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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

I'm not picking on you.

No, you just call me a "gross" "freak" - you keep coming back to this again and again.

Quote

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.

 

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

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.