etc.
A wedding is worth celebrating.
Of course it is. That is not in dispute.
The man can wait and practice the virtue of patience -- it won't kill him.
Unless I missed something, I do not believe anyone is arguing the contrary.
-
TEN WORST COUNTRIES FOR MURDER (LATE-1990s)
COUNTRY
PER 100,000
(1) Columbia 84.4
(2) El Salvador 50.2
(3) Puerto Rico 41.8
(4) Brazil 32.5
(5) Albania 28.2
(6) Venezuela 25.0
(7) Russian Federation 18.0
(8) Ecuador 15.9
(9) Mexico 15.3
(10) Panama 14.4
I understand that in many places machismo is dying out and full blown feminism is taking over. The fertility rate in Latin America is dropping very rapidly - they too are adopting the modern values that are antithetical to Catholic marriage.
-
Yall didn't have a shotgun? A round would have changed the course of history! :stare:
Making light of shooting someone.
I've come to understand why there are so many murders south of the border. Pride and murder walk hand in hand.
Oh Tele, you need to chill!!!!!!! My advice is to you......go see a priest so you can get some Catholic viewpoints. BTW the church has taught a 6 mo courtship is ideal.....longer than that is an occasion of sin. :alcohol:
-
Yall didn't have a shotgun? A round would have changed the course of history! :stare:
Making light of shooting someone.
I've come to understand why there are so many murders south of the border. Pride and murder walk hand in hand.
1. He was kidding.
2. I think he was suggesting shooting over his head, as a warning shot -- not aiming right for the guy :)
He was saying that if the aim was the scare the guy away, an ATV just doesn't do the job. You need firearms.
Was I now? :wink:
Good ol' Matthew. Always giving the benefit of the doubt!
FWIW, I know somone who put a guy in the hospital for sleeping with his wife. No trouble from the federales (so far as I know).
My post is certainly open to interpretation, but mind you, we're talking about our girls here. But then... "over the head" would be more prudent... I was thinking in the shoulder.
-
TEN WORST COUNTRIES FOR MURDER (LATE-1990s)
COUNTRY
PER 100,000
(1) Columbia 84.4
(2) El Salvador 50.2
(3) Puerto Rico 41.8
(4) Brazil 32.5
(5) Albania 28.2
(6) Venezuela 25.0
(7) Russian Federation 18.0
(8) Ecuador 15.9
(9) Mexico 15.3
(10) Panama 14.4
And you are bitter that you couldn't pilfer la puma's pearl WHY???
You should be giving thanks! :wink:
-
CS, I told Matthew what you really meant and he didn't believe me. :good-shot:
-
My post is certainly open to interpretation, but mind you, we're talking about our girls here. But then... "over the head" would be more prudent... I was thinking in the shoulder.
"In the shoulder" with a shotgun.?
Be prepared for the murder trial.
-
And you are bitter that you couldn't pilfer la puma's pearl WHY???
You should be giving thanks! :wink:
Ho ho I fear him as much as a I fear a rooster.
But if he could somehow get those police dogs after me - he would love to be able to do that.
-
My post is certainly open to interpretation, but mind you, we're talking about our girls here. But then... "over the head" would be more prudent... I was thinking in the shoulder.
"In the shoulder" with a shotgun.?
Be prepared for the murder trial.
To be honest I dont know what I'd use. I started thinking about a pistol when I said that. If you were going to use a shotgun you might as well just finish the job.
-
Yall didn't have a shotgun? A round would have changed the course of history! :stare:
You weren't thinking about shotgun?
Yeah, I think if you wounded the guy you'd defeat your purpose.
-
Yall didn't have a shotgun? A round would have changed the course of history! :stare:
You weren't thinking about shotgun?
Yeah, I think if you wounded the guy you'd defeat your purpose.
That was in regards to Emerentiana's case. More than likely mine would be different. It all depends....
-
In any case, ya'll dont have to worry about me shooting anyone. I dont have any guns. :kick-can:
But I do have a few knives! >:)
-
Yall didn't ha BTW the church has taught a 6 mo courtship is ideal.....longer than that is an occasion of sin. [/b] :alcohol:
Six month courtship or six month engagement?
A six month courtship does sound about right. A minimum engagement time of six months is something that seems to be entirely modern in inspiration.
-
Just like diamond rings are virtually a criminal racket - a DeBeer's Oppenheimer tax on Christians who want to marry.
In Poland the Jews would often hold the keys to churches and demand people pay them for services like marriage. The diamond ring industry is no different.
I wanted to give some support for these statements in case anyone doubted them:
E Michael Jones writes about the Jews leasing churches in Poland:
A Jew, for example, might take out a short-term lease on a church, in defiance of church law. This meant that he was in sole possession of the key to the church door, which could only be opened for the performance of weddings or baptisms after payment of a fee
The following (old) article explains that the engagement diamond industry is a monopoly that sells those gems at outrageous prices - gems that cannot really be sold back for anything remotely approaching the retail price. Now the Russian Jew Lev Leviev has cut somewhat into the DeBeer's business - the fact remains that it has become a Jєωιѕн tax on Christian marriage - made possible by men's aquiescence to female vanity and the thralldom of modern women to advertisers:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever-tried-to-sell-a-diamond/4575/
-
Yall didn't ha BTW the church has taught a 6 mo courtship is ideal.....longer than that is an occasion of sin. [/b] :alcohol:
Six month courtship or six month engagement?
A six month courtship does sound about right. A minimum engagement time of six months is something that seems to be entirely modern in inspiration.
Sorry, Tele, I meant engagement. CMRI has a betrothal ceremony that some couples choose to go thru instead of "engagement". Its done at the altar. This bethrothel ceremony is in the Roman ritual, and is done by other trad groups as well. The custom is to marry 6 months afterward.[/b]
-
Yall didn't ha BTW the church has taught a 6 mo courtship is ideal.....longer than that is an occasion of sin. [/b] :alcohol:
Six month courtship or six month engagement?
A six month courtship does sound about right. A minimum engagement time of six months is something that seems to be entirely modern in inspiration.
Sorry, Tele, I meant engagement. CMRI has a betrothal ceremony that some couples choose to go thru instead of "engagement". Its done at the altar. This bethrothel ceremony is in the Roman ritual, and is done by other trad groups as well. The custom is to marry 6 months afterward.[/b]
Interesting! Did not know, I will remember this ...
-
This CAF thread shows you where the attitudes of people like SS are coming from:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=532523
-
Another CAF thread:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=320704&page=2
So far no one has cited any Catholic authorities on these threads as to how long they recommend - nor are there any references to history, nor have I seen any mention of occasion of sin.
-
the parish priest cannot refuse to publish the banns excepted for reasons stated in the canon law.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02255a.htm
My own view is that a period of engagement should last not much longer than than the time of the publication of the banns.
A betrothal is already a binding promise - it's silly to delay. If you've decided to marry you may as well do it. The idea that waiting around for a year is Catholic - well, it's obviously not.
-
Yall didn't have a shotgun? A round would have changed the course of history! :stare:
You weren't thinking about shotgun?
Yeah, I think if you wounded the guy you'd defeat your purpose.
That was in regards to Emerentiana's case. More than likely mine would be different. It all depends....
:sign-thread-hijacked:
-
Here is a booklet on the rite of betrothal from the Angelus press website
Other articles:
http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8361/rite-of-betrothal
http://monterey-tlm.blogspot.com/2010/08/betrothal-and-anniversary-of-wedding-at.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02537c.htm
-
Longtime lurker, first time poster but as a mom of an almost 18 year old and a 63 page topic I couldn't resist.
I can tell you, as the mom of a girl you would possibly be eying, how my husband and I would expect you to behave and why.
Our daughter may be almost to the age of majority and soon will be able to vote, marry and die for her country all without our approval BUT she has been in our care for 18 years and we are not about to just duct tape our mouths shut and watch her enter into a marriage (or other major life decision) with no input from us just because a day passes on the calendar. We also know our daughter much better than any man who has observed her at church for a few months. We know her strengths and weaknesses and whether or not she is ready for marriage. The age the church and civil authorities sets as the age for marriage is the MINIMUM age. The earliest age at which a young person can reasonably be expected to have what it takes to enter into a marriage, that far from says that all 18 year olds are ready to marry.
Children who have a good relationship with their parents will continue to seek their counsel far past the age of majority. My husband's siblings all call their parents frequently, the daughters almost daily, to talk to their mom and dad. Not to get permission but to get their advice, they after all have been married and raising children and living in the world for 50 years, shouldn't their opinion have some weight? If your young lady was ready to run from her parents house to yours, was willing to sever her relationship with them because she had exchanged glances with you a few times...that would really concern me. What kind of family would she be willing to leave behind for a man she barely knew?
OK, back to you. If I understand correctly you have never had a real conversation with this young woman or anyone in her family. Just greetings and glances, right? And then the parents noticed and we all know what happened after that.
A better way would have been to befriend the family or the parents FIRST. If they knew that were a Catholic, gainfully employed man that they and their daughter got along with, agreed with when it came to major issues....and after that relationship is established you talk to the parent(s) about your intentions towards their daughter. If you show no respect for the parents they have no reason to think that you are going to show any respect for their daughter.
In history large age gaps may have been the norm, they are not now. Labeling it as modernist thinking or feminism is purposeless, it doesn't change the fact it is just not the norm and hasn't been for close to a hundred years. You can pull out history books and catechism quotes until you are blue in the face it isn't going to make the parents of an 18 year old open their arms to a 32 year old potential son-in-law. If they get to know you, know YOU, not just 'that 32 year old creeper making eyes at our precious child', then and only then will you have a chance of making your age secondary to the fact that in all the ways that really matter you would make a good choice for their daughter.
You can either learn from this experience, Tele or continue down this bitter and angry path which you are airing publically on the Internet. I don't know who you are and where you go to Mass (n or do I want to know) but from what I understand quite a few people do and the trad cath world is a very small one. This thread will not impress any future wives or their families.
All that said, I married against my mother's wishes and I married a man 10 years older than myself after we had only known each other 9 months and we've been married almost 20 years. I'd kill my daughter if she pulled the same stunt. :wink:
-
Our daughter may be almost to the age of majority and soon will be able to vote, marry and die for her country all without our approval BUT she has been in our care for 18 years and we are not about to just duct tape our mouths shut and watch her enter into a marriage (or other major life decision) with no input from us just because a day passes on the calendar.
It's not a question of you being allowed to say what you want. It's a question of whether or not the Catholic religion obliges her to obey you.
We also know our daughter much better than any man who has observed her at church for a few months. We know her strengths and weaknesses and whether or not she is ready for marriage. The age the church and civil authorities sets as the age for marriage is the MINIMUM age.
No, it isn't the minimum age for marriage. A girl can marry younger with parental consent, and in the past it was even younger than 18. The day before the 18th birthday is the maximum age that parents can assert a veto.
The earliest age at which a young person can reasonably be expected to have what it takes to enter into a marriage, that far from says that all 18 year olds are ready to marry.
Once again, it's certainly possible marry at a younger age. At age 18, it's no longer the decision of the parents. At that point it's not up to the parents to decide she isn't ready - it's up to her. Only before that point can parents make a binding judgement that a girl isn't ready.
Children who have a good relationship with their parents will continue to seek their counsel far past the age of majority.
Sure, no one said they shouldn't. But we're not talking about counsel. We're talking about some freak who doesn't want his daughter to say hello to someone without his permission.
My husband's siblings all call their parents frequently, the daughters almost daily, to talk to their mom and dad. Not to get permission but to get their advice, they after all have been married and raising children and living in the world for 50 years, shouldn't their opinion have some weight? If your young lady was ready to run from her parents house to yours, was willing to sever her relationship with them because she had exchanged glances with you a few times...that would really concern me.
It would concern me if she was willing to run away when her parents gave her some measure of freedom. However if parents refused to recognize the limits of their authority and insisted on total control then a decision to run away would be understandable.
What kind of family would she be willing to leave behind for a man she barely knew?
OK, back to you. If I understand correctly you have never had a real conversation with this young woman or anyone in her family. Just greetings and glances, right? And then the parents noticed and we all know what happened after that.
A better way would have been to befriend the family or the parents FIRST. If they knew that were a Catholic, gainfully employed man that they and their daughter got along with, agreed with when it came to major issues....and after that relationship is established you talk to the parent(s) about your intentions towards their daughter. If you show no respect for the parents they have no reason to think that you are going to show any respect for their daughter.
I showed them plenty of respect - until I realized they were acting in bad faith.
In history large age gaps may have been the norm, they are not now.
And that doesn't matter. Being Catholic isn't the norm. Large families aren't the norm. Premarital chastity isn't the norm. And there are plenty of marriages today with large age gaps.
Labeling it as modernist thinking or feminism is purposeless, it doesn't change the fact it is just not the norm and hasn't been for close to a hundred years.
When society changes there are reasons for it. Those reasons could be good or bad. To say it's purposeless to ascertain the reason for changes in determining whether those changes should be respected is silly.
You can pull out history books and catechism quotes until you are blue in the face
That's exactly right - because they don't care about what the Church teaches or about tradition.
it isn't going to make the parents of an 18 year old open their arms to a 32 year old potential son-in-law.
That's right. But it's not about them opening their arms, it's about them thinking they're right to have me kicked out of church.
If they get to know you, know YOU, not just 'that 32 year old creeper making eyes at our precious child', then and only then will you have a chance of making your age secondary to the fact that in all the ways that really matter you would make a good choice for their daughter.
Listen lady, once again, you don't seem to get it. It's not their decision.
You can either learn from this experience, Tele or continue down this bitter and angry path which you are airing publically on the Internet. I don't know who you are and where you go to Mass (n or do I want to know) but from what I understand quite a few people do and the trad cath world is a very small one. This thread will not impress any future wives or their families.
I deserve an apology, and I expect an apology. I have been unjustly treated. I don't care about the views of pharisees. When my circuмstances are improved I will have no trouble marrying a girl - and I've learned something about Traditional Catholics - the vast majority of them are not serious.
All that said, I married against my mother's wishes and I married a man 10 years older than myself after we had only known each other 9 months and we've been married almost 20 years. I'd kill my daughter if she pulled the same stunt. :wink:
Right. There you go. So your position is entirely hypocritical.
The people who don't care about Church teachings on this matter, but continue to bump this thread to attack me, are hypocrites.
-
Welcome to the forum Mom of Many! Your post is well written and wise. I agree. Im also a mom of many!
Tele needs to hear you! :applause:
-
Just for reference:
All that said, I married against my mother's wishes and I married a man 10 years older than myself after we had only known each other 9 months and we've been married almost 20 years. I'd kill my daughter if she pulled the same stunt. :wink:
What this shows you is that her position is irrational and hypocritical.
You can pull out history books and catechism quotes until you are blue in the face
Translation: "it doesn't matter if you're right - all that matters is how I feel about it. It doesn't matter what happened in the past - even in my own life, all that matters is what I want."
-
Every post of mine is downrated by someone, because they can't put up an argument. They just feel hatred of me for liking a young woman.
-
Just for reference:
All that said, I married against my mother's wishes and I married a man 10 years older than myself after we had only known each other 9 months and we've been married almost 20 years. I'd kill my daughter if she pulled the same stunt. :wink:
What this shows you is that her position is totally irrational.
My position is far from irrational. It is completely rational. The fact that my husband and I are the exception to the rule doesn't change that. I'd also appreciate your directing your statements to me, not to others about me. That is very rude.
My point in posting what our reality is, is that even though I know a big age gap and very short courtship CAN work, I don't believe it is necessarily the ideal. There have been challenges because of this and there are more to come.
-
Telesphorus, you obviously enjoy being the victim.
-
My position is far from irrational. It is completely rational. The fact that my husband and I are the exception to the rule doesn't change that.
No, it's not rational. The first reason it's irrational is that you never addressed the issue of whether or not a girl is free to marry or whether or not I need a girls father's permission to talk to her. All you talked about how was times have changed and the girl somehow is bound by the parents and it doesn't matter what the church teaches or what happened in history or even in your own life. I answered every one of your statements - and you don't have a single reply.
Yes, the fact that you consider yourself "the exception to the rule" says everything about the integrity of your position.
.I'd also appreciate your directing your statements to me, not to others about me. That is very rude.
Listen lady, you're pretty rude to come on here and talk about how parents won't want me to marry their daughters because of this thread. You're pretty rude to join this forum make a long post and then admit at the end of it that you married an older man against your parents wishes but your own daughter better not!
My point in posting what our reality is, is that even though I know a big age gap and very short courtship CAN work, I don't believe it is necessarily the ideal.
I think you posted that because you realize, at some level, that your emotional reaction is not rational - and you would have felt guilty if you had not admitted your own circuмstances. I applaud you for posting about your own life - but I have to be highly critical of the rest of your post because it is motivated solely by the feeling that you wouldn't tolerate your own daughter doing what you yourself did. You could only be consistent if you said your marriage was a mistake.
There have been challenges because of this and there are more to come.
And who doesn't have challenges?
The bottom line is that it's good enough for you - but not for other people. That's what you're claiming.
-
Telesphorus, you obviously enjoy being the victim.
No, I don't. I don't enjoy it one bit. I don't enjoy hypocritical criticism. I'm tired of it.
I would like to believe that Catholics are decent honest people who listen to arguments. At least many on cathinfo are such people. (especially the long time members who have posted a lot) But many are not.
-
Telesphorus, you obviously enjoy being the victim.
No, I don't. I don't enjoy it one bit. I don't enjoy hypocritical criticism. I'm tired of it.
I would like to believe that Catholics are decent honest people who listen to arguments. At least many on cathinfo are such people. (especially the long time members who have posted a lot) But many are not.
You have spent 63 pages and who knows how many hours on this topic with a bunch of strangers on the Internet. Why?
You are such a narcissist that you didn't realize that I put in the comment about my personal life to show that I don't think you are an evil pedophile for being interested in an 18 year old, that age difference isn't an impediment to marriage even if it is a consideration. The over all tone of my OP was 'hey, look at if from another POV" but you refuse to. You think everyone is attacking you and you are 100% innocent instead of maybe listening to those older and wiser and thinking that maybe, just maybe you could have done something different or maybe do something different in the future to insure a better outcome.
Since I do not have countless hours to spend on the Internet discussing this topic, I bid you farewell and god speed, I've said my piece. You can think of me what you will.
I'll pray for you.
Edited to add: BTW, the "I'll kill her" in regards to my own daughter is with a winking emoticon...you know...it's a JOKE.
-
You have spent 63 pages and who knows how many hours on this topic with a bunch of strangers on the Internet. Why?
There's the reason this thread goes on so long, it's because people like you come onto it and start attacking me. They don't reason with me, they attack me. I haven't heard anyone yet make a reasoned response to me.
You are such a narcissist
You see what I mean? It's all about attacking me personally.
that you didn't realize that I put in the comment about my personal life to show that I don't think you are an evil pedophile
Isn't that charitable! You don't think of me as though I'm pedophile for liking an 18 year old girl!
Listen lady, say what you want, but if you had made that long spiel without admitting you had married someone older against your parents wishes when you were young then you would have been ashamed of your post. Which is a good thing. It shows you have some decency. Unlike some of the other posters trying to bait me here.
for being interested in an 18 year old, that age difference isn't an impediment to marriage even if it is a consideration. The over all tone of my OP was 'hey, look at if from another POV" but you refuse to.
I understand the other point of view completely. What is sad is that the representatives of the other point of view don't reason. Either it is somehow sick to like a younger girl, or it is somehow the parents right to veto it, and that it doesn't matter what happened in the past or what the Church teaches. That's their point of view - it's all about what they feel to be right.
You think everyone is attacking you and you are 100% innocent instead of maybe listening to those older and wiser and thinking that maybe, just maybe you could have done something different or maybe do something different in the future to insure a better outcome.
In the future I will not make the assumption that other Catholics are fair-minded, honest, decent, or seriously concerned with justice or Catholic teachings.
Since I do not have countless hours to spend on the Internet discussing this topic, I bid you farewell and god speed, I've said my piece. You can think of me what you will.
I'll pray for you.
Thank you.
-
Another CAF thread:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=320704&page=1
So far no one has cited any Catholic authorities on these threads as to how long they recommend - nor are there any references to history, nor have I seen any mention of occasion of sin.
Compare the attitudes expressed on the CAF thread with this:
(http://i56.tinypic.com/2dh6554.jpg)
old Catholic book with a chapter on courtship (http://books.google.com/books?id=NIMaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA324&dq=catholic+courtship&hl=en&ei=bN2TTbeXE8iBtge-x-T7Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=if%20youth%20and%20maiden%20stand%20in%20&f=false)
-
Background: A bishop in my country, one possibly being a member of the body that will work on introducing some restrictions connected with entering into marriage, has expressed his opinion that an engagement should last "at least several years". Needless to say, I have issues with that opinion and am losing sleeping because of it. I really can't see my conference of bishops imposing, say, a mandatory five year engagement, but this isn't helping my nerves really.
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=532523
This should make it clear - the Novus Ordo ideas about "maturity" and the appropriate length of courtship are totally alien to Catholicism.
-
I'm a hypocrite because I don't necessarily believe the way my husband and I went about things is the best way even though it ended well for us.
Let us apply that logic to another situation.
I had a C-section with my first child. She did fine, I did fine, no long term consequences. By your logic I should believe that all C-sections are ok and necessary and the wisdom of such a procedure should never be questioned. After all, I have never suffered any negative effects. I should not advocate or educate women about possible consequences of choosing an elective C-section. I have never suffered them myself.
There is nothing hypocritical or illogical about looking back at a decision, even one that didn't have a negative consequence, and think it wasn't the greatest idea and to counsel others not to take the same path.
Only by the Grace of God and the fact my dh was raised by my awesome in-laws and is a spectacular Catholic man, did I not suffer the same fate as my mother and end up with a broken marriage.
-
It does not take a genius to see that there are a few people following this and they are repeatedly voting "thumbs down" for Tele and "thumbs up" for momofmany (who has more of a "reputation" in an hour than some well-known and well-respected members who have been here for years). Rather than respond via actual, rational discourse (which is the purpose of a forum), they anonymously point and click, satisfying emotion but contributing nothing of substance.
What is more, Tele RESPONDS to momofmany, rather than just giving her the "thumbs down," something he has not done once (as proved by the fact that she has zero 'thumbs down'). This is an excellent example of why the like/dislike feature is, at least potentially, nonsense. If another newbie comes on and says, "Go get him, momofmany!", it is reasonable to surmise that the newbie, who will have said nothing of substance, will instantly have "reputation points", for whatever that is or is not worth.
While I realize some will not even have read this far, I will point out that I am NOT saying Tele is RIGHT and momofmany is WRONG. That is an entirely separate issue. Now, do your duty and click the "thumbs down", knowing you have made a real difference :)
-
I'm a hypocrite because I don't necessarily believe the way my husband and I went about things is the best way
What should you have done? Listened to your mother? Waited longer? How would that have made any difference?
If you think you were right to marry, then you can't say you did the wrong thing now. The only way you can say you aren't a hypocrite is to say you made a mistake in marrying your husband.
Here's the point - you apply modern worldly standards to your daughter - that if she tried to "do that to you" (do as you did with respect to you as you did with respect to your mother - marrying without your consent isn't doing anything to you - marrying against your wishes isn't doing you any wrong) - you would "kill" her. You obviously feel entitled to try to bind your daughter - even though you refused to be bound yourself.
If you had listened to your mother you wouldn't have married your husband. So you think your mother is wrong to do what you what you would do to your hypocrite.
Either that or you should concede you never should have married. Another thing 9 months is not a brief time.
I had a C-section with my first child. She did fine, I did fine, no long term consequences. By your logic I should believe that all C-sections are ok and necessary and the wisdom of such a procedure should never be questioned.
No, your analogy doesn't hold at all. Do you think having the C-section was a mistake? If you think it was a mistake then it would be fine to condemn it. Now I'm certain you don't think your marriage was a mistake. I'm certain that if you listened to your mother you probably wouldn't have married the man you did. But you turn around and say that you would "kill" your daughter if "she tried that on you." Well, if you condemned her harshly for making her own choice (which isn't doing anything evil to you) then you would definitely be a hypocrite, unless you believe your marriage was a grievous mistake and that you should have listened to your mother.
After all, I have never suffered any negative effects. I should not advocate or educate women about possible consequences of choosing an elective C-section. I have never suffered them myself.
There is nothing hypocritical or illogical about looking back at a decision, even one that didn't have a negative consequence, and think it wasn't the greatest idea and to counsel others not to take the same path.
So do you think your marriage was a mistake? Yes or no?
Only by the Grace of God and the fact my dh was raised by my awesome in-laws and is a spectacular Catholic man, did I not suffer the same fate as my mother and end up with a broken marriage.
Maybe you didn't suffer the same fate because you did the right thing and didn't listen to her. Because if you had not married the man you loved out of deference to your mother - it's quite possible things would have been much worse for you in another marriage.
-
I want to thank the anonymous, emoting, gutless creature who gave me a thumbs down within one or two minutes. You proved my point.
See, two before my editing time is complete... :laugh2:
-
Now, do your duty and click the "thumbs down", knowing you have made a real difference :)
As you wish. :pop:
Should I really clutter up this thread with my thoughts about the "like" and "dislike"? ... probably not a good idea. I'll respond to you in that other thread.
-
If you had listened to your mother you wouldn't have married your husband. So you think your mother is wrong to do what you what you would do to your hypocrite.
I see I garbled this line. What I meant is:
You think your marriage was right - so you think what your mother did was wrong, but you would "kill" your daughter if she does what you did.
You think you were right as the daughter, and now you think you would be right as the mother, even though those two positions are contradictory.
-
If you had listened to your mother you wouldn't have married your husband. So you think your mother is wrong to do what you what you would do to your hypocrite.
I see I garbled this line. What I meant is:
You think your marriage was right - so you think what your mother did was wrong, but you would "kill" your daughter if she does what you did.
You think you were right as the daughter, and now you think you would be right as the mother, even though those two positions are contradictory.
It really depends on WHY she thinks she was right then and still right now. If her mother, hypothetically, didn't wish for her to marry a Catholic and now her daughter wishes to marry a non-Catholic, she'd be in the right on both counts.
-
It really depends on WHY she thinks she was right then and still right now.
She said she wouldn't approve of her daughter doing to her what she did to her mother.
She never said anything about reasons. If there really were different reasons for disapproving, there might be reason for her to disapprove now. But she didn't say that. She said that for doing what she did to her mother she'd "kill" her daughter. So did she make a mistake in marrying? Was her mother right?
If her mother, hypothetically, didn't wish for her to marry a Catholic and now her daughter wishes to marry a non-Catholic, she'd be in the right on both counts.
You're talking about two different situations - when she's comparing the two situations and the only difference she specified is that she thinks she was right as a daughter and her mother was wrong but now she thinks she would be right as a mother but her daughter would be wrong.
-
It really depends on WHY she thinks she was right then and still right now.
She said she wouldn't approve of her daughter doing to her what she did to her mother.
She never said anything about reasons. If there really were different reasons for disapproving, there might be reason for her to disapprove now. But she didn't say that. She said that for doing what she did to her mother she'd "kill" her daughter. So did she make a mistake in marrying? Was her mother right?
If her mother, hypothetically, didn't wish for her to marry a Catholic and now her daughter wishes to marry a non-Catholic, she'd be in the right on both counts.
You're talking about two different situations - when she's comparing the two situations and the only difference she specified is that she thinks she was right as a daughter and her mother was wrong but now she thinks she would be right as a mother but her daughter would be wrong.
Very true, she wasn't specific as to what about her own actions she would disapprove of in her daughter.
Marrying against her mother's wishes? -- probably
Marrying an older man? -- possibly, buy why?
Marrying within 9 months? -- doubt it, but I could see why modern parents wouldn't be especially happy about this (they would be wrong, of course)
-
What should you have done? Listened to your mother? Waited longer? How would that have made any difference?
If you think you were right to marry, then you can't say you did the wrong thing now. The only way you can say you aren't a hypocrite is to say you made a mistake in marrying your husband.
Here's the point - you apply modern worldly standards to your daughter - that if she tried to "do that to you" (do as you did with respect to you as you did with respect to your mother - marrying without your consent isn't doing anything to you - marrying against your wishes isn't doing you any wrong) - you would "kill" her. You obviously feel entitled to try to bind your daughter - even.
Again, I will say, the I will 'kill' my daughter was in jest.
I have no idea what my reaction will be to who my daughter chooses to marry. There are way too many variables to predict.
I'm not going to go into details about my early relationship with my husband, my mind-set at that time or my relationship with my mother. That is way too much detail for an internet forum, especially a public one.
I do not regret my marriage, I do regret, in some ways, the way we went about it, as they say hindsight is always 20-20. Although, I wouldn't have the children I do now if we had changed things and they are obviously something I do not regret.
-
Marrying against her mother's wishes? -- probably
Marrying an older man? -- possibly, buy why?
Marrying within 9 months? -- doubt it, but I could see why modern parents wouldn't be especially happy about this (they would be wrong, of course)
Age alone isn't an impediment but I don't see it as a benefit necessarily as a stand alone when I know nothing else about the man.
Marrying in 9 months? Depends on what was going on those 9 months on whether or not it was not a good idea. 9 months from the first time you set eyes on someone to marrying? 9 months of 'courtship' after years of being aquainted or friends,? 9 months of an email relationship? 9 months of modern 'dating' and breaking up and getting back together again?
Not to mention the variable of the individuals. 9 months of talking about the things that matter or talking about vapid, senseless things. 9 months of prayer and discernment or 9 months of acting like they are in heat?
There isn't a formula for marital success.
-
I was going to say it reminds me of campaigning against public school after I personally went there for 12 years -- knowing that home school would have been better for my mind and my soul, and how close I came to losing my soul because of public school.
But then I remember that Telesphorus' main objection was "Yes, you can say that you had a close call, but you basically have to say you REGRET the thing in question..."
And I thought, "Yes, I can easily cut myself off from public school now, and say that I regret it, etc. so there's no problem there. It's different from the case of a marriage, where a person -- someone close to you, who you still love -- is involved. Especially when that marriage has resulted in X number of children, who you also love.
But then I realized: how is it any different? Public school made me what I am today, for better or worse. God used everything in my life -- yes, even my sins -- to form me into the man I am today. Who's to say that I wouldn't have lost my soul or ended up in a bad marriage if I had gone to St. Mary's, KS like Thomas A. Nelson wanted to pay my way for when I was 12? What if I HADN'T been too scared to go, and my parents hadn't been so loathe to "miss me"? What if I had been homeschooled? My mom didn't discover homeschooling until I was about to enter 11th grade, but that's when the trouble starts, isn't it?
After all, my personality was one of those that does well "against the grain". I was used to not having friends; I wasn't one to have a group of friends and be influenced by them. By being in public school, I was first introduced to computer programming, which is the way I'm supporting my family today. I was introduced to many types of people that I otherwise wouldn't have been. In short, I would have been more sheltered in homeschool, and exposed to lots of worldly trad. Catholics in St. Mary's. (We all know worldly Catholics are more dangerous than worldly pagans! At least with pagans you have your defenses up when you're around them...)
Nevertheless, I see that most kids WOULD be better off not going to public school. After all, they wouldn't be going there in the 80's and early 90's like I did. Kids have cell phones now, which makes it easier to bully, arrange dates, etc. Girls are dressed more immodestly in 2011 than they were in 1985.
Matthew
-
When I said I would have been more isolated in homeschool, I was speaking about my particular situation, not homeschooling in general.
Just like the SSPX can see what Rome had in mind with their "agreement" by looking at the FSSP today (Look mom! No hands bishop!), I can see exactly what my homeschooling experience would have been like by looking at my 3 siblings' experience.
My home was light on the discipline -- always has been. That's a big strike against homeschooling right there. Number 2, our home was very, very light on the socializing. We pretty much had each other for friends and that was it. Any outside friends (one or two mainly) came over to our house and basically became part of our isolated family. That was the extent of our socializing or "going out". This wasn't our parents' fault, BTW. It was our choice.
So we would be the poster child for how homeschool creates isolated kids with a a very UN-broad horizon. Our world didn't extend beyond the borders of our town -- the same town we were born in. We never traveled anywhere EVER, not even "on the cheap".
Which is why, to this day, my mom thinks that living in a low-income neighborhood equates to being in fear for her safety. In my hometown, the demographics are such that this is true. In the low-income parts of my hometown, there are drug deals, etc. Yet in the small town that I live close to today (pop. 1000), there are shacks that look like they're going to fall over, completely run-down, but they're populated by different people. You don't feel afraid for your life. I never could have imagined a place like that when I still lived in my hometown.
Matthew
-
When I said I would have been more isolated in homeschool, I was speaking about my particular situation, not homeschooling in general.
Just like the SSPX can see what Rome had in mind with their "agreement" by looking at the FSSP today (Look mom! No hands bishop!), I can see exactly what my homeschooling experience would have been like by looking at my 3 siblings' experience.
My home was light on the discipline -- always has been. That's a big strike against homeschooling right there. Number 2, our home was very, very light on the socializing. We pretty much had each other for friends and that was it. Any outside friends (one or two mainly) came over to our house and basically became part of our isolated family. That was the extent of our socializing or "going out". This wasn't our parents' fault, BTW. It was our choice.
So we would be the poster child for how homeschool creates isolated kids with a a very UN-broad horizon. Our world didn't extend beyond the borders of our town -- the same town we were born in. We never traveled anywhere EVER, not even "on the cheap".
Which is why, to this day, my mom thinks that living in a low-income neighborhood equates to being in fear for her safety. In my hometown, the demographics are such that this is true. In the low-income parts of my hometown, there are drug deals, etc. Yet in the small town that I live close to today (pop. 1000), there are shacks that look like they're going to fall over, completely run-down, but they're populated by different people. You don't feel afraid for your life. I never could have imagined a place like that when I still lived in my hometown.
Matthew
I think your thoughts on homeschool vs. public school in generalities and in your own personal situation highlights a way that some of us are talking past one another.
Some folks here are looking at finding a spouse as an objective truth. Girl is Catholic, boy is Catholic, boy is at least 18, girl is at least 18. Done. That is all that matters.
Others, including myself, are looking at finding spouse more subjectively.
-
That brings up a good point --
Why aren't ALL marriages today contracted between an 18 year old female and a male 3-4 years older ("The Ideal")?
Is the "conspiracy" of priests, parents, etc. THAT pervasive and powerful? Or is 18 more of a "minimum age" as some have said?
Is each "late marriage" (where the girl is older than 18) a case of somebody interfering with God's will?
EITHER most 18-year-olds aren't ready ("mature enough") to get married here in 2011, or the "conspiracy" alleged by Telesphorus transcends traditional group, nation, race, etc.
Because it's a fact that marriages involving 18-year old females are a small fraction of the marriages contracted...
-
But then I realized: how is it any different?
Because marriage is a sacrament - a source of grace, and public schooling is something that's bad.
There's a huge difference.
-
That brings up a good point --
Why aren't ALL marriages today contracted between an 18 year old female and a male 3-4 years older ("The Ideal")?
All marriages today? You mean all traditional Catholic marriages, or all marriages? Why is marriage delayed? All marriages today: because of feminism. Marriage among traditionalists? Because of influence of feminist customs on society.
A better question would be why do so many parents believe their daughters should have a college education as a matter of course rather than marrying?
Is the "conspiracy" of priests, parents, etc. THAT pervasive and powerful? Or is 18 more of a "minimum age" as some have said?
They obviously act to prevent early marriages, and they do so to be in conformity to the broader society. Let's put it this way - there's obviously a "conspiracy" in the SSPX to make young women believe they must have their father's consent to talk to men - a "praxis" - now that's a conspiracy - a conspiracy to refuse to teach that it's up to the child - not the parents - once the child reaches majority. Yes, that's an outright conspiracy to hide the truth.
Is each "late marriage" (where the girl is older than 18) a case of somebody interfering with God's will?
EITHER most 18-year-olds aren't ready ("mature enough") to get married here in 2011, or the "conspiracy" alleged by Telesphorus transcends traditional group, nation, race, etc.
I don't call social trends a conspiracy per se - but social trends today are clearly evil - and those social trends are clearly the reason for delayed marriage - for the veritable taboo against early marriage.
Because it's a fact that marriages involving 18-year old females are a small fraction of the marriages contracted...
And that is supposed to mean what? Why should we judge whether something is good or bad on that basis?
-
Let's put it this way - there's obviously a "conspiracy" in the SSPX to make young women believe they must have their father's consent to talk to men
No, not the SSPX, but ALL traditional groups; the "conspiracy" filters even into the most counter-culture and truth-telling of groups.
Because among ALL traditional Catholics -- whether FSSP, ICK, SSPX, SSPV, independent, sedevacantist, you name it -- 18 year old women getting married is the exception.
Maybe everyone's not wrong? Maybe there's something to be said for waiting a couple years so that marriage won't end in divorce?
Some people (wisely) tell 18-year-olds, "Why the rush to get married? You're young. You have the rest of your life to be married. You have your whole life ahead of you. You want to make sure you find the right spouse, right?"
A lifetime vocation is about as serious as it gets. Rushing into the first opportunity that presents itself at 18 would be foolish at best.
Heck, every young man/woman should take a couple years after High School just to pray, meditate, find themselves, and try out a religious vocation -- just to be sure. That alone would mature them, and make them 2 years older (20).
Matthew
-
No, not the SSPX, but ALL traditional groups; the "conspiracy" filters even into the most truth-telling of groups.
Because among ALL traditional Catholics -- whether FSSP, ICK, SSPX, SSPV, independent, sedevacantist, you name it -- 18 year old women getting married is the exception.
You mean they all teach that a father's permission is necessary for an adult woman? Maybe because they have a tendency towards cultishness? Because the Church teaches that children are not bound to obey their parents in the matter of marriage. If that's not spoken from pulpits or well known - if the opposite is widely believed - then that's a problem, it can't be anything else but a serious problem, because it is obscurantist at best, it is consciously rejecting Church teachings at worst. I have to doubt that people who value the truth so lightly - so that they just don't care if the people know the truth - they just don't care that they bind consciences without the right - I have to doubt that they are serious Catholics. They should be ashamed of such conduct. It's a black mark on the traditional clergy, if it really is universal. I'm not convinced it is. I know the mission priest said that a high school diploma was enough for a woman to be ready for motherhood.
Maybe everyone's not wrong? Maybe there's something to be said for waiting a couple years so that marriage won't end in divorce?
Was divorce of people who married young a serious problem before society started casting aspersions on those who married young - before society started making it difficult for young people to support a family?
The simple fact is that the delay of marriage has coincided with the increase in the divorce rate. If marriages of the young are often unsuccessful it is because of a society that has embraced fornication and contraception and treats it as a scandal when someone marries young. And has made divorce - and bogus annulments, especially for the young - very easy.
Some people (wisely) tell 18-year-olds, "Why the rush to get married? You have the rest of your life to be married. You have your whole life ahead of you.
No, there isn't wisdom in saying "you have your whole life ahead of you" - that's feminist speak Matthew. If you marry you don't have your whole life ahead of you? That line about "you have your whole life ahead of you" is one step away from "sow your wild oats - you're only young once.
You want to make sure you find the right spouse, right?"
Isn't rejecting a proposal of marriage simply on the basis of being young a way to lose the chance of finding the right spouse? There are a lot of older unmarried women who rejected men when they were younger because they thought they were too young to get married. I've spoken to such a woman. The man she didn't married is still unhappy. I've heard of many other cases - particularly where the religious belief bounds children to obey parents - where people are seriously bothered for the rest of their life because of love matches thwarted by parents.
A lifetime vocation is about as serious as it gets. Rushing into the first opportunity that presents itself at 18 would be foolish at best.
Not if one wants a family and one wants to avoid sin. "The first opportunity that presents itself" can easily be the best outcome - a woman's marrying stock only goes down as she gets older.
I've already posted the evidence - the fertility of women who are college educated is drastically reduced. Now it would be incredibly foolish for Catholic not to take into account the fact that emphasizing college education and "having your whole life ahead of you" (ie, wait for the sake of waiting) ahead of motherhood has had disastrous social consequences. Foolish to believe that an unnecessary delay that exposes a woman to temptations before marriage is automatically outweighed by imagined evil of marrying young.
Heck, every young man/woman should take a couple years after High School just to pray, meditate, find themselves, and try out a religious vocation -- just to be sure. That alone would mature them, and make them 2 years older (20).
Everyone should try out a religious vocation? Married people can't pray?
It's kind of crazy Matthew - the idea that people shouldn't marry so they can pray and meditate for two years? The odds of them doing that instead of sinning are not good, to say the least.
-
Yes, Tele, married people can't pray. To a certain degree, that is correct. Married people can't study or pray to any great degree. Their prayer is their work.
My biggest shot at sanctity is growing in various virtues (especially patience) and offering up the inconveniences, sufferings, and labors of married life. It's a different kind of sanctity than I was going after in the seminary.
I'm still "living off the fat" I stored while at the seminary for 3 1/3 years.
By "fat" I mean my spiritual life, as well as my knowledge of the Catholic Faith. Good thing I have a strong memory, too. I can't imagine how it would be for a man of average mental capacity, marrying young (like 20).
When would he ever learn things in depth? He wouldn't.
In my case, I'm hoping my "storehouse" will last me through the years of having numerous helpless toddlers and preschoolers running around the house. Busy would be an understatement.
We say the Rosary every day, but my spiritual life is not the same as it was when I was single. I don't have time to read any books, for example. And how do you make a quiet meditation in the morning when your kids get up before you do? Etc.
You seem to think it's either college or nothing. How about a year off, after finishing high school, to decide what to do next?
Actually, it's good advice for young people to try out a vocation. After all, there are no hormones to make you want to serve God in the religious life. Finding the will to marry is never difficult. Even at the ripe old age of 22, the desire to NOT be alone, and find love, is quite strong. If you look into marriage first and a religious vocation 2nd, you will be married. End of story.
In fact, I was taught in the Seminary that marriage is not a "vocation" strictly speaking. It's the normal course of human life -- the "default" choice, if you will, for those who DON'T have a vocation.
How about I harp on Telesphorus here as an example of why there is a priest shortage, as well as a dearth of religious vocations? He doesn't want women to try out a vocation to the convent at 18. What are you afraid of, Tele? An even harder time finding an 18 year old to marry you?
I think Tele's beliefs are based on what's best for him personally. If 20 women joined traditional convents tomorrow, that would be bad for him, because it would be 20 beautiful women newly unavailable to him. See how personal this is for him?
My point is: show me ONE group that loves the truth, who DOESN'T "hide the truth" from parents about when young ladies should marry. Show me a group where 80 or 90% of marriages happen between an 18 year old woman and a man (any age).
I don't think you can find one. What does that mean? There are no real Catholics left?
-
Actually, it's good advice for young people to try out a vocation.
Not if they don't want one.
After all, there are no hormones to make you want to serve God. Finding the will to marry is never difficult. Even at the ripe old age of 22, the desire to NOT be alone, and find love, is quite strong. If you look into marriage first and a religious vocation 2nd, you will be married. End of story.
For people who want a religious vocation. But many people can be quite certain they do not have one.
How about I harp on Telesphorus here as an example of why there is a priest shortage, as well as a dearth of religious vocations? He doesn't want women to try out a vocation to the convent at 18. What are you afraid of, Tele? An even harder time finding an 18 year old to marry you?
In the past there were many parents who pushed their daughters into the convent and priesthood. It was a very great evil. Trying out a vocation should be for those who feel called. It isn't for those who have no intention of entering religious life. It certainly isn't for everyone.
I think Tele's beliefs are based on what's best for him personally. If 20 women joined traditional convents tomorrow, that would be bad for him, because it would be 20 beautiful women newly unavailable to him. See how personal this is for him?
Well Matthew, I very much doubt a girl who is making eyes at me is thinking about the convent. Nor do I think she should try it.
My point is: show me ONE group that loves the truth, who DOESN'T "hide the truth" from parents about when young ladies should marry.
I'll show you one group - it's called the Catholic Church - there's only Church - and it has one teaching, which is the opposite of what the SSPX leads people to believe!
Show me a group where 80 or 90% of marriages happen between an 18 year old woman and a man (any age).[/b]
Traditional Catholics follow Tradition - as Chesterton called it "the democracy of the dead" - what people do today is not traditional - their attitude of disgust at the early marriage of girls is not Catholic. Their disgust at a man my age wanting to marry one is pure pharisaism.
Another thing - not scorning marriage at 18 is hardly stating that nearly all marriages should be at 18. Recognizing the rights of a young woman is not the same thing as thinking that all girls should marry right away.
The other side wants to make it nearly impossible to marry early - you're making it sound like I want it to be unusual to marry later. Your defending the extremist position against early marriage by comparing it to the opposite extreme - which is kind of silly.
I don't think you can find one. What does that mean? There are no real Catholics left?
Being mistaken on that point doesn't mean you're not Catholic. But I begin to doubt the integrity of the SSPX. Like I said, the mission priest, when I mentioned in confession that the priest had given a sermon about people marrying later, seemed concerned, and later mentioned in his sermon that a high school diploma for girls meant they were ready.
-
You mean they all teach that a father's permission is necessary for an adult woman? Maybe because they have a tendency towards cultishness? Because the Church teaches that children are not bound to obey their parents in the matter of marriage.
Sorry, need to interject. Tele- do your parents not play any role in your life? I am not being condescending, just trying to clarify why it is that you place such a lack of importance in the word of a father or mother on the decision of a girl? Just because the Church instructs that children are not bound to obey parents in the matter of marriage, they are still bound to obey them; reference: 10 Commandments.
There's no magical number in the history of the Church that says there's a good time on who decides when its is prudent to obey or not obey. If you wanted to marry a 12 year old, but her father said otherwise, would you try to circuмvent his order? How about a 13 year old? 14? 15? 16? Point is is that there is no specific age which is right, and as has been brought up before, each young lady is different in this respect. But it is you who fail to respect the wishes of fathers, under whose roof these young ladies live. And instead of being respectful to his position as her father, you slander him, then play the role of the martyr.
The simple fact is that the delay of marriage has coincided with the increase in the divorce rate.
You better not get married then... for according to you 'fact' you have an increased level of divorce.
Isn't rejecting a proposal of marriage simply on the basis of being young a way to lose the chance of finding the right spouse?
No- This isn't fairy-land. There are a multitude of people that any individual can end up with. You've seen too many movies and are too far influenced by the modern culture that you speak against so much. Just because a proposal from someone who would make a potential spouse is rejected, using age as a basis, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't be able to come along and fufill that role in the future.
Also- in rejecting that proposal, the suitor, if really interested in the girl, would be able to propose later, if he hasn't found another in the mean time, and if it was God's will, then they would have a blessed marriage. But to be hard headed, disrespectful and insistent is definitely a way to take away that possibility, which is what you seem to have done, maybe not by words, but by your attitude and slanderous comments.
-
In fact, I was taught in the Seminary that marriage is not a "vocation" strictly speaking. It's the normal course of human life -- the "default" choice, if you will, for those who DON'T have a vocation.
We are all called to a particular state in life, even if some of the callings are to states that are objectively higher. One's state of life -- priestly, religious, or married -- is one's vocation.
The BVM was called to be the Mother of God -- and to be married. Was her marriage a "default"? No.
IMO, the idea you mention flows from what I have called elsewhere hyper-clericalism.
-
In fact, I was taught in the Seminary that marriage is not a "vocation" strictly speaking. It's the normal course of human life -- the "default" choice, if you will, for those who DON'T have a vocation.
We are all called to a particular state in life, even if some of the callings are to states that are objectively higher. One's state of life -- priestly, religious, or married -- is one's vocation.
The BVM was called to be the Mother of God -- and to be married. Was her marriage a "default"? No.
IMO, the idea you mention flows from what I have called elsewhere hyper-clericalism.
I don't know, Gladius -- would it be clear if a man told his co-workers, "My daughter is pursuing her vocation." What would they respond?
"Really? Which order?"
In the broad sense, a vocation is what God calls each one of us to. But in the strict sense, a vocation is God "calling you" to serve him in a special way, to have spiritual children instead of physical ones.
Marriage is natural. The religious life is supernatural. It takes a calling from God to embrace a life so fundamentally supernatural.
I also get the sense that some people say, "No, Matthew, dry your tears. You DO have a vocation -- to the married life!" And I reply, "*sniffle sniffle* really? That's wonderful!" In other words, it's a good comfort for those who don't have a vocation. But it's silly if you think about it -- how could 98% of humanity have a vocation (or special calling) from God? Unless you're talking about God's will in general.
When vocation is broadened to mean "whatever God has in mind for each person", the word becomes basically meaningless.
Matthew
-
Sorry, need to interject. Tele- do your parents not play any role in your life? I am not being condescending, just trying to clarify why it is that you place such a lack of importance in the word of a father or mother on the decision of a girl? Just because the Church instructs that children are not bound to obey parents in the matter of marriage, they are still bound to obey them; reference: 10 Commandments.
Such a lack of importance? The problem isn't stating that they have no role, the problem is teaching that they have more authority than they do. Now why don't you admit that?
There's no magical number in the history of the Church that says there's a good time on who decides when its is prudent to obey or not obey.
No, there's not, but that doesn't matter. There is human nature, and human nature doesn't change. The Church once taught freedom to marry - not freedom to marry after some arbitrary delay.
If you wanted to marry a 12 year old, but her father said otherwise, would you try to circuмvent his order?
We're not talking about 12 year olds, dirt bag. The Church has set the age of majority - if you don't accept it, that's your problem. I know you scheissters like to bring insinuations of pedophilia into every argument like this - another nasty habit you picked up from the feminist cultural marxists who have made your point of view the norm among Catholics.
How about a 13 year old? 14? 15? 16? Point is is that there is no specific age which is right,
That's right - there's no specific age that's right -in the past it was lower than 18 in many places - it was raised to higher ages when the state stepped in and imposed itself on the Church.
and as has been brought up before, each young lady is different in this respect. But it is you who fail to respect the wishes of fathers, under whose roof these young ladies live.
I am not bound to go along with their wishes. Nor are their daughters bound by their wishes. If you can't accept that, you can't accept Catholic teachings
And instead of being respectful to his position as her father, you slander him, then play the role of the martyr.
The father and the priest were both liars and had me kicked out of Church. Because they wanted total control over the situation - a level of control they have no right to. You support their unjust actions, because you think it's "gross" for a man my age to like a girl that age. That makes you a pharisee.
You better not get married then... for according to you 'fact' you have an increased level of divorce.
No, you better not marry a woman who isn't a virgin, because the odds of marital disruption are greatly increased. If society believed in monogamous marriage then it would seek to preserve the virginity of young women before marriage - and in seeking that end it would not unnaturally delay marriage. That's how it was in the past, until the feminists started wrecking society.
No- This isn't fairy-land.
No, it's the truth for many people. You're pretty twisted to keep coming back to this thread. Just about everyone has had "the love of their life" at some point or another - and many people have been heart-broken because of it.
There are a multitude of people that any individual can end up with. You've seen too many movies and are too far influenced by the modern culture that you speak against so much.
Too many movies? How about Shakespeare? Or any old story? You make it sound like love stories are the reason for love marriages? No - love marriages became the norm in Western society because of the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Just because a proposal from someone who would make a potential spouse is rejected, using age as a basis, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't be able to come along and fufill that role in the future.
But it can and it has. You keep refusing to address the evidence I've pointed out - that college education of women leads to reduced fertility. Any serious Catholic would be concerned by that - but you're not here for a serious discussion - you're here because you want to pick on me for some reason.
Also- in rejecting that proposal, the suitor, if really interested in the girl, would be able to propose later, if he hasn't found another in the mean time, and if it was God's will, then they would have a blessed marriage. But to be hard headed, disrespectful and insistent is definitely a way to take away that possibility, which is what you seem to have done, maybe not by words, but by your attitude and slanderous comments.
They were the ones who lied to me. They weren't interested in giving me a chance.
The father of that girl is a liar. The priest is a liar. They're conduct is totally indefensible and wicked.
-
I'm really disgusted by the suggestion that turning down an offer of marriage (or all offers of marriage when she's "too young") can't possibly mean that a woman might not marry in the future.
There are plenty of old maids out there. I've spoken to a woman who is near my age who is having trouble finding a husband - but she turned down the man she loved when she was younger because she thought she was "too young" - and this was in an Islamic country - where one would think these feminist attitudes hadn't yet taken hold.
In fact, all throughout the world, in Latin America, in the Muslim world, in Southern Europe - the birthrate has collapsed or is in the process of collapsing. Marriage is in trouble.
-
Is there a reason you avoided my question about the role your parents play in your life?
Such a lack of importance? The problem isn't stating that they have no role, the problem is teaching that they have more authority than they do. Now why don't you admit that?
You seem to take away from the fact that the girl, of her free will decided to listen to her fathers opinion. I have a feeling you're such a weirdo that the priest and him stepped in to make it seem as if it was their authority, yet you give no credit to the girl in making the decision to listen to her fathers opinion.
No, there's not, but that doesn't matter. There is human nature, and human nature doesn't change. The Church once taught freedom to marry - not freedom to marry after some arbitrary delay.
Again, you give no credit to the girl. As if she has no freedom of will to choose to listen to her parents opinion. You're a rebel.
We're not talking about 12 year olds, dirt bag. The Church has set the age of majority - if you don't accept it, that's your problem. I know you scheissters like to bring insinuations of pedophilia into every argument like this - another nasty habit you picked up from the feminist cultural marxists who have made your point of view the norm among Catholics.
First of all weirdo- I wasn't talking about pedophilia, its your twisted mind that turned it into that. There's no way you couldn't have seen my How about a 13 year old? 14? 15? 16?
just after that, especially since you quoted it.
That's right - there's no specific age that's right -in the past it was lower than 18 in many places - it was raised to higher ages when the state stepped in and imposed itself on the Church.
Ohhh so you did read what I had to say... again, it doesn' matter what the norm was in the past as this girl has her own free will to do what she wants. Apparently she wasn't as attracted to you as you state.. plus you didn't even get to know her... or did you? You're confusing
I am not bound to go along with their wishes. Nor are their daughters bound by their wishes. If you can't accept that, you can't accept Catholic teachings
You said it man,... Nor are their daughters bound by their wishes
... so shut up and move on. You're freakish when you hang on to the subject so much...
The father and the priest were both liars and had me kicked out of Church. Because they wanted total control over the situation - a level of control they have no right to. You support their unjust actions, because you think it's "gross" for a man my age to like a girl that age. That makes you a pharisee.
Again, one sided. Maybe you're such a weirdo that they made it seem that way to you, but you just cant see it. Yes I think its weird and gross, but its my opinion. Do you really place so much importance on this?
No, you better not marry a woman who isn't a virgin, because the odds of marital disruption are greatly increased. If society believed in monogamous marriage then it would seek to preserve the virginity of young women before marriage - and in seeking that end it would not unnaturally delay marriage. That's how it was in the past, until the feminists started wrecking society.
Dude- you're all over the place and confusing so many issues. Stop drinking! No one disagrees with you that society today is totally off and that feminists are wrecking society- so stop acting as if you're the only one who has the God-given powers to see this.
No, it's the truth for many people. You're pretty twisted to keep coming back to this thread. Just about everyone has had "the love of their life" at some point or another - and many people have been heart-broken because of it.
I'm sorry I came back to this thread to point out your errors and that disappointed you... I have my love of my life as well, but I admit it wasn't fate who brought her to me as you seem to believe in you heretic.
But it can and it has. You keep refusing to address the evidence I've pointed out - that college education of women leads to reduced fertility. Any serious Catholic would be concerned by that - but you're not here for a serious discussion - you're here because you want to pick on me for some reason.
I'm not talking about fertility- stay on the subject and stop jumping around again. I'm not picking on you. You're trying to be a martyr and slander people and societies and I would never stand for that- even for a society whom I disagree with and don't like.
They were the ones who lied to me. They weren't interested in giving me a chance.
The father of that girl is a liar. The priest is a liar. They're conduct is totally indefensible and wicked.
ONE SIDED
-
I'm really disgusted by the suggestion that turning down an offer of marriage (or all offers of marriage when she's "too young") can't possibly mean that a woman might not marry in the future.
There are plenty of old maids out there. I've spoken to a woman who is near my age who is having trouble finding a husband - but she turned down the man she loved when she was younger because she thought she was "too young" - and this was in an Islamic country - where one would think these feminist attitudes hadn't yet taken hold.
DUDE- go marry her then and stop being so superficial just cause she's old...
-
You seem to take away from the fact that the girl, of her free will decided to listen to her fathers opinion.
If it was her own free will then they would have had no trouble letting her talk to me on her own. Being very upset - trying to talk to me before confession and then not talking to me afterwards? Why? Because the priest bound her. It's obvious to me. It's obvious to me you're never going to concede anything - first you avoid the question as to whether or not the girl has the right - then you turn around and try to suggest they didn't bind her. If she was really free then she could have spoken to me, and then made up her mind. Why don't you admit right now you have no interest in whether or not they had the right to do what they did - your only interest is to cast doubt on my story and make me look bad.
I have a feeling you're such a weirdo that the priest and him stepped in to make it seem as if it was their authority,
Personal attacks on me are your only weapon - the weapon of the cult apologist. You're "gross" - you're such a "weirdo". The priest threatened to kick me out of church for contacting the girl. They don't need to do that if she doesn't want to hear from me. At any time, for 14 months, they could have let her speak to me alone or after church in public, but semi-privately - to explain her attitude - they never once did.
yet you give no credit to the girl in making the decision to listen to her fathers opinion.
I know how the girl acted and I know how they acted. I saw their total lack of scruples and honesty.
Again, you give no credit to the girl. As if she has no freedom of will to choose to listen to her parents opinion. You're a rebel.
No, the priest refused to concede that a girl has the right to speak to me without the father's consent. He threatened to kick me out of church if I tried to contact her - the day before the girl was looking into my eyes and smiling at me.
You see, if it's not the principle, you attack the facts - if it's not the facts, you attack me personally - the bottom line is that there's no integrity in your position, no logic, no reason - it's about attacking me, coming back over and over again. What is it to you?
First of all weirdo- I wasn't talking about pedophilia, its your twisted mind that turned it into that.
No, you deliberately try to turn the conversation towards 12 year olds -as though the difference between 18 year olds and 12 year olds was somehow arbitrary - it's about smearing me, about making it look like I defend marriage to 12 year olds. It's typical of people who argue like cultural marxists. The smear is also the main weapon of the trad chapel bullies.
There's no way you couldn't have seen my How about a 13 year old? 14? 15? 16? just after that, especially since you quoted it.
I didn't suggest one should marry a 13 year old either. The fact of the matter is that in the past the ages for marriage without parental consent were younger than 18. Plenty of concessions have already been made to the modern world already. Some people today say 18 is too young, some people say 21 is too young. What it comes down to is the fact that parents like control, and feminists and liberals don't like monagamy or motherhood.
Ohhh so you did read what I had to say... again, it doesn' matter what the norm was in the past as this girl has her own free will to do what she wants.
No, it does matter. The fact that the age was younger in the past shows that the belief today that it should be raised further is a function of feminism.
Apparently she wasn't as attracted to you as you state..
All you can do is taunt me, tell me I'm making things up - you have nothing to defend your position - it's all filthy hypocrisy and malice.
plus you didn't even get to know her... or did you? You're confusing
I met her and saw her regularly. Did I get a chance to know her well? I was not allowed to speak to her. This has been stated many times. You have no arguments, so you keep repeating the same attacks on me.
You said it man,... Nor are their daughters bound by their wishes.. so shut up and move on. You're freakish when you hang on to the subject so much...
No, they did act to bind her when they had no right, and threatened to kick me out if I contacted her. You call it "freakish" - isn't that convenient. I'm "gross" "freakish" - you call me names because you refuse to concede anything. You refuse to concede anything because you're intellectually dishonest and not interested in a serious discussion. You're interested in carrying on these attacks on me. If I'm obsessed I have reason to be - what's the reason for the people who keep coming back over and over again to attack me?
Again, one sided. Maybe you're such a weirdo that they made it seem that way to you, but you just cant see it. Yes I think its weird and gross, but its my opinion. Do you really place so much importance on this?
It's not the opinion of a Christian. There's nothing weird and gross about a 32 year old man wishing to marry an 18 year old girl. If you think there is - you're the sick freak, not me.
Dude- you're all over the place and confusing so many issues. Stop drinking! No one disagrees with you that society today is totally off and that feminists are wrecking society- so stop acting as if you're the only one who has the God-given powers to see this.
No, you can't see it, and you don't admit it. Your attitude that it's "gross" for a 32 year old man to marry an 18 year old is based on feminism. Pure and simple.
If you refuse to admit the role of feminism in delaying marriage, and if you refuse to admit that unnaturally delaying marriage is a threat to chastity, then you are unable to understand what is really going on.
I'm sorry I came back to this thread to point out your errors and that disappointed you...
You haven't pointed out any errors.
I have my love of my life as well, but I admit it wasn't fate who brought her to me as you seem to believe in you heretic.
Did I say I believe in fate? You just made that up. The bottom line, is that you're not capable of debating. You're capable of insulting - not debating.
I'm not talking about fertility- stay on the subject and stop jumping around again.
I'm not changing the subject at all. The issue of whether or not early marriage is good or not has a lot to do with the issue of fertility.
I'm not picking on you.
No, you just call me a "gross" "freak" - you keep coming back to this again and again.
You're trying to be a martyr and slander people and societies and I
I'm just stating I was unjustly kicked out of church by a dishonest sspx priest. I don't approve of it. I have a grievance.
would never stand for that- even for a society whom I disagree with and don't like.
I'm not slandering anyone. I'm telling the truth about their despicable behavior and their lies.
ONE SIDED
Their side is to pretend that the girl never encouraged me, that I imagined everything. The people who believe that deserve the unscrupulous priests they get.
-
I'm really disgusted by the suggestion that turning down an offer of marriage (or all offers of marriage when she's "too young") can't possibly mean that a woman might not marry in the future.
There are plenty of old maids out there. I've spoken to a woman who is near my age who is having trouble finding a husband - but she turned down the man she loved when she was younger because she thought she was "too young" - and this was in an Islamic country - where one would think these feminist attitudes hadn't yet taken hold.
DUDE- go marry her then and stop being so superficial just cause she's old...
She's not a Catholic. Are you a fisheaters poster? Your posts stink.
-
If it was her own free will then they would have had no trouble letting her talk to me on her own. Being very upset - trying to talk to me before confession and then not talking to me afterwards? Why? Because the priest bound her. It's obvious to me. It's obvious to me you're never going to concede anything - first you avoid the question as to whether or not the girl has the right - then you turn around and try to suggest they didn't bind her.
I'm not avoiding anything, I've stated, along with others, that each case is different for each person. It is you, in avoiding this, or in backtracking on statements, who has failed to clarify whether you really knew her or not. You've stated both- which takes all of your credibility away.
If she was really free then she could have spoken to me, and then made up her mind. Why don't you admit right now you have no interest in whether or not they had the right to do what they did - your only interest is to cast doubt on my story and make me look bad.
The only reason I've cast doubt on your story, is because its such a foolish one with no real substance, and trys to slander others who are not here to defend themselves- thats why.
Personal attacks on me are your only weapon -
Really?:
To s2srea:
...dirt bag...scheissters... feminist cultural marxists...you a pharisee...
Personal attacks on me are your only weapon - the weapon of the cult apologist.
So I guess you consider yourself a cult apologist eh..?
The priest threatened to kick me out of church for contacting the girl.
Again, please see why you have no credibility and you seem like a liar: Tele:The father and the priest were both liars and had me kicked out of Church
So did the priest kick you out or threaten to kick you out? Please make up your mind...
You see, if it's not the principle, you attack the facts - if it's not the facts, you attack me personally - the bottom line is that there's no integrity in your position, no logic, no reason - it's about attacking me, coming back over and over again.
See above replies which essentially requires you take this argument and apply it to yourself...
No, you deliberately try to turn the conversation towards 12 year olds -as though the difference between 18 year olds and 12 year olds was somehow arbitrary - it's about smearing me, about making it look like I defend marriage to 12 year olds.
I didn't. I was making a point that there is no clear age- no way to draw a distinguishing line.
What it comes down to is the fact that parents like control, and feminists and liberals don't like monagamy or motherhood.
Of course parents like control- only bad parents wouldn't want to look out for the interest of their children... Which is again, why you probably avoid my questions on what role your parents play in your life..? You seem to have a pretty easy time rejecting authority- formal or informal, which is why I ask.
S2SREA:Apparently she wasn't as attracted to you as you state..
TELEPHOROUS:
All you can do is taunt me, tell me I'm making things up - you have nothing to defend your position - it's all filthy hypocrisy and malice.
The same way that the priest and father have no way to defend their position............................?
It's not the opinion of a Christian. There's nothing weird and gross about a 32 year old man wishing to marry an 18 year old girl. If you think there is - you're the sick freak, not me.
Yes yes all knowing Pope Saint Telephorous...You decide what the opinions of all Christians should be...
If you refuse to admit the role of feminism in delaying marriage, and if you refuse to admit that unnaturally delaying marriage is a threat to chastity, then you are unable to understand what is really going on.
Listen tele- if the lady was 30 years old... I really wouldn't care- Its hard to justify a father telling a 30 year old she wouldn't be able to talk with another 30 year old. But when it comes to a 17 year old - its just different- if you cant accept that, and you have to refute to calling someone a feminist- thats your problem. Its weak and sick to use that as your argument because you know Trads are anti feminist.
You haven't pointed out any errors.
See above.
Did I say I believe in fate? You just made that up. The bottom line, is that you're not capable of debating. You're capable of insulting - not debating.
Hey- Romeo- if Romeo was killed, Juliet would have found someone else. You act as if this was your one opportunity in life. Grow up.
I'm not slandering anyone. I'm telling the truth about their despicable behavior and their lies.
Its hard for me to imagine they'd have flowery things to say about you either...
Their side is to pretend that the girl never encouraged me, that I imagined everything. The people who believe that deserve the unscrupulous priests they get.
Their side is to pretend that the girl never encouraged me, that I imagined everything. The people who believe that deserve the unscrupulous priests they get.
I guess you dont get it... I wish we could ask them to join this forum and see what a different story they present than what you say.
-
The only reason I've cast doubt on your story, is because its such a foolish one with no real substance, and trys to slander others...
I may have missed it, but I do not believe Tele named any names (and I do not know his name, etc). Presuming he has not named names, how can what he has said be considered slander?
FWIW, when you respond, there is no need to use the largest font size available.
-
In stating SSPX and their chapels... it was specific enough in my opinion... sorry about the large font.
-
The only reason I've cast doubt on your story, is because its such a foolish one with no real substance, and trys to slander others...
I may have missed it, but I do not believe Tele named any names (and I do not know his name, etc). Presuming he has not named names, how can what he has said be considered slander?
FWIW, when you respond, there is no need to use the largest font size available.
Tele has made it known that he lives in Ohio, and he has on two different occasions given out his real name (at the Ignis site and here at CI). It would not take much to put 2 & 2 together and determine what Society chapel is in the middle of the mess.
-
Copy...
-
In stating SSPX and their chapels... it was specific enough in my opinion...
You may be correct. I do not know, nor shall I spend the time to find out.
...sorry about the large font.
No biggie. It has its place :)
-
Copy...
The first is from this very thread:
quote:Telesphorus
No, my grandmother lives in Dyersville, Iowa, what a wonderful town.
I live in Ohio
quote:Telesphorus
My name is Joe S. I'm the one telling the truth - that SSPX priest is a malicious liar!
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=13599&min=20&num=10
quote:Telesphorus
My name is Joe S. I am telling the truth, and those SSPX "apologists" and bootlickers and priests are incapable of admitting it. I'm not afraid of them, but they'd better be afraid of me.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6658&st=75
-
LOL!
Thanks for the info...
I think you will not be surprised when I tell you I have not read this entire thread (or even most of it).
-
Wow ... read one of the responses from one of those links, and here's the best response ever!:
Telesphorus, the reason I brought it up - and will continue to do so - is firstly because it is a matter of prudence as to whether people like you are be taken seriously. Secondly it is a matter of justice to all the good priests of the SSPX, and all their allies in the work of God, whom you so unjustly calumniate and with so little reason.
In real life you would not be able to spout forth like that. Your audience would either leave the room, or (after exchanging puzzled glances) would ask you what particular bee you had in your bonnet, and change the subject...
-
Oh my... doesn't this sound familiar... from Ignis Ardens:
Telesphorus:
Gregorio, you bring it up to taunt me because you're cult bully trash. I have still NEVER heard you concede that children have the freedom to marry. Never yet. You will still take the cult position...
And this, my friends, is sad:
...You launch personal attacks instead of responding to the post because you have nothing to defend Bishop Fellay's outrageous, treacherous, and quite simply indefensible behavior...
...I wouldn't be posting here if I weren't concerned about those filthy lying traitors....
... That dirty lying priest would laugh and taunt me on the phone - but he knows better than to do that in person. You're having a kick licking the boots of dirty treacherous priest bullies. Let me assure you they have decided to pick on the wrong person. I'm never going to stop until they are exposed for the fakes that they are...
-
Am I reading this right? Did Tele make these statements? :shocked:
-
Listen tele- if the lady was 30 years old... I really wouldn't care- Its hard to justify a father telling a 30 year old she wouldn't be able to talk with another 30 year old. But when it comes to a 17 year old - its just different- if you cant accept that, and you have to refute to calling someone a feminist- thats your problem. Its weak and sick to use that as your argument because you know Trads are anti feminist.
And that's what it all comes down to - it comes down to pharisees who think it's "gross" that I liked a young woman - pharisees who think it's okay to bind her not to speak to me.
If you think it's "gross" - then you have the problem, and yes, it's called feminism.
-
Wow ... read one of the responses from one of those links, and here's the best response ever!:
Telesphorus, the reason I brought it up - and will continue to do so - is firstly because it is a matter of prudence as to whether people like you are be taken seriously.
Secondly it is a matter of justice to all the good priests of the SSPX, and all their allies in the work of God, whom you so unjustly calumniate and with so little reason.
Do they teach the truth about freedom to marry, or do they lie about it? They do the latter. They do it willfully. |They willfully practice deceit. They fundamentally lack integrity.
In real life you would not be able to spout forth like that. Your audience would either leave the room, or (after exchanging puzzled glances) would ask you what particular bee you had in your bonnet, and change the subject...
This is "real life" - but if you were in my presence you wouldn't dare for a moment taunt me like this, believe me. You could have a civilized discussion if you wanted - you're interested in labelling me a freak. Well - I don't approve of lying priests.
-
Am I reading this right? Did Tele make these statements? :shocked:
Emerentiana these people have taunted me and sometimes I've stated things immoderately, but fundamentally what I'm saying is true.
A group that claims to be truly Catholic but doesn't scruple to practice deception about Catholic teachings - and then gangs up on someone who says what Catholic teachings really are -starts to viciously insult and antagonize that person - tries to represent them as lacking a sound mind is acting like a cult bully.
It is vicious, anti-Christian behavior.
As for Bishop Fellay, yes he has has behaved treacherously.
-
Copy...
The first is from this very thread:
quote:Telesphorus
No, my grandmother lives in Dyersville, Iowa, what a wonderful town.
I live in Ohio
quote:Telesphorus
My name is Joe S. I'm the one telling the truth - that SSPX priest is a malicious liar!
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=13599&min=20&num=10
quote:Telesphorus
My name is Joe S. I am telling the truth, and those SSPX "apologists" and bootlickers and priests are incapable of admitting it. I'm not afraid of them, but they'd better be afraid of me.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6658&st=75
"I'm not afraid of them, but they'd better be afraid of me?"
That doesn't sound like someone high on humility...
-
I'm not avoiding anything, I've stated, along with others, that each case is different for each person. It is you, in avoiding this, or in backtracking on statements,
No, I haven't backtracked on anything.
who has failed to clarify whether you really knew her or not. You've stated both- which takes all of your credibility away.
Now you're lying. What is the definition of "knowing someone" - I explained the exact circuмstances of our acquaintance. There's nothing inconsistent in what I said. You claimed I didn't know her - that's not really accurate. That's what I stated at the beginning- what you were claiming was inaccurate. You been repeating the same lies over and over again because you have no scruples about lying.
The only reason I've cast doubt on your story, is because its such a foolish one with no real substance,
No susbstance? I was kicked out of Church unjustly. I've explained everything.
and trys to slander others who are not here to defend themselves- thats why.
I'm not slandering them - they're liars - you don't care that they treated me unjustly - you don't care about what really happened, you care about insulting me.
...dirt bag...scheissters... feminist cultural marxists...you a pharisee...
I am responding in kind - and reasoning the whole time. And yes - you are a dirtbag for the way you're carrying on against me. Someone suggests that arguing an 18 year old should be able speak freely to someone because she has reached the age of majority is somehow arbitrary - like stating the same thing about a 12 year old - is an attempt to make me look like I'm defending marriage to 12 year olds. It makes you a dirtbag, a scheisster, who will try to destroy someone with the same tactics that cultural marxists use.
So I guess you consider yourself a cult apologist eh..?
You're never ashamed of the non sequitur. The people who defend lying manipulative priests who unjustly kick people out - who attempt to sic the police on people (never heard a word from the police - and the reason why is that cult aren't afraid to harass someone with frivolous complaints) who defend priests who tell young women lies in the confessional about their rights - are cult apologists. And they have one weapon - to impugn the sanity of those they don't like - they are pharisees - Josephus said of the Pharisees - they were willing to attempt anything against those they did not like - and that's exactly what the people defending these dishonest , malevolent priests are doing.
The priest threatened to kick me out of church for contacting the girl.
Again, please see why you have no credibility and you seem like a liar: Tele:The father and the priest were both liars and had me kicked out of Church
No, I'm not a liar. And you know it. But you are a liar - so you aren't accused of lying.
Yes, the father was certainly involved in having me kicked out - he complained about me - acting as though I was acting without any encouragement - the man was unashamed to lie to get what he wanted - and you're unashamed to lie - unashamed to call me a liar for telling the truth.
So did the priest kick you out or threaten to kick you out? Please make up your mind...
He did both. First one, then the other. Now I think we can see you're not at all interested in an honest discussion. Acting as though it's a contradiction to say he did both? Do you hear how stupid you sound?
See above replies which essentially requires you take this argument and apply it to yourself...
No - everything I've been stating is a response to your calumnies.
I didn't. I was making a point that there is no clear age- no way to draw a distinguishing line.
No clear age? What do 12 year olds have to do with arguments over the age of majority? You are bringing this up to compare liking an 18 year old to liking a 12 year old - you're trying to shift the discussion to ages under 18 to make me look bad, it's very transparent. It's filthy on your part.
Of course parents like control-
Not all parents believe they should control their children after a certain age. Not all parents believe they have authority they don't have.
only bad parents wouldn't want to look out for the interest of their children...
Only bad parents think they have the right to decide who their daughter may say hello to when she's grown.
Which is again, why you probably avoid my questions on what role your parents play in your life..?
Once again, you try to make this about me. There's nothing unusual or strange about my parents. You keep coming back to how you can make this about me.
You seem to have a pretty easy time rejecting authority- formal or informal, which is why I ask.
I'm not rejecting any legitimate authority. The people who reject authority are the people who refuse to teach Church teachings about freedom to marry.
The same way that the priest and father have no way to defend their position............................?
They have no defense because they are liars.
Yes yes all knowing Pope Saint Telephorous...You decide what the opinions of all Christians should be...
It's a matter of reason - if you think it's gross for an 18 year old to marry a man older than her - you lack the ability to reason. You lack the ability to look at history. You respond galvanically - hysterically - like a woman - "eeeewwww" - he's older than her - well I'm not an old man. and she's a grown woman. So if you think it's "gross" that's your problem, the problem of being a pharisee.
You haven't pointed out any errors.
You haven't pointed out anything and you know it.
Hey- Romeo- if Romeo was killed, Juliet would have found someone else. You act as if this was your one opportunity in life. Grow up.
You made it up the claim that I believed in fate - you don't have any scruples about making things up - that's the kind of person you are.
It was an important opportunity - and another thing - Juliet was his wife.
I guess you dont get it... I wish we could ask them to join this forum and see what a different story they present than what you say.
And if they joined up and claimed I imagined everything you'd be right there on their side, even though you know it isn't true.
Now that makes you trash.
-
"I'm not afraid of them, but they'd better be afraid of me?"
That doesn't sound like someone high on humility...
Matthew - treacherous, dishonest priests had better not think they can act with impunity.
-
Tele has made it known that he lives in Cincinnati Ohio, and he has on two different occasions given out his real name (at the Ignis site and here at CI). It would not take much to put 2 & 2 together and determine what Society chapel is in the middle of the mess.
I mentioned my name and face because people accused me of cowardice - of not having the integrity to put my name next to what I'm saying. Well, I'm the one who telling the truth, and that priest and that girl's father are both liars. They're both people who have tried to sic the police on me. They're both sick twisted bullies.
You collect all the information in this one place - almost no one would be able to find it all - if anyone was really concerned about protecting the reputations of the people I'm talking about, they wouldn't put all that information into one place.
-
I garbled my response here:
Again, please see why you have no credibility and you seem like a liar: Tele:The father and the priest were both liars and had me kicked out of Church
No, I'm not a liar. I'm telling the truth. And you know it. You have no basis for saying what I said makes me "seem like a liar"
Yes, the father was certainly involved in having me kicked out - he complained about me - acting as though I was acting without any encouragement - the man was unashamed to lie to get what he wanted - and you're unashamed to lie - unashamed to say "I seem like a liar" for telling the truth.
The bottom line is you have no integrity or decency - you come back to this thread again and again because you hate me for liking a young woman.
-
When I put my name and face next to what I said - Stevus understood I was telling the truth. That was the intention - to let people know I'm telling the truth - that I'm completely serious.
Now, I'm fairly certain that everyone here believes the substance of my story - those who pretend to dsibelieve just don't care that priests don't tell the truth, or that I was kicked out of church - or that these lying bullies tried to sic the police on me - because they hate the fact that I liked a young woman.
-
Tele has made it known that he lives in Cincinnati Ohio, and he has on two different occasions given out his real name (at the Ignis site and here at CI). It would not take much to put 2 & 2 together and determine what Society chapel is in the middle of the mess.
I mentioned my name and face because people accused me of cowardice - of not having the integrity to put my name next to what I'm saying. Well, I'm the one who telling the truth, and that priest and that girl's father are both liars. They're both people who have tried to sic the police on me. They're both sick twisted bullies.
You collect all the information in this one place - almost no one would be able to find it all - if anyone was really concerned about protecting the reputations of the people I'm talking about, they wouldn't put all that information into one place.
You went and posted your mess on Facebook, and on two public discussion boards, and you have the nerve to whine.
-
You went and posted your mess on Facebook, and on two public discussion boards, and you have the nerve to whine.
No, you are the one whining about me giving my name, face and general location - because it supposedly makes the people I haven't named look bad.
Meanwhile, all the information about me is collected onto one page - anyone who was genuinely concerned about the reputation of the people I'm talking about wouldn't do that. So cut the hypocrisy - you want to make it look like I'm slandering others for telling the truth, when I haven't named them, because I'm willing to put my name, face, and location behind what I said? You're a hypocrite to say that.
The people who were interested in protecting their reputations shouldn't have started attacking mine, when they did that they obliged me to defend myself. If they were honest, decent people, they wouldn't have anything to worry about. They're harvesting the bitter fruits of their dishonesty.
As for facebook only people who already knew the story and the people involved would be able to figure out what I posted was about.
When you blacken someone's reputation and have them kicked out of church for the sake of your macho pride, there's a price to be paid - that the person you're victimizing will tell the truth about what happened, and demonstrate that you're lying about him.
-
You went and posted your mess on Facebook, and on two public discussion boards, and you have the nerve to whine.
No, you are the one whining about me giving my name, face and general location - because it supposedly makes the people I haven't named look bad.
Meanwhile, all the information about me is collected onto one page - anyone who was genuinely concerned about the reputation of the people I'm talking about wouldn't do that. So cut the hypocrisy - you want to make it look like I'm slandering others for telling the truth, when I haven't named them, because I'm willing to put my name, face, and location behind what I said? You're a hypocrite to say that.
The people who were interested in protecting their reputations shouldn't have started attacking mine, when they did that they obliged me to defend myself. They're harvesting the bitter fruits of their dishonesty.
As for facebook only people who already knew the story and the people involved would be able to figure out what I posted was about.
When you blacken someone's reputation and have them kicked out of church for the sake of your macho pride, there's a price to be paid - that the person you're victimizing will tell the truth about what happened, and demonstrate that you're lying about him.
You posted your name, city, and your picture on public discussion boards. Take responsibility for it.
-
You posted your name, city, and your picture on public discussion boards. Take responsibility for it.
I certainly have. I'm not complaining about what I did - you're complaining about what I did because it supposedly exposes other people - well - if you were really worried about that you wouldn't keep bringing it up so that everyone is aware of it, would you?
Cut the hypocricy.
-
You posted your name, city, and your picture on public discussion boards. Take responsibility for it.
I certainly have. I'm not complaining about what I did - you're complaining about what I did because it supposedly exposes other people - well - if you were really worried about that you wouldn't keep bringing it up so that everyone is aware of it, would you?
Cut the hypocricy.
If you had not plastered your mess on public forums, no one would have known anything. What bugs you is that people are catching on to what you are really all about.
-
If you had not plastered your mess on public forums, no one would have known anything.
Yes, people would think the SSPX behaves decently when their priests lie, have someone kicked out of church unjustly, and attempt to sic the police on someone. Yes, people wouldn't know the truth about the dishonest bullies at some SSPX chapels.
What bugs you is that people are catching on to what you are really all about.
It doesn't bug me at all that people know I'm telling the truth. What bugs me are the people who pretend they don't know it. Matthew and his wife, Raoul, Stevus and others - they know I'm telling the truth and show sympathy for me. But other people don't care about the truth - they care about making me look bad.
I put my name, face and location to show I stand behind my words. That's a lot more than other people on this thread are willing to do, most of whom know nothing about what happened - but dismiss my story automatically because of their sick desire to get shots in at me for liking a young woman.
If the people I've been talking about are aware of this thread, I encourage them to apologize to me. They've done me a great wrong, and it's about time they had apologized.
-
If you had not plastered your mess on public forums, no one would have known anything.
Yes, people would think the SSPX behaves decently when their priests lie, have someone kicked out of church unjustly, and attempt to sic the police on someone. Yes, people wouldn't know the truth about the dishonest bullies at some SSPX chapels.
What bugs you is that people are catching on to what you are really all about.
It doesn't bug me at all that people know I'm telling the truth. What bugs me are the people who pretend they don't know it. Matthew and his wife, Raoul, Stevus and others - they know I'm telling the truth and show sympathy for me. But other people don't care about the truth - they care about making me look bad.
I put my name, face and location to show I stand behind my words. That's a lot more than other people on this thread are willing to do, most of whom know nothing about what happened - but dismiss my story automatically because of their sick desire to get shots in at me for liking a young woman.
If the people I've been talking about are aware of this thread, I encourage them to apologize to me. They've done me a great wrong, and it's about time they had apologized.
Grow-up and move on. And for your spiritual good, talk to a priest about this vendetta you are carrying.
-
Grow-up and move on. And for your spiritual good, talk to a priest about this vendetta you are carrying.
The SSPX needs to start acting in a Christian manner. They need to start telling the truth. The people who had me kicked out of church need to apologize to me.
These priests are going to be held to account for their actions.
-
Grow-up and move on. And for your spiritual good, talk to a priest about this vendetta you are carrying.
The SSPX needs to start acting in a Christian manner. They need to start telling the truth. The people who had me kicked out of church need to apologize to me.
These priests are going to be held to account for their actions.
Talk to a priest Tele.
-
Talk to a priest Tele.
I called up the new priest at the chapel. He told me to accept injustice. How utterly cynical. Patronizing me about accepting injustice when he is responsible for letting it continue. He also pretended I wasn't telling the truth.
Anyone who deigns to give me spiritual advice had first better not call me a liar - had first better admit I'm telling the truth - had first better not call me "disordered" for liking a younger woman.
If these people who had me kicked out of Church or the people attacking me on this thread had any genuine concern for my spiritual welfare - they wouldn't lie, they wouldn't have me kicked out of church, they wouldn't attempt to sic the police on me, they wouldn't come back to this thread over and over to attack me.
If they really want good for me then it's time for them to show they're really Christians and apologize fully, and admit their lies.
-
Talk to a priest Tele.
I called up the new priest at the chapel. He told me to accept injustice. How utterly cynical. Patronizing me about accepting injustice when he is responsible for letting it continue. He also pretended I wasn't telling the truth.
Anyone who deigns to give me spiritual advice had first better not call me a liar - had first better admit I'm telling the truth - had first better not call me "disordered" for liking a younger woman.
If these people who had me kicked out of Church or the people attacking me on this thread had any genuine concern for my spiritual welfare - they wouldn't lie, they wouldn't have me kicked out of church, they wouldn't attempt to sic the police on me, they wouldn't come back to this thread over and over to attack me.
If they really want good for me then it's time for them to show they're really Christians and apologize fully, and admit their lies.
You are breeding bitterness, resentment, and I will say hate. It has shown itself in your posts. If you do not get some spiritual help, you can well send yourself into darkness.
-
You are breeding bitterness, resentment, and I will say hate. It has shown itself in your posts. If you do not get some spiritual help, you can well send yourself into darkness.
The people who have shown hatred towards me can start showing some decency. Because I know none of the people attacking me on this thread have one ounce of genuine concern for me - if I were saying nothing they wouldn't care what happened to me. They just want me to go away. Well, it's in their power. This thread will end when people stop attacking me in it.
My "vendetta" as you call it (telling the truth about the way I was unjustly treated) will end when apologies are received and reparations are made for the injury done me.
-
You are breeding bitterness, resentment, and I will say hate. It has shown itself in your posts. If you do not get some spiritual help, you can well send yourself into darkness.
The people who have shown hatred towards me can start showing some decency. Because I know none of the people attacking me on this thread have one ounce of genuine concern for me - if I were saying nothing they wouldn't care what happened to me. They just want me to go away. Well, it's in their power. This thread will end when people stop attacking me in it.
My "vendetta" as you call it (telling the truth about the way I was unjustly treated) will end when apologies are received and reparations are made for the injury done me.
Get some help.
-
You are breeding bitterness, resentment, and I will say hate. It has shown itself in your posts. If you do not get some spiritual help, you can well send yourself into darkness.
The people who have shown hatred towards me can start showing some decency. Because I know none of the people attacking me on this thread have one ounce of genuine concern for me - if I were saying nothing they wouldn't care what happened to me. They just want me to go away. Well, it's in their power. This thread will end when people stop attacking me in it.
My "vendetta" as you call it (telling the truth about the way I was unjustly treated) will end when apologies are received and reparations are made for the injury done me.
Get some help.
The people attacking my mental state as you just did want to brand me a "freak" - they don't care about justice or what happened. They want to compound the injustice because of their malice.
Your patronizing attitude is disgusting. As i said before, if you had any genuine concern for me, you wouldn't call it disordered to like a younger woman - you wouldn't keep coming back to this thread.
-
You are breeding bitterness, resentment, and I will say hate. It has shown itself in your posts. If you do not get some spiritual help, you can well send yourself into darkness.
The people who have shown hatred towards me can start showing some decency. Because I know none of the people attacking me on this thread have one ounce of genuine concern for me - if I were saying nothing they wouldn't care what happened to me. They just want me to go away. Well, it's in their power. This thread will end when people stop attacking me in it.
My "vendetta" as you call it (telling the truth about the way I was unjustly treated) will end when apologies are received and reparations are made for the injury done me.
Get some help.
Your patronizing attitude is disgusting. As i said before, if you had any genuine concern for me, you wouldn't call it disordered to like a younger woman - you wouldn't keep coming back to this thread.
If you want disgusting, go read your own posts.
-
If you want disgusting, go read your own posts.
Which one? Hmmm?
The ones where I said I liked young women? You seemed to find that disgusting. Well, that's your problem, not mine.
As I've said before, these people who have wronged me, including YOU - should apologize.
If they don't they have only themselves to blame.
-
If you want disgusting, go read your own posts.
Which one? Hmmm?
The ones where I said I liked young women? You seemed to find that disgusting. Well, that's your problem, not mine.
As I've said before, these people who have wronged me, including YOU - should apologize.
If they don't they have only themselves to blame.
You mean ones, plural. The "victim" card must surely be well worn.
-
You mean ones, plural. The "victim" card must surely be well worn.
You called me "disordered" - for liking a young woman?
You have wronged me. You need to apologize.
-
"I'm not afraid of them, but they'd better be afraid of me?"
That doesn't sound like someone high on humility...
Matthew - treacherous, dishonest priests had better not think they can act with impunity.
Tele, presuming neither the priest or the girl's father is going to call you out of the blue and apologize, how to you intend to find peace regarding this situation?
-
Tele, presuming neither the priest or the girl's father is going to call you out of the blue and apologize, how to you intend to find peace regarding this situation?
I will try to go on with my life, but I'm never going to stop exposing the SSPX for the way it treats people, until I'm convinced they've taken steps to change.
As for this thread, it will end when people stop obliging me to defend myself.
-
You mean ones, plural. The "victim" card must surely be well worn.
You called me "disordered" - for liking a young woman?
You have wronged me. You need to apologize.
No, I called you dis-ordered for making women older than the "young beautiful girls" as being "past their prime". I called you dis-ordered for making it "almost a sin" to not marry a young beautiful girl. I called you dis-ordered for your belief that if your "young beautiful girl" bride ages/looses her beauty, it will be a "burden" you will have to carry.
-
Someone first responded to my post with my username, then deleted the response and my post.
-
WHOOPS!
I'm sorry, Tele, I accidentally edited your last post out of existence.
You --> :fryingpan: <-- Me
I'm sorry, I meant to quote it, not edit it.
-
WHOOPS!
I'm sorry, Tele, I accidentally edited your last post out of existence.
You --> :fryingpan: <-- Me
If it's "disordered" to notice that the girls I knew in high school are "not in the bloom of youth" - then every man in the world is disordered.
As I said, I myself am certainly not in the bloom of youth - with a lot of gray hair (in some ways its more noticeable than my mother's gray) - why am I obliged to think women close to my age are as fresh and as beautiful as younger women?
-
I'll stick to the REPLY button this time.
I just wanted to know why you think having an older spouse is a burden. I don't necessarily disagree, your statement was too vague for me to either agree or disagree.
-
I'll stick to the REPLY button this time.
I just wanted to know why you think having an older spouse is a burden.
Why do many middle aged men leave the women they married when they were young? I know the father of a nun who did just that - her father got an annulment and remarried - and he supported the daughter's decision to enter the convent while the mother was bitterly opposed.
don't necessarily disagree, your statement was too vague for me to either agree or disagree.
Why do women worry about losing their looks?
Why do women my age get worried about finding a husband while they still can?
As I've said before - I would have married a woman my age or older than me without hesitation when I was younger.
Why shouldn't a man want to have the best years of his wife's life?
-
With that reasoning -- and I totally disagree with your reasoning -- why would you presume any young lady would be willing to marry an older man?
-
With that reasoning -- and I totally disagree with your reasoning --
How can you disagree that a man who marries an older woman is more likely to be tempted when his wife loses her looks? More likely to be tempted when younger attractive women still show interest in him, but his wife is no longer pretty?
why would you presume any young lady would be willing to marry an older man?
Because she is attracted to him. Because he is not nearing the end of his fertility.
It's not disordered to point out that it's far more common for older men to marry younger women than vice-versa. The reason for that is mutual attraction.
Men and women are not the same, they don't age the same way, they have different psychologies.
-
Why do many middle aged men leave the women they married when they were young?
They have no fear of God.
Why do women worry about losing their looks?
Why do women my age get worried about finding a husband while they still can?
I'm not sure as I've never thought along these lines. My guess would be that they've been overly programmed to believe that their looks determine their worth. If I'd have ever thought that, I'd have been terribly depressed from day one. :wink:
Why shouldn't a man want to have the best years of his wife's life?
The best years of her life will be those spent with her loving husband, no matter their ages.
-
They have no fear of God.
That is their motivation? Do you think if their wife was young and pretty they would be tempted the same way? Do you think if their wife had become unattractive they would not experience more temptation?
Why do women worry about losing their looks?
Why do women my age get worried about finding a husband while they still can?
I'm not sure as I've never thought along these lines. My guess would be that they've been overly programmed to believe that their looks determine their worth. If I'd have ever thought that, I'd have been terribly depressed from day one.
Their looks don't determine their worth - they determine in part how attractive they are. Should someone marry someone they do not find attractive? Can anyone think that's generally a wise idea?
The best years of her life will be those spent with her loving husband, no matter their ages.
Now that's just silly. It's like saying that there's no difference between youth and age. Can anyone really seriously argue that older people are in better condition, have more to look forward to in this life, than younger people? I mean really, try to be reasonable.
If you speak of it that way it wouldn't matter when anyone gets married (after they are sufficiently "mature" of course)
-
With that reasoning -- and I totally disagree with your reasoning --
How can you disagree that a man who marries an older woman is more likely to be tempted when his wife loses her looks? More likely to be tempted when younger attractive women still show interest in him, but his wife is no longer pretty?
why would you presume any young lady would be willing to marry an older man?
Because she is attracted to him. Because he is not nearing the end of his fertility.
It's not disordered to point out that it's far more common for older men to marry younger women than vice-versa. The reason for that is mutual attraction.
Men and women are not the same, they don't age the same way, they have different psychologies.
You are very right about one thing -- men and women are not the same. The young girl would more readily consider the older man because she's not all that concerned with his appearance. She's attracted to the love and concern he shows for her. Women who claim to primarily be interested in looks have been excessively programmed by the media.
-
The young girl would more readily consider the older man because she's not all that concerned with his appearance. She's attracted to the love and concern he shows for her. Women who claim to primarily be interested in looks have been excessively programmed by the media.
I disagree - many older men are very handsome and attractive to younger women.
I've been in both positions - the position of a man where he's invisible to women, and the position where they find him attractive.
The difference in the way women treat you is night and day. Literally night and day - women are incredibly rude to men they don't find handsome - and they are incredibly responsive to men they do find handsome - more than I imagined - (even though when I was a teenager I got a good deal of attention from girls for a time - it was nothing compared to when I was older and I lost weight - nearly every woman would greet me with a smile - when I took the LSAT I was rather shocked at the expressions women would give me)
That was one nice thing about the girls at the SSPX - it took time for them to start reacting to me that way. They were reserved, which was good.
-
The young girl would more readily consider the older man because she's not all that concerned with his appearance. She's attracted to the love and concern he shows for her. Women who claim to primarily be interested in looks have been excessively programmed by the media.
I disagree - many older men are very handsome and attractive to younger women.
They might very well be, but that's not why she'll marry him.
Some more anecdotal evidence for you... Two of my college friends, both much cuter than myself, married objectively ugly men. Neither of them had problems finding boyfriends, but the men they ultimately chose were due to their personalty, not their looks.
-
The young girl would more readily consider the older man because she's not all that concerned with his appearance. She's attracted to the love and concern he shows for her. Women who claim to primarily be interested in looks have been excessively programmed by the media.
I disagree - many older men are very handsome and attractive to younger women.
I've been in both positions - the position of a man where he's invisible to women, and the position where they find him attractive.
The difference in the way women treat you is night and day. Literally night and day - women are incredibly rude to men they don't find handsome - and they are incredibly responsive to men they do find handsome - more than I imagined - (even though when I was a teenager I got a good deal of attention from girls for a time - it was nothing compared to when I was older and I lost weight - nearly every woman would greet me with a smile - when I took the LSAT I was rather shocked at the expressions women would give me)
That was one nice thing about the girls at the SSPX - it took time for them to start reacting to me that way. They were reserved, which was good.
Here's my theory ... first, you're dealing with two different groups of women: worldly women who were rude to you and Catholic women who were not ... second, your attidude about yourself changed as your appearance changed -- a more confidant man is going to get noticed and have more attention given to him than a shy, unconfidant man. Additionally, you don't even have to open your mouth for a bit of confidence to be noticeable; a confident person carries themself differently.
-
Here's my theory ... first, you're dealing with two different groups of women: worldly women who were rude to you and Catholic women who were not ...
The girls at church did not pay much attention to me for quite some time. They did not talk to me. I did not talk to them. I lost more than 25 lbs after joining the church.
second, your attidude about yourself changed as your appearance changed -- a more confidant man is going to get noticed and have more attention given to him than a shy, unconfidant man. Additionally, you don't even have to open your mouth for a bit of confidence to be noticeable; a confident person carries themself differently.
Judging by the language learning social networking site I belong to - the picture is enough to get plenty of adds - I never add anyone - I'm quite shy.
I think a person's inner well-being does have quite an effect - and it is true that I was doing very well compared to before - really improving in almost all ways - so that might have played a role.
-
First of all, MaterDominici- you are a breath of fresh air. Thank you for your input and rational insight.
Second of all- Telephorous- I may be a "dirt bag" as you say, but you, sir, you are a total undeniably perfect reused douche-bag. To presume that you can demand an apology from anyone is absurd. You have serious mental issues. (sorry for the size but its warranted) You will blame these on worldly influences, no doubt, yet you really are are a mentally unstable superficial person. I am not perfect, but you need to see a priest asap and get some counseling. You are sick- not because you like 17 year olds- that would be a blessing if that was the only thing about you, since its not really immoral, just a matter of taste. But you are sick in the head because you are a rebel cowboy who is self-centered and act as if you're still stuck to his mommy's teet- "They need to apologize to me.. waaa.." "they did me wrong... waaa" "I'm right I'm right I'm right!.... waaa". Are you kidding me dude?! Do you believe this stuff?? If not, please tell me, and I will surely have a great laugh with you- heck- for such a good laugh I'd buy you a beer!
The sspx isn't perfect- far from it. But their formation and efforts brings about many holy priests, and in my opinion, a great deal of good into this unholy world. Yet you presume you are here now, in this world, to bring about change to the largest traditional group around. Well guess what dude- you are a sicko- again this has nothing to do with you liking young girls. It has to do with the fact that you really seem to have a great deal of mental power- yes very intelligent. Yet you are unable to process things any normal adult would and you certainly can not be wrong. You alone are right- like Luther- you alone know everything- like Luther. You are a protestant- you just have the luxury to act as if you're still a member of the Church due to the crisis we're in. Well- that apology you want- you can stuff it.
-
Oh and by the way- I found a new society you can join since the sspx doesn't bow down and send you the fruits of its labor in the form of beautiful women and priests wouldn't let you write their sermons as you'd like.
Its called: The Society of St. Pius Calumniators. Look em up. They'd love to have you- heck- they'd make you a bishop.
-
You have serious mental issues
That's basically what it comes down with you people. I get kicked out of church by a lying priest who threatened to kick me out for attempting to contact another adult, and people like you want to brand me a "freak" a "mental" case.
It's all about casting doubt on everything about me, taunting me, insulting me.
You love these little cult priests no matter what they do - and you want to be their little bully boy.
You're a bad Christian. You aren't coming back to this thread to defend "calumniated" priests that I haven't even named. You're coming here to slander me.
You have never once been interested in a rational discussion. From the very beginning you tried to tar me as "gross" for liking a young woman.
You're malignant.
-
When cults want to get rid of people - they do two things to defend themselves -
#1 - they tell lies about the person they want to get rid of
#2 - they try to brand the person they're getting rid of as being "mentally ill"
Let's recall that the SSPX was sued by a man in Post Falls and the jury awarded the man hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages - because the SSPX priest worked to sabotage his relationship with his wife - to label him a mental case, and to cause him to be ostracized.
This is standard behavior for cults - not for Christians.
Christians don't lie - they don't feel the need to taunt.
-
That 17/18 year old girl isn't your wife. You weren't even in a relationship with her. You only had a brief conversation once! (according to you)
I disagree with s2srea that you have serious mental issues, but you definitely lack any kind of social skills. I was a little sympathetic to your case when I first read about it 71 pages ago, but I've grown tired of your whining and bitching. You're a grown man. Either man up and sue the SSPX for harassing you if it was that bad or just drop it. Stop being a whining, wannabe Keyboard Kommando. Your bitching has eroded all your good will with the vast majority of us.
-
Jehanne said it well:
" In some respects, I have to be thankful for the NO priests a bit, because if every priest acted like some SSPX priests, the Catholic Church would be reduced to a single, squabbling, backbiting parish where no one gets along with each other. I appreciate very much the liturgical and doctrinal orthodoxy of the SSPX (although, with respect to the latter, I think that they are overstepping their bounds somewhat) and especially their commitment to the moral and traditional law, but not their bad attitudes.
-
You have serious mental issues
That's basically what it comes down with you people. I get kicked out of church by a lying priest who threatened to kick me out for attempting to contact another adult, and people like you want to brand me a "freak" a "mental" case.
It's all about casting doubt on everything about me, taunting me, insulting me.
You love these little cult priests no matter what they do - and you want to be their little bully boy.
You're a bad Christian. You aren't coming back to this thread to defend "calumniated" priests that I haven't even named. You're coming here to slander me.
You have never once been interested in a rational discussion. From the very beginning you tried to tar me as "gross" for liking a young woman.
You're malignant.
You are making your way down a deep dark hole, but you are not happy/satisfied doing it alone. You are grabbing out to drag the Society priests, the girl's father, and even people in forums, trying to take them down with you.
I will repeat, Get Some Help.
-
That 17/18 year old girl isn't your wife. You weren't even in a relationship with her. You only had a brief conversation once! (according to you)
I never said that girl was my wife, what are you talking about?
I was recounting the story of the man mistreated by an SSPX priest.
The tendency is to interfere in things that aren't their business.
I disagree with MaterDominici that you have serious mental issues,
She didn't say that.
but you definitely lack any kind of social skills. I was a little sympathetic to your case when I first read about it 71 pages ago, but I've grown tired of your whining and bitching.
Why do people keep coming back to this thread if they're tired of it? They keep coming back to pile on me.
You're a grown man. Either man up and sue the SSPX for harassing you if it was that bad or just drop it.
The SSPX is going to be held accountable for what they do to people. I'm never going to stop letting people know about their betrayal of Catholics.
Stop being a whining, wannabe Keyboard Kommando. Your bitching has eroded all your good will with the vast majority of us.
I'm defending myself against people who never stop attacking me as some sort of pervert, never concede any point, never countenance anything I say, say unjust things about me. You might be tired of this thread - so why do you come back to it?
The SSPX has done me an injury - now they MUST make reparations for that, or they will never hear the end of my criticisms.
-
You are making your way down a deep dark hole, but you are not happy/satisfied doing it alone. You are grabbing out to drag the Society priests, the girl's father, and even people in forums, trying to take them down with you.
I will repeat, Get Some Help.
Those people can do the right thing if they really care about it. Cut out the hypocritical patronizing. You're not here to help me. You didn't downrate those posts to help me. You didn't call me "disordered" to help me - you did it to slander me.
-
I never said that girl was my wife, what are you talking about?
I was recounting the story of the man mistreated by an SSPX priest.
The tendency is to interfere in things that aren't there business.
I never said that you said the girl was your wife. I was simply stating that your situation isn't even remotely analogous as that other man's. The SSPX supposedly destroyed his marriage, while in your case they destroyed your "relationship" with a girl you talked to ONCE. lol. Like I said, not even remotely analogous situations.
-
Get Some Help.
Yes. Get help before you go off the deep end like that guy in Arizona.
-
I never said that you said the girl was your wife. I was simply stating that your situation isn't even remotely analogous as that other man's. The SSPX supposedly destroyed his marriage, while in your case they destroyed your "relationship" with a girl you talked to ONCE. lol. Like I said, not even remotely analogous situations.
I was kicked out of Church. I didn't say the situations were equally grave - but the behavior was similar. The point is that some of these SSPX priests are very shameless bullies who e cast aspersions on other people - even on their own - look at how they have treated Bishop Williamson. Some of them are nasty, nasty people.
-
Get Some Help.
Yes. Get help before you go off the deep end like that guy in Arizona.
That would better fit Tele's description.
-
Get Some Help.
Yes. Get help before you go off the deep end like that guy in Arizona.
Now you're slandering me, taunting me. If you don't want this thread to continue get off of it. This thread has continued because of people who can't help attacking me.
These people who have have mistreated me need to apologize.
-
Get Some Help.
Yes. Get help before you go off the deep end like that guy in Arizona.
That would better fit Tele's description.
Ooooh aren't you vicious.
And you think you are Christian.
If those people really thought I was like that then I would hope they would have the sense to apologize for their lies.
-
Get Some Help.
Yes. Get help before you go off the deep end like that guy in Arizona.
That would better fit Tele's description.
Ooooh aren't you vicious.
And you think you are Christian.
If those people really thought I was like that then I would hope they would have the sense to apologize for their lies.
Tele, look at yourself.
-
Tele, look at yourself.
No, you need to look at yourself, comparing me to that guy in Arizona. You're pretty sick.
-
Tele, look at yourself.
No, you need to look at yourself, comparing me to that guy in Arizona. You're pretty sick.
It happens. When person gets overly obsessed with a "perceived wrong". It keeps growing and festering, till the person can't no longer hold it in. The people he/she holds responsible many times end up in the newspaper as victims. So yea, it happens.
-
It happens. When person gets overly obsessed with a "perceived wrong". It keeps growing and festering, till the person can't no longer hold it in. The people he/she holds responsible many times end up in the newspaper as victims. So yea, it happens.
There are no depths to which you won't sink to defend the "honor" of these dishonest people.
I now understand why some of those "Catholic" countries to the South of us have citizens who kill each other in such appalling numbers.
-
Get Some Help.
Yes. Get help before you go off the deep end like that guy in Arizona.
That would better fit Tele's description.
That was directed to him actually. Sorry I didn't make that more clear.
-
Get Some Help.
Yes. Get help before you go off the deep end like that guy in Arizona.
That would better fit Tele's description.
That was directed to him actually. Sorry I didn't make that more clear.
It was perfectly clear to me. Pretty despicable thing to say. If you don't like this thread stay off of it. One person after another comes onto this thread to taunt me. Why?
What possesses them?
-
It happens. When person gets overly obsessed with a "perceived wrong". It keeps growing and festering, till the person can't no longer hold it in. The people he/she holds responsible many times end up in the newspaper as victims. So yea, it happens.
There are no depths to which you won't sink to defend the "honor" of these dishonest people.
I now understand why some of those "Catholic" countries to the South of us have citizens who kill each other in such appalling numbers.
It happens in the U.S. too, Tele. It happens, irrelevant to a person ethnic background.
-
Get Some Help.
Yes. Get help before you go off the deep end like that guy in Arizona.
That would better fit Tele's description.
That was directed to him actually. Sorry I didn't make that more clear.
Thank you for clarifying.
-
It happens in the U.S. too, Tele. It happens, irrelevant to a person ethnic background.
Oh no it doesn't. Not nearly to the same degree. You just won't drop this filthy comparison of me to Loughner. You have no scruples about murdering another person's reputation, just as those people have no scruples about lying.
-
Get Some Help.
Yes. Get help before you go off the deep end like that guy in Arizona.
Oh my... I thought I was the only guy thinking this!
-
Get Some Help.
Yes. Get help before you go off the deep end like that guy in Arizona.
That would better fit Tele's description.
Ooooh aren't you vicious.
And you think you are Christian.
If those people really thought I was like that then I would hope they would have the sense to apologize for their lies.
I'm sorry you're mentally unstable and as a result of your comments, make me think you might go off shooting people due to the hate you seem to harbor.
-
I'm sorry you're mentally unstable and as a result of your comments, make me think you might go off shooting people due to the hate you seem to harbor.
These are real Christians here, aren't they?
No - it's what people in cults do - viciously attack the reputations and mental states of those who criticize wrongdoing.
-
You seem to know a lot about cults and bring them up quite often... you martyr.
-
You seem to know a lot about cults and bring them up quite often... you martyr.
You know if you really believed your filthy lies about me why would you keep coming back to this thread?
What you're doing is about as low as it gets - comparing me to Loughner. What kind of Catholic does that?
You are incredibly shameless.
-
Words of wisdom, by Telephorous:
On how to be a martyr:
Now you're slandering me, taunting me.
On how to be a martyr #2:
people who can't help attacking me.
On how to be a martyr and a wee wittle baby at the same time:
These people who have have mistreated me need to apologize.
On how to feel dramatic:
Ooooh aren't you vicious. And you think you are Christian.
On how to be a martyr and a wee wittle baby at the same time:
I would hope they would have the sense to apologize for their lies.
On how to be a martyr #3:
One person after another comes onto this thread to taunt me.
If you don't want this thread to continue get off of it.
You might be wise to take your own advice..
-
You're some of the worst scuм I've ever seen.
You're a coward too. Why don't you tell me your name and where you live?
You know my name. What I look like. See, I'm not a coward. I would have no trouble saying what I've said to your face.
But you're one of these typical cult bully boy cowards. You wouldn't dare act like this in front of me.
You fake Catholics are the most disgusting people I've ever seen.