Author Topic: courtship versus dating (Read 9598 times)

Ambrose · « **Reply #30 on:** August 27, 2013, 11:39:53 PM »

Quote

Historically courts would sometimes overrule parents who attempted to disinherit children who married against their parents will.

Do you have a source for this?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #31 on:** August 27, 2013, 11:43:10 PM »

Quote from: Ambrose

Quote
Historically courts would sometimes overrule parents who attempted to disinherit children who married against their parents will.

Do you have a source for this?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804721599/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0804721599&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

Ambrose · « **Reply #32 on:** August 28, 2013, 12:29:37 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Ambrose
Quote
Historically courts would sometimes overrule parents who attempted to disinherit children who married against their parents will.

Do you have a source for this?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804721599/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0804721599&linkCode=as2&tag=httpwwwchanco-20

I am not talking about Mexican courts!

Telesphorus · « **Reply #33 on:** August 28, 2013, 12:38:17 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

I am not talking about Mexican courts!

Courts under the Spanish crown before the anti-clericalism of the enlightenment.

The efforts of the state in the 18th century to impose parental will on the marriages of their children were founded on anti-clericalism.

Ambrose · « **Reply #34 on:** August 28, 2013, 12:41:33 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Ambrose
I am not talking about Mexican courts!

Courts under the Spanish crown before the anti-clericalism of the enlightenment.

The efforts of the state in the 18th century to impose parental will on the marriages of their children were founded on anti-clericalism.

I am not talking about that. I am talking about the right of a man to choose the beneficiaries to his estate.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #35 on:** August 28, 2013, 12:49:03 AM »

Quote from: Ambrose

I am not talking about that. I am talking about the right of a man to choose the beneficiaries to his estate.

And I'm telling you that attempts to disinherit were often overturned before the anti-clericals came to power.

The simple fact is that there are a lot of irrational fathers. Some of them think they will decide whom their daughter will marry as though they were some medieval noble. Others think that it's too much for their daughter to say hello to a man. The simple fact is that unhinged fathers who would disinherit children over marrying someone they disapprove of are not, in most cases, acting like Catholics.

Matthew · « **Reply #36 on:** August 28, 2013, 12:56:50 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

I think we can see who is biased in this thread by who sides with people who call into question the Catholic Faith and who are ignorant of Catholic teaching with regards to with marriage.

If you're siding with error or with an enemy, it's because you've lost it.

People have said Matthew can't be reasoned with: and that's becoming more and more apparent.

If a man thinks he controls who is daughter will marry doesn't have a Catholic mindset. That sort of thinking is totally alien to the way I was raised, and to my parents generation to. It's part of trad-cultiness. And yet this is an occasion for Matthew to launch into irrelevant personal attacks.

I think what we're seeing is the attitude of the kind of men who go to desperate 1998 Russia or Catholic Match to find a prospective bride.

At least I'm happily married to a non-liberal, non-feminist traditional Catholic. Now you're ripping on Catholic Match? Please.

I'm not against the Catholic Faith or any of its teachings. Don't play the martyr.

I fully agree that what you posted was from St. Thomas, and that was his teaching. Yes, a woman has the right to marry or enter the religious life against her parents' wishes.

But the part you forget (and willfully ignore) is that it's not advisable, 99 times out of 100, for a young woman to do this. She does it at her own risk, and usually it's something she'll live to regret.

If her parents are wise and Traditional Catholic, she casts off their wisdom, love and advice at her own peril.

To get all philosophical, I believe that 999 times out of 1000, a woman's parents love her more than the "suitor" in question. How could he love her more than they do? He didn't know her last month. The parents have invested their whole lives, pouring themselves into the effort of raising her and her other siblings. They love her unconditionally. They loved her 18 years ago, and will be in her life 18 years from now. The suitor? Who knows. Maybe it's true love, maybe it's lust. Hard to know for sure.

But even if it's true love (which I'll grant for the sake of discussion), how can a man, following human nature and its urges to marry, have any kind of truly deep LOVE for a woman he barely knows? It's more like the seed of love.

It's a fact that God created the infatuation that accompanies love so that young men and women would push ahead and get married. Objectively speaking, there's a lot of dreadful things in any married couple's future, tons of responsibility, commitment, etc. exactly the things that would terrify a teenager or young adult. So, once again, God was merciful.

Matthew · « **Reply #37 on:** August 28, 2013, 01:03:03 AM »

Anyhow, once again Tele you have a very distorted view of Catholicism and its culture.

You picture the Catholic middle ages as a time when women went around with scrolls of that one quote of St. Thomas (that you're so fond of posting), opposing their parents left and right.

Until the dreadful modern world, liberalism, and feminism came along. Drats!

No, you simply underestimate the role of FAMILY and FAMILY TIES, as well as the headship of the father of a family, in keeping society stable.

Society would have crumbled long ago if everyone centuries ago was as disdainful of parental influence over a daughter's choice of husband as you are.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #38 on:** August 28, 2013, 01:10:56 AM »

Quote

But the part you forget (and willfully ignore) is that it's not advisable, 99 times out of 100, for a young woman to do this. She does it at her own risk, and usually it's something she'll live to regret.

Parents are right 99% of the time? Sounds like saying Vatican II is right 95% of the time. You don't say Stephen Francis is wrong, you say I'm right, but that men like Stephen Francis are right 99% of the time, even though he's in error. Why? To suggest it's only 1% of fathers who judge prospective mates poorly is ridiculous. Do you have any idea how many arranged marriages (where that is common) are hellish, horrible matches that children go along with while they are prevented from marrying their love matches? The idea that it's 1% is fatuous and delusional. Trads are very petty people, and if they maintain the delusion that they choose their children's spouses, then they likely maintain the delusion that parents are right 99% of the time.

I never said a child should ignore her parents. I simply said Stephen Francis is in error in his views on this, and the response is to state that I'm biased.

Reasonable people can see: the bias is with those who support cultish priests (like the neo-SSPX) who go against traditional Catholic practices:

One example: a young woman was told by the SSPX they don't marry pregnant girls for the sake of the legitimacy of the child. The SSPX priest told the man who impregnated her not to worry about marrying her.

This is part of "traditionalism" that is cultish and bourgeois, it has nothing to do with traditional Catholic practice.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #39 on:** August 28, 2013, 01:14:57 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

You picture the Catholic middle ages as a time when women went around with scrolls of that one quote of St. Thomas (that you're so fond of posting), opposing their parents left and right.

No, they didn't need to quote St. Thomas, because everyone knew that one could elope in those days. It's only in cult-like groups where people are told that parents decide who their children may marry where this isn't understood.

Quote

Until the dreadful modern world, liberalism, and feminism came along. Drats!

No, you simply underestimate the role of FAMILY and FAMILY TIES, as well as the headship of the father of a family, in keeping society stable.

I don't underestimate it all, I just don't have to try to promote a false view of paternal authority.

Quote

Society would have crumbled long ago if everyone centuries ago was as disdainful of parental influence over a daughter's choice of husband as you are.

Catholic Traditionalism is in big trouble because of the cult-like thinking of people who attend mass at groups like the ExSPX.

Someone sends me:

Quote

, do they believe a stork will bring their grandchildren. why do ppl deny their daughters being adult woman these are married men too, makes no sense. ive seen the same with trad moms online many years ago, saying they cant imagine their older teen daughter married.

Let's put it this way: if you're a father who is delusional enough to believe your daughter doesn't flirt with men, you're kidding yourself if you think you're going to be right 99% of the time in judging her choices.

Ambrose · « **Reply #40 on:** August 28, 2013, 01:38:46 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Ambrose
I am not talking about that. I am talking about the right of a man to choose the beneficiaries to his estate.

And I'm telling you that attempts to disinherit were often overturned before the anti-clericals came to power.

The simple fact is that there are a lot of irrational fathers. Some of them think they will decide whom their daughter will marry as though they were some medieval noble. Others think that it's too much for their daughter to say hello to a man. The simple fact is that unhinged fathers who would disinherit children over marrying someone they disapprove of are not, in most cases, acting like Catholics.

You are saying this happened in Mexico. How much research have you done on inheritance law regarding challenges to a will based on a father disinheriting his daughter in other countries?

Do you believe the government has the power to nullify a man's will in choosing the beneficiaries of his estate? I am not talking about insanity or duress. I am only referring to a competent man acting of his own free will.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #41 on:** August 28, 2013, 01:54:26 AM »

Getting back to the ExSPX not marrying pregnant couples, I'm pretty sure most of us wouldn't be here if the Catholic Church (which isn't the ExSPX) had done the same.

If a father tells his sons a man is a "gentleman" - but still doesn't want his daughter to even say hello to that man, Is that rational?

Let's face it: a lot of trad fathers are obsessed with control and regimentation to an unhealthy degree. And if they try to impose that on their daughters choice of spouse it will likely be disastrous.

Tiffany · « **Reply #42 on:** August 28, 2013, 04:28:17 AM »

Quote from: Matthew

Quote from: wallflower
Quote from: s2srea

This part of the reason my father, a Lebanese, was able to impress my mother, a Mexican.

You bring up a good point here. Barring extenuating circuмstances, if all is well in a family, a woman will be happy and impressed by a man who loves and respects her family as much as she does and who seeks their love and approval as well.

I think certain persons are getting all bound up in the letter of the law again (i.e. a man doesn't HAVE to have the father/family's approval) and forgetting that the letter is often the bare minimum and not always the best outcome (i.e. if the parents did approve).

- btw, can anyone imagine Tele's daughter wanting to marry someone HE didn't like? I can just see him letting her go gently and peacefully since it is her decision after all, lol!

Funny how the will of a woman in this one circuмstance is rock solid and no authority can touch it, it must be upheld; but in all others it is near evil incarnate.

Very astute observation.

In this thread, Tele (as usual) is completely biased in favor of himself. In any argument, whatever tends to favor him in his situation is "good" and whatever tends to cast him in a bad light, or would otherwise discourage him, is "bad".

For example, he'd VERY MUCH like to get married. Would emphasizing a woman's right to choose her spouse (even if he's older, unemployed, penniless, without a career) help or hurt Tele? Of course it would help him.

So he's in favor of it.

What about when someone like Ggreg talks about how we should be excellent even in our worldly business? That we should strive to work hard and achieve something, so we have something to give back and help others? That would discourage Tele, who is far from this ideal. So he's against it.

Everything is personal for him.

To understand his posts (and not let them get to you), this insight is absolutely crucial.

Who says he does not "give back" to others? Now if we are kind and giving is measured by our material success? Someone's heart is not what is on their 1040.

You add in "older" like it's a negative trait too? Then the test of having a good enough job. How many trad parents on this board would have hungry children if not for food stamps & WIC or their wives and children go without medical care without Medicaid? Should the children and wives look at their father in a negative light because they receive public assistance?

Nadir · « **Reply #43 on:** August 28, 2013, 06:44:40 PM »

Matthew, you said

Quote

In this thread, Tele (as usual) is completely biased in favor of himself. In any argument, whatever tends to favor him in his situation is "good" and whatever tends to cast him in a bad light, or would otherwise discourage him, is "bad".

For example, he'd VERY MUCH like to get married. Would emphasizing a woman's right to choose her spouse (even if he's older, unemployed, penniless, without a career) help or hurt Tele? Of course it would help him.

So he's in favor of it.

IMHO this is totally unjustified and unnecessary. By such pettiness you are damaging your own forum.

By the way, at the time I met my husband he was older, unemployed, penniless, without a career. Such states are not necessarily permanent. I have had a wonderful life with him. The main thing for me is that we can go to Heaven together.

Frances · « **Reply #44 on:** August 28, 2013, 07:21:41 PM »

:guitar::dancing-banana: :idea:Here's an idea!
Why not have Matthew and his wife arrange for Tele to meet a nice, suitable woman from CI? Make sure, first, that her father isn't a raving lunatic. If they both consent, a COURTSHIP can begin. Both should be, IMO, at least 21 years old.