Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: magdalena on August 26, 2013, 09:26:48 PM
-
I'm hearing more about it, so I was wondering: What are Traditional Catholics doing today with regards to courtship versus dating?
-
For an example, here is an article on the subject. Regardless of how you may feel about the source, it's an interesting read.
http://catholicism.org/courtship-the-chaste-preparation-for-holy-matrimony.html
-
:confused1:
A man courts a woman because he's done dating women. A woman is courted by a man because she's done dating men.
-
excerpts from the article:
Time Tested. While dating is a twentieth-century invention, courtship is ancient. It is the way young men and women prepared for marriage. Even Vatican II refers to courtship very matter-of-factly as the proper preparation for marriage: “It is imperative to give suitable and timely instruction to young people, above all in the heart of their own families, about the dignity of married love… so that, having learned the value of chastity, they will be able at a suitable age to engage in honorable courtship and enter upon a marriage of their own.”
Courtship, as opposed to dating, was the norm internationally, until technologically-enhanced modernity gave us another foolish bit of “progress.”
Pre-Courtship Social Activity. Now, some may ask the question: is there any acceptable social activity between a boy and a girl without reference to marriage? In other words, is casual dating alright only for the purposes of fun? The answer is no. The reason I take this hard line, which is very rarely spoken today, has to do with the very nature of boy-girl relationships.
Divorce Practice. Dating encourages young people to begin relationships with one another that will soon end. After all, if they are too young to marry, and they don’t see their relationship as a preparation for marriage, they have no reason to stay together as soon as the fun subsides at all. At that point, each moves on to someone else. If someone begins dating at the age of sixteen or seventeen — as is common today — by the time he is really able to marry, he’s been through many of these kinds of relationships. Some of them are likely to have been regarded as “break ups” when they ended, even if there was no intention for them to marry. What has this young man learned? Divorce.
It is certainly a strong hypothesis, if not a proven fact that, just as courtship is a preparation for marriage, casual dating is a preparation — indeed a rehearsal — for divorce.
-
I think using the word "court" in many circles today would be viewed in a negative manner while using the word "date" would not.
A person should not "date" a person whom he or she would never consider for marriage. The modern date is an inappropriate near occasion of sin. On the other hand, a "date" in which a group of people socialize (e.g., the so-called, "double-date" or something of that nature) is not necessarily inappropriate or a near occasion of sin.
On the other hand, if a man asks a woman out for a "date" and this is a woman the man would indeed consent to marry, such could be considered a form of courtship. But if he is asking a woman for a "date" simply because he doesn't want to do something alone....this is obviously a problem.
In all of this, I am speaking of men and women, not boys and girls. The modern concept (that seemed to have really picked up steam in the 1950s) of young school-age boys and girls going out on dates, having boyfriends and girlfriends, etc., was, indeed, a recipe for disaster and, I think, was one of the major contributing factors of the outright and very public moral degradation that we find in the 1960s.
-
Remember using the word "court" became popular and "dating" became a sin with some conservative Christians when a Protestant minister wrote a book called "I Kissed Dating Goodbye."
-
I've met and briefly spoken with said Prot group leader. Believe me when I tell you, he is totally against the modern phenomenon of "dating", and I think his idea of courtship would be accepted in any decent person's home, let alone that of a faithful Catholic.
I digress...
Less than 100 years ago, it would have been absolutely unthinkable for the average SECULAR citizen to allow their unmarried daughter to go about in public unaccompanied. The Catholic family would have insisted upon a chaperone, if not a parent, whenever a young lady was out and about.
I've been reading a book called "The Devil's Final Battle", about the Fatima apparitions and the Third Part of the Secret. In that book, then-Cardinal Ratzinger (no shock here) is quoted as saying (my paraphrase) that "countries like Spain and Portugal were basically backwards for decades because, (ed: as faithful Catholic countries) they were living under a social and religious order that was outdated and repressive".
In short, the society of a place like Spain, where the poorest man's daughter would have been guarded like nobility against occasions of sin or inappropriate associations or environments, was "backwards" according to Ratzinger, who allowed fαɢɢօtry, pedophilia and the degradation of the entire social order to take place on his watch while he pretended to be a clergyman.
Put yourself and your children in the position of being allowed to participate in the flesh-parade of the 'dating' world, and you're sinning and leading them to sin. End of story.
By the way, a 'date' is just that. It's an appointment. People set DATES for weddings, parties, dental work, etc. On THIS day, at THIS time, I EXPECT to do this or that.
What, then, is a 'date' between two unmarried people? On THIS date, we EXPECT to do this, that or the other thing, with or without the assumed prospect of future 'dates'. That, quite simply, opens the door to attitudes which say "get it while the getting is good" because 'dates' don't go on forever.
Asking a young lady for a 'date' is nothing short of asking her if she's attracted to you physically and in the most shallow personal ways enough that she might want to spend some time alone with you.
Courting, on the other hand, is the process of a man presenting himself NOT FIRST (or not primarily) to the DAUGHTER, but to the FATHER AND MOTHER (and grandparents, if they live together), in order that the man might get to know the entire immediate family, and vice versa. The importance of learning one another's habits, family traditions, social skills, political and religious opinions, etc CANNOT BE STRESSED ENOUGH!!!
No man who values his health, his reputation or his soul will EVER approach my daughters without my permission. To do so would be to invite not only getting his ears slapped, but to invite my informing of his family and the families of those I associate with of his uncouth intentions.
A 'date' is what you make to get your teeth cleaned. COURTING is just that; preparing yourself to approach the COURT (i.e. the family and associates) of your superior, a gentleman. In the old days you 'courted' for the purpose of determining your worth and fitness for a position either IN the noble's court or for a position of privileged service in the realm.
That's what courtship is is my world. Applying for a singular position and responsibility: co-laboring with me in the flowering and protection of my precious gifts from Our Lord, and ultimately taking on their entire well-being once I have gone to my rest.
Anything less is an offense to chastity and an insult to St. Joseph, who guarded the chastity and innocence of Our Lady to his dying day in this world, and does so to this day in Heaven.
Holy virgin saints, pray for us.
St. Dominic Savio, model of sanctified youth, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
-
Very informative! Thank you and bravo Stephen Francis! :applause:
-
I've met and briefly spoken with said Prot group leader. Believe me when I tell you, he is totally against the modern phenomenon of "dating", and I think his idea of courtship would be accepted in any decent person's home, let alone that of a faithful Catholic.
I digress...
Less than 100 years ago, it would have been absolutely unthinkable for the average SECULAR citizen to allow their unmarried daughter to go about in public unaccompanied. The Catholic family would have insisted upon a chaperone, if not a parent, whenever a young lady was out and about.
I've been reading a book called "The Devil's Final Battle", about the Fatima apparitions and the Third Part of the Secret. In that book, then-Cardinal Ratzinger (no shock here) is quoted as saying (my paraphrase) that "countries like Spain and Portugal were basically backwards for decades because, (ed: as faithful Catholic countries) they were living under a social and religious order that was outdated and repressive".
In short, the society of a place like Spain, where the poorest man's daughter would have been guarded like nobility against occasions of sin or inappropriate associations or environments, was "backwards" according to Ratzinger, who allowed fαɢɢօtry, pedophilia and the degradation of the entire social order to take place on his watch while he pretended to be a clergyman.
Put yourself and your children in the position of being allowed to participate in the flesh-parade of the 'dating' world, and you're sinning and leading them to sin. End of story.
By the way, a 'date' is just that. It's an appointment. People set DATES for weddings, parties, dental work, etc. On THIS day, at THIS time, I EXPECT to do this or that.
What, then, is a 'date' between two unmarried people? On THIS date, we EXPECT to do this, that or the other thing, with or without the assumed prospect of future 'dates'. That, quite simply, opens the door to attitudes which say "get it while the getting is good" because 'dates' don't go on forever.
Asking a young lady for a 'date' is nothing short of asking her if she's attracted to you physically and in the most shallow personal ways enough that she might want to spend some time alone with you.
Courting, on the other hand, is the process of a man presenting himself NOT FIRST (or not primarily) to the DAUGHTER, but to the FATHER AND MOTHER (and grandparents, if they live together), in order that the man might get to know the entire immediate family, and vice versa. The importance of learning one another's habits, family traditions, social skills, political and religious opinions, etc CANNOT BE STRESSED ENOUGH!!!
No man who values his health, his reputation or his soul will EVER approach my daughters without my permission. To do so would be to invite not only getting his ears slapped, but to invite my informing of his family and the families of those I associate with of his uncouth intentions.
A 'date' is what you make to get your teeth cleaned. COURTING is just that; preparing yourself to approach the COURT (i.e. the family and associates) of your superior, a gentleman. In the old days you 'courted' for the purpose of determining your worth and fitness for a position either IN the noble's court or for a position of privileged service in the realm.
That's what courtship is is my world. Applying for a singular position and responsibility: co-laboring with me in the flowering and protection of my precious gifts from Our Lord, and ultimately taking on their entire well-being once I have gone to my rest.
Anything less is an offense to chastity and an insult to St. Joseph, who guarded the chastity and innocence of Our Lady to his dying day in this world, and does so to this day in Heaven.
Holy virgin saints, pray for us.
St. Dominic Savio, model of sanctified youth, pray for us.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.
Hear! Hear! :applause: :applause: :applause:
-
Stepehen Francis I believe it should be honorable and the couple always chaperoned. The idea that a man needs to court a family or her father is ridiculous and that is what it has turned into in many circles.
I know a family who never used the word "courtship" and their daughters dated one man and were virgins on their wedding night. They never allowed their daughter to be unchaperoned with her future husband. The daughter or the man's intentions didn't matter, they didn't allow the opportunity for unchaste behavior, they don't deny that their children are human beings past puberty. The couple spent time together chaperoned, the man was not required to win her father.
I agree with your vigilance in protecting our children's chastity and acknowledging that our children grow into adults. I use the word courtship too, but I don't agree with what it is has turned into with some. Part of protecting our children's chastity is encouraging them to marry or enter religious life young.
-
Applying for a singular position and responsibility: co-laboring with me in the flowering and protection of my precious gifts from Our Lord, and ultimately taking on their entire well-being once I have gone to my rest.
Your intentions are good but seriously IMO this is a recipe for making sure your daughters become old maids and/or setting them up to have close relationships with men outside of marriage. A man with good intentions does not want to court a father and your daughter is under his authority when she is in his household. It's natural for your adult daughter to want to belong to a man, it could be a moral disaster if you try to buck that.
-
The idea that a man needs to court a family or her father... ridiculous
The idea that a man who wants my daughter's:
virginity,
her stability,
her emotional well-being,
her spiritual direction and counsel in the home
and her support as a homemaker and mother to children
would NOT have to meet with my approval is what is ridiculous.
You know a family that didn't use the word 'courtship'. So what? It's just a term. It used to be the ONLY term for what is considered God-honoring, responsible entry into conjugal life between two devout Catholics.
The couple spent time together chaperoned, the man was not required to win her father
I have some news for you. If the couple was ALWAYS chaperoned, you can bet your last nickel on the FACT that the chaperone was reporting to the girl's parents. You'd better believe the father had the right to disallow their relationship if he felt that anything sinful was going on.
My daughters will not marry a man that I cannot at the very least respect as a Catholic gentleman. Even if our personalities are very different, even if our temperaments are seemingly opposed, if I am able to recognize a man who is striving for sanctity and Heaven and discharging his duties to my daughter faithfully, I will love and respect him.
If you think that just because our children are "human beings" after puberty, that means I am supposed to just let a naive and innocent young woman's emotions take control over what we are obliged to do before Our Lord, then you're as crazy as Ratzinger.
It's natural for your adult daughter to want to belong to a man, it could be a moral disaster if you try to buck that.
Oh, really? Tell that to St. Clare, St. Hildegard, St. Agnes, St. Lucy or OUR LADY.
What's natural is for my daughters to want to DISCERN THE WILL OF ALMIGHTY GOD FOR THEIR LIVES. You have no business telling me what is 'natural' for my children.
What is natural is for a young woman to be set apart unto sanctity and desirous of Heaven and SINGLE AND CHASTE unless God makes clear that it should be otherwise.
I just re-read one thing you wrote. You mean to tell me that my diligence in protecting their chastity is going to SET THEM UP TO WANT TO FORNICATE?
You disgust me. Learn your place and don't dare insinuate that my duty before God to my children is an occasion of sin to them.
-
would NOT have to meet with my approval is what is ridiculous.
How and why would they have to meet with your approval?
-
That last question was patently ridiculous.
I refuse to subject my choices before God to an inquisition of Modernist compromise.
Kindly refrain from discussing any further my family's convictions concerning the idea of courtship and I will excuse the filthy and denigrating questions and comments that have been directed toward me.
-
That last question was patently ridiculous.
I refuse to subject my choices before God to an inquisition of Modernist compromise.
oh PLEASE!
According to the laws of the Church, nothing modernist, they do NOT REQUIRE YOUR APPROVAL to be married. You are laboring under Protestant error on this question.
Leo XIII:
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;
St. Thomas Aquinas:
The maid is in her father's power, not as a female slave without power over her own body, but as a daughter, for the purpose of education. Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another's power without her father's consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent's consent.
again:
Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like.
Kindly refrain from discussing any further my family's convictions concerning the idea of courtship and I will excuse the filthy and denigrating questions and comments that have been directed toward me.
Filthy and denigrating questions? Someone is being very defensive.
You need to face reality. Once your daughters are of age they can marry anyone they want to marry, for better or worse. Now they should hear you out but it would be very unwise to operate under the delusion that it is your decision. That's certainly not the Catholic view, in any event.
-
The maid is in her father's power, not as a female slave without power over her own body, but as a daughter, for the purpose of education. Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another's power without her father's consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent's consent.
...
he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children.
If Pope Leo XIII and St. Francis said it, then I must agree. But there is nothing wrong with a man seeking the approval of the family, nor with the father to expect this as a cultural norm. He may not be able to demand such actions from a young man, or prohibit a marriage if this approval is not sought, but I think many cultures, including varying Catholic ones, have come to integrate this practice.
This part of the reason my father, a Lebanese, was able to impress my mother, a Mexican. He not only sought her hand, but also the approval of her father. Now, my grandfather thought my dad was a Moslem and was hostile to him at first, but his hostility or lack of approval did not prevent their marriage, though it did create a temporary discord.
-
I was never talking about marriage and having the power to forbid it.
I simply said that my daughters will not participate in dating and that any young man who looks to court my daughter will have to be of a certain character.
What was filthy was Tiffany's suggestion that I could be pushing my children into fornication by being careful about how their social lives develop.
Bully for Tiffany and all those who have trad Masses to go to.
You all seem to forget that I am surrounded by prot heretics of the worst and most morally-compromised sort. I don't live in Traddie Land where so many other things get brushed aside as no big deal because you have your Mass and there's BOD and R&R to argue about.
My children are not teenagers; years yet before that's the case.
They already know what a decent and moral person should be like. They are learning the Faith little by little.
I am willing to see them married one day if that is the will of God.
Otherwise, since you're once again not offering prayer or counsel, only criticism, I'm forced to conclude that my conformity is more important to you than my family's spiritual lives.
I've had it with the wishy-washy lukewarm sentimentality around here.
You all yell about CA and FE, but this place leans as much on human consensus and popular vote as any of them.
[size=8]"If you would be quite sure of your salvation, strive to be among the fewest of the few. Do not follow the majority of mankind, but follow those who renounce the world and never relax their efforts day or night so that they may attain everlasting blessedness." - St. Anselm, Doctor of the Church[/size]
-
[size=8]"If you would be quite sure of your salvation, strive to be among the fewest of the few. Do not follow the majority of mankind, but follow those who renounce the world and never relax their efforts day or night so that they may attain everlasting blessedness." - St. Anselm, Doctor of the Church[/size]
:applause:
-
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.
-
I was never talking about marriage and having the power to forbid it.
You said:
would NOT have to meet with my approval is what is ridiculous.
Now don't play evasive games.
I simply said that my daughters will not participate in dating and that any young man who looks to court my daughter will have to be of a certain character.
Except they aren't required to have your approval to be courted. Is that so hard to understand?
What was filthy
You referred to my question. You called it modernist. Who do you think you're kidding?
was Tiffany's suggestion that I could be pushing my children into fornication by being careful about how their social lives develop.
Is it really ridiculous to believe that young women being unnaturally restrained will be tempted to rebel and seek "close relationships" that they keep from you?
-
- 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!
I was not raised by parents who believe in attempting to manipulate and impose themselves on their grown children in order to live vicariously through them.
My sister was accepted to Harvard. Did my parents (they were naive NO and didn't believe it was wrong, they believed in paying for expensive education for a daughter) insist she go there as many other parents would? No they didn't.
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.
What's funny is that my positions are in accord with Catholic teaching and that trads find such positions so hard to accept.
Fortunately not all trad women are nursing feminist, liberal, protestant, and suburbanite values, but it seems very common in the neo-SSPX.
-
The idea that a man needs to court a family or her father... ridiculous
The idea that a man who wants my daughter's:
virginity,
her stability,
her emotional well-being,
her spiritual direction and counsel in the home
and her support as a homemaker and mother to children
would NOT have to meet with my approval is what is ridiculous.
You know a family that didn't use the word 'courtship'. So what? It's just a term. It used to be the ONLY term for what is considered God-honoring, responsible entry into conjugal life between two devout Catholics.
The couple spent time together chaperoned, the man was not required to win her father
I have some news for you. If the couple was ALWAYS chaperoned, you can bet your last nickel on the FACT that the chaperone was reporting to the girl's parents. You'd better believe the father had the right to disallow their relationship if he felt that anything sinful was going on.
My daughters will not marry a man that I cannot at the very least respect as a Catholic gentleman. Even if our personalities are very different, even if our temperaments are seemingly opposed, if I am able to recognize a man who is striving for sanctity and Heaven and discharging his duties to my daughter faithfully, I will love and respect him.
If you think that just because our children are "human beings" after puberty, that means I am supposed to just let a naive and innocent young woman's emotions take control over what we are obliged to do before Our Lord, then you're as crazy as Ratzinger.
It's natural for your adult daughter to want to belong to a man, it could be a moral disaster if you try to buck that.
Oh, really? Tell that to St. Clare, St. Hildegard, St. Agnes, St. Lucy or OUR LADY.
What's natural is for my daughters to want to DISCERN THE WILL OF ALMIGHTY GOD FOR THEIR LIVES. You have no business telling me what is 'natural' for my children.
What is natural is for a young woman to be set apart unto sanctity and desirous of Heaven and SINGLE AND CHASTE unless God makes clear that it should be otherwise.
I just re-read one thing you wrote. You mean to tell me that my diligence in protecting their chastity is going to SET THEM UP TO WANT TO FORNICATE?
You disgust me. Learn your place and don't dare insinuate that my duty before God to my children is an occasion of sin to them.
It's foolish to deny your adult children will seek out companionship with the opposite sex. Comparing them to the BVM?
-
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.
-
That last question was patently ridiculous.
I refuse to subject my choices before God to an inquisition of Modernist compromise.
oh PLEASE!
According to the laws of the Church, nothing modernist, they do NOT REQUIRE YOUR APPROVAL to be married. You are laboring under Protestant error on this question.
Leo XIII:
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;
St. Thomas Aquinas:
The maid is in her father's power, not as a female slave without power over her own body, but as a daughter, for the purpose of education. Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another's power without her father's consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent's consent.
again:
Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like.
Kindly refrain from discussing any further my family's convictions concerning the idea of courtship and I will excuse the filthy and denigrating questions and comments that have been directed toward me.
Filthy and denigrating questions? Someone is being very defensive.
You need to face reality. Once your daughters are of age they can marry anyone they want to marry, for better or worse. Now they should hear you out but it would be very unwise to operate under the delusion that it is your decision. That's certainly not the Catholic view, in any event.
If a man's daughter marries against his express consent, it is a valid marriage, but he has no obligation to support the marriage, or his defiant daughter in any way. He may also disinherit her and remove her from any future inheritance.
So, it may be a valid marriage, and the father may not be able to stop his adult daughter from marrying, but she has to live with the consequences of such defiance.
-
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.
-
If a man's daughter marries against his express consent, it is a valid marriage, but he has no obligation to support the marriage, or his defiant daughter in any way. He may also disinherit her and remove her from any future inheritance.
Historically courts would sometimes overrule parents who attempted to disinherit children who married against their parents will.
It's important that this cult fantasy of the father who controls his daughter's destiny be dispelled among traditionalists. It has nothing to do with Catholicism, it has to do with a cult mentality. Thank God Father Pfeiffer is not letting these liberals impose their false values on Catholic young people.
So, it may be a valid marriage, and the father may not be able to stop his adult daughter from marrying, but she has to live with the consequences of such defiance.
May be a valid marriage?
It is a valid marriage. Many of you people do not have a Catholic view of this: you have a cult view that has nothing to do with our Faith.
-
Yes, but what a bride!
Well worth going to Russia for.
If I had my time over I would go there again, without a moment's hesitation.
I impressed her parents too. Why wouldn't you?
-
Yes, but what a bride!
Well worth going to Russia for.
If I had my time over I would go there again, without a moment's hesitation.
I impressed her parents too. Why wouldn't you?
Sounds like a good deal, a good "contract."
Fortunately, there are plenty of beautiful, devout, virginal women who don't need such inducements.
-
Just not in Cincinnati. Right?
Everywhere else is teeming with them.
-
Just not in Cincinnati. Right?
Everywhere else is teeming with them.
In Cincinnati, and elsewhere. Of course, there are also dishonest character assassins and spiteful people who favorite thai massage girl music clips.
Didn't you quote people who say they prefer "hot whores"?
Well, to each his own.
-
Historically courts would sometimes overrule parents who attempted to disinherit children who married against their parents will.
Do you have a source for this?
-
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/Love-Honor-Obey-Colonial-Mexico/dp/0804721599
-
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/Love-Honor-Obey-Colonial-Mexico/dp/0804721599
I am not talking about Mexican courts!
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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:
, 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Matthew, you said
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.
-
: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.
-
Actually it's not unjustified nor petty.
Tele's side of the whole story is that the girl was mad for him but the father interfered. Thus, Tele has nursed a hatred for most SSPX/trad fathers, which is clearly seen in any of his discussions about said fathers, particularly with respect to their authority and relationships with their daughters. He takes this subject very personally which is why he is incapable of discussing it objectively.
For those who don't know this, it is important they know it so that they can realize it is a very biased and incomplete view and not at all indicative of the fullness of the Church's thought. Just the one little sliver of Church teaching, the one that looks good for him is all he will pound out over and over again. No other sides of Church teaching, such as the fathers' duty to guide and seek the best match (physical, mental and spiritual) for their daughters in marriage, can be objectively and rationally discussed, so his posts are riddled with a mix of truth and error. This is dangerous. More so than posts that are obviously false.
It isn't about whether every man who is poor, unemployed or older is no good for marriage, but more about the bias of this particular man.
-
Tele's research and posts on the subject are proving extremely timely, as recent public events in Quebec have proved. Abuse of authority appears to be a systemic problem among SSPX priests and fathers. So Tele is right to insist on this as he does.
As when wives rebel against authority and doctrine he insists on their duty to obey. Right, Wallflower?
His approach is not "convenient", it is balanced.
-
It seems that every thread that touches on dating, courtship, or anything of that nature ends up as a discussion of Telesphorus's dating history and marriage desires. We have heard every side of this before. All of us have heard everything Telesphorus or Matthew or their supporters have to say. While I am pretty much in Matthew's camp here, I m really tired of the dead horse beating by both sides of this very personal and largely irrelevant question. Speaking only for myself of course, it would be really spiffy if everyone involved in dissecting Telesphorus's love life, suitability for marriage, and such could find something else to talk about.
-
For me, it may not be as difficult to impress a girls parents because, as I said in the "The Women Controlling" thread, I have had an easier time talking with older adults or adults in general throughout my life. Impressing a girl in courtship would be just as daunting though, but I find it very important to ask the parents for their permission and blessing to court their daughter, especially the permission and blessing of the father.
-
Tele's research and posts on the subject are proving extremely timely, as recent public events in Quebec have proved. Abuse of authority appears to be a systemic problem among SSPX priests and fathers. So Tele is right to insist on this as he does.
As when wives rebel against authority and doctrine he insists on their duty to obey. Right, Wallflower?
His approach is not "convenient", it is balanced.
This has nothing to do with wives rebelling against their husbands so I don't know where you're going with that. It's a thread that attempts to discuss the balancing act that fathers and parents have in recognizing their children's free will yet having the duty to guide them in their choice of a vocation or spouse in marriage.
Guide does not equal control as someone keeps trying to posit. It would be lovely to have discussions where the basic vocabulary is understood and acknowledged. We might get somewhere more reasonable.
If one wants to study the abuse of authority, they first have to examine and be clear on the right way to go about something in order to understand how an abuse has occurred. If Tele has a true and rounded understanding of the abuse of authority, then it should not be this difficult for him to acknowledge that the fact that some fathers abuse their authority is not the only facet to this discussion. He should be just as capable of discussing what happens when things go well, when fathers do not abuse their authority, what happens when a young man DOES impress the father and DOES win the love of his intended's family. What is the ideal? Once that is understood then one can go about understanding a departure from the ideal.
A father is head of his household and there is nothing unCatholic about him expecting a suitor to approach him before approaching his daughter. She is not this stranger's YET. She is still in her father's house. Her father is still the man who has care of her. A man who shows that he does not respect that is probably not a great match and a father would do well to be suspicious of the man's intentions or suitability. If a man does respect the father's authority, then he will likely make a good father himself as he shows an understanding of the family dynamic and what his responsibilities towards his own family will be once he himself is a father.
That is the ideal and it's the way Catholic societies have operated for a very long time. Yet anyone putting forth this ideal here is accused of being modernist, controlling their children, trying to live vicariously through them, going against the Church etc...It's absolutely ridiculous and proves once again that only half a marble is at work here. It really stifles any true conversation and has been exceedingly stifling for a long time.
-
I think all would agree that since "casual dating" is and should be out of the question, respectful courtship, on the other hand, is the means toward a holy and chaste marriage: respect for each other, and respect for each other's families. Maybe the problem is in defining courtship and how much it actually entails.
-
This has nothing to do with wives rebelling against their husbands so I don't know where you're going with that.
Sure it does with respect to your post. You brought up the issue of obedience that women owe. Of course your concept of it varies from what the Church teaches, just as your concept of what obedience daughters owe their parents in matters of marriage varies from Church teaching. It's because you belong to a cultish group, in which Church teaching is secondary to the catty social behavior in the group. The teachings of the Church aren't decided by the chapel henhouse or by liberal-leaning priests following the policies of the ExSPX.
It's a thread that attempts to discuss the balancing act that fathers and parents have in recognizing their children's free will yet having the duty to guide them in their choice of a vocation or spouse in marriage.
No, it's about a man who said that he decides who is daughters may court, and those who deride myself for correcting him. They can't simply discuss the issue because they have an agenda that goes beyond the issue. An agenda of personal hostility.
Guide does not equal control as someone keeps trying to posit. It would be lovely to have discussions where the basic vocabulary is understood and acknowledged. We might get somewhere more reasonable.
Except the issue is not guidance the issue is control. No one spoke against guidance.
If one wants to study the abuse of authority, they first have to examine and be clear on the right way to go about something in order to understand how an abuse has occurred. If Tele has a true and rounded understanding of the abuse of authority, then it should not be this difficult for him to acknowledge that the fact that some fathers abuse their authority is not the only facet to this discussion.
Not just fathers but also priests in the ExSPX use control of access to the sacraments to control people. They also send spies to resistance gatherings, encourage eaves-dropping, spread lies about people. It's to be expected that in a cult-like group there will be an attempt to control who marries who.
He should be just as capable of discussing what happens when things go well, when fathers do not abuse their authority, what happens when a young man DOES impress the father and DOES win the love of his intended's family. What is the ideal? Once that is understood then one can go about understanding a departure from the ideal.
Things are not going well when priests give sermons that marriage needs to be delayed in the modern times or when priest retreats are given saying that families cannot and should not have more than 5 or 6 children. Those ideas have absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism they have to do with manipulation and control.
A father is head of his household and there is nothing unCatholic about him expecting a suitor to approach him before approaching his daughter. She is not this stranger's YET. She is still in her father's house. Her father is still the man who has care of her. A man who shows that he does not respect that is probably not a great match and a father would do well to be suspicious of the man's intentions or suitability. If a man does respect the father's authority, then he will likely make a good father himself as he shows an understanding of the family dynamic and what his responsibilities towards his own family will be once he himself is a father.
That's not the issue wallflower. The issue is one of control. Stephen Francis spoke very plainly that he was going to decide things. That's delusional and it's not Catholic.
That is the ideal and it's the way Catholic societies have operated for a very long time.
The way the SSPX operates on this matter is not related to how Catholic societies of the past have operated. It's not related to Catholic practice. A young pregnant woman is told the SSPX doesn't marry pregnant girls. (however I'm sure they do to please people they want to please) That has NOTHING to do with Catholic practice in the past. It has to do with control. They don't want young people circuмventing their attempts to control marriage. In the 1950s girls half of girls were married already before a few months after their 20th birthday. That's how Catholic societies of the past operated and it wasn't because they behaved how the SSPX behaves today, that's for sure!
Yet anyone putting forth this ideal here is accused of being modernist,
The ExSPX is definitely motivated by liberalism in its new policies. Absolutely.
controlling their children,
What do you call it then when someone says it is up to fathers to decide such matters? It's not about control? There is no doubt a lot of ExSPX people believe in tightly controlling their children, regimenting their day to a high degree. And they don't very easily loosen up on that control.
trying to live vicariously through them,
Absolutely. Some people here say every Catholic should try out seminary or religious life. It is absurdity to think that ambitions of parents for their children do not lead them to try to make their life decisions for their children.
going against the Church etc.
It goes against what the Church teaches to say it's a parents decision. How hard is that to understand? Children may be dishonoring their parents, but that's up to God to decide. They have natural rights, and a parents rights are not violated when a child makes a decision that is not a parents to dispose of.
..It's absolutely ridiculous and proves once again that only half a marble is at work here.
No what's absolutely ridiculous is how obsessive these cultish people are in defending their cult-like practices. They have their own henhouse version of Catholicism and they are absolutely relentless in defending it.
It really stifles any true conversation and has been exceedingly stifling for a long time.
Discussion of what? Truth tends to bring discussions to an end.
Person A says he decides who is daughters may court.
Person B says no, it's not his decision. There's only one right answer.
Saying that person A is right 99/100 times or 999/1000 times is completely baseless. Personally attacking person B is irrelevant. Why don't others correct Stephen Francis? Why doesn't DICI speak out against Rome these days? They refuse to speak out, condemn those who speak out, and then say 95% of Vatican II is acceptable. If cult trad parents claim authority that isn't theirs is that 99% acceptable, or does it need to be corrected?
False statements need to be corrected.
There are those who have values motivated by liberalism which accounts for their opposition to early marriage. Those people should be disregarded. There is definitely a liberal tendency involved in those who want to control their children - it was a liberal, anti-clerical tendency in the 18th Century, and now it is a liberal, anti-traditional tendency (going against what was normal in the 50s, for example) in the neo-SSPX.
-
Traditional Guy has mentioned the hostile stares given to him by trad fathers.
It is not natural or normal behavior.
-
I think all would agree that since "casual dating" is and should be out of the question, respectful courtship, on the other hand, is the means toward a holy and chaste marriage: respect for each other, and respect for each other's families. Maybe the problem is in defining courtship and how much it actually entails.
I agree, magdalena, There can be a struggle in defining the nature and ramifications of courtship. It also would depend very much on the cultural surroundings, but from what I have seen from traditional Catholic literature, the Church gives basic guidelines to follow that spans every situation to some degree.
-
Traditional Guy has mentioned the hostile stares given to him by trad fathers.
It is not natural or normal behavior.
Funny thing was I was just about to post in this thread.
With me I myself have to agree with Tele when it comes to this. Being one with not a lot of money and views which would seem "extreme" to some, even from a "right-wing" point of view. I myself have not had the best of luck with fathers. I would even go so far to say that the possessiveness of some of these fathers makes me question if they aren't dating their daughters themselves.
There's nothing wrong with trying to teach her the right thing (something even these clingy fathers don't do regardless) and trying to set her up with a nice easy life with a rich bachelor.
-
There's nothing wrong with trying to teach her the right thing (something even these clingy fathers don't do regardless) and trying to set her up with a nice easy life with a rich bachelor.
Sorry it should have been, "There's nothing wrong with trying to teach her the right thing BUT there is something wrong with setting her up with a nice easy life with a rich bachelor."
-
Edit.
-
As Catholics we accept that children are under the authority of their parents.
We do so for the purpose of the education of children.
There have always been overbearing parents who abuse that position, and children have little recourse. It's not for us as outsiders to judge families unless children are seriously endangered. It is, however, incuмbent on Catholics to understand the truth that children are not forever to be enslaved and under the control of domineering parents. That's not Catholic and it never has been.
Grown children should have an understanding of their rights as well as of their filial obligations, lest they lose heart. It is basic Catholic charity, and it is the duty of priests to lighten the burdens that oppressive situations bring about rather than to pharisaically bind the conscience to control freaks.
And domineering parents are not uncommon. Especially among trads. Let's get real.
-
We do so for the purpose of the education of children.
Correction: we do so because God ordains that the authority in the family is for the education of children.
-
It seems that every thread that touches on dating, courtship, or anything of that nature ends up as a discussion of Telesphorus's dating history and marriage desires. We have heard every side of this before. All of us have heard everything Telesphorus or Matthew or their supporters have to say. While I am pretty much in Matthew's camp here, I m really tired of the dead horse beating by both sides of this very personal and largely irrelevant question. Speaking only for myself of course, it would be really spiffy if everyone involved in dissecting Telesphorus's love life, suitability for marriage, and such could find something else to talk about.
Sig I'm not a "Telesphorus supporter." So many ideas on here go against a Christian life, Telesphorus has a good head on his shoulders. As far as his treatment, I saw the same thing (in a Protestant church) with a friend. This young man was very nice, read his Bible, listened to sermons on tape (before youtube !) had good intentions. As a parent now it disgusts me looking back to see that the parents of my peers didn't make him feel welcome. Despite a graduate level education, he works part-time unloading a truck. Many people in that church were executives at a company, they could have nodded and he could have been a manager. Even now they are retired and some are at different churches, they still could help him get a position at their old place or with someone else in their church. It's so not right. They have no trouble asking him to fill in as organist without pay though. I've seen him change too, he isn't who he was before, he has really been crushed.
-
Actually it's not unjustified nor petty.
Tele's side of the whole story is that the girl was mad for him but the father interfered. Thus, Tele has nursed a hatred for most SSPX/trad fathers, which is clearly seen in any of his discussions about said fathers, particularly with respect to their authority and relationships with their daughters. He takes this subject very personally which is why he is incapable of discussing it objectively.
For those who don't know this, it is important they know it so that they can realize it is a very biased and incomplete view and not at all indicative of the fullness of the Church's thought. Just the one little sliver of Church teaching, the one that looks good for him is all he will pound out over and over again. No other sides of Church teaching, such as the fathers' duty to guide and seek the best match (physical, mental and spiritual) for their daughters in marriage, can be objectively and rationally discussed, so his posts are riddled with a mix of truth and error. This is dangerous. More so than posts that are obviously false.
It isn't about whether every man who is poor, unemployed or older is no good for marriage, but more about the bias of this particular man.
If the parents were for their daughters marrying men of good character young, they would be inviting men with good intentions over for dinner after Mass and encouraging their daughters to have chaperoned social activities with them. It's not just one father, it's a culture, and I've seen it in Protestant circles too. That father is a reflection of many. I guarantee when their daughters are older or if he was perceived to be from the right clique he would be treated differently.
I've seen the opposite in plain circles and in a trad chapel where marriage was encouraged and there social times were encouraged for everyone.
-
Our current experience make us focus on those things related to it. A young man seeking a wife is going to see again and again women delaying marriage and be more focused on that. I've posted quite a bit on what I've seen as far as homeschooling goes. People are all far it until it means living a lifestyle they don't approve of. I'm sure those caring for the sick at home are burned by the lack of support. A Christians would help one another who have elderly parents or sick spouses or children to care for at home. How many of us have offered to sit with someone caring for their spouse or elderly parent so they could take care of things? Or if you are a man offered to do a task for them? A young mother socializing with other young mothers is going to see the lack of discipline in other families. A mother of teens is going to see how lax other families are with their teens and deal with that day in day out.
-
So are people here saying that it is common among TradCats in the xSPX chapels to make the decision whom their daughters marry? Don't they realize that marriages under these kind of circuмstances can be annulled? In the 50's it was easier for a man to provide for his family without a post-college grad education. Unfortunately, the times have changed. Ideally, a woman marries when she's still young enough to have children and a man wouldn't have to be fifteen to twenty years older than her to provide for his family--which is what he needs to do. Suitors should be respectful, but fathers should care about their daughter's hearts and needs as well, and trust them a little more.
-
It seems that every thread that touches on dating, courtship, or anything of that nature ends up as a discussion of Telesphorus's dating history and marriage desires. We have heard every side of this before. All of us have heard everything Telesphorus or Matthew or their supporters have to say. While I am pretty much in Matthew's camp here, I m really tired of the dead horse beating by both sides of this very personal and largely irrelevant question. Speaking only for myself of course, it would be really spiffy if everyone involved in dissecting Telesphorus's love life, suitability for marriage, and such could find something else to talk about.
Sig I'm not a "Telesphorus supporter." So many ideas on here go against a Christian life, Telesphorus has a good head on his shoulders. As far as his treatment, I saw the same thing (in a Protestant church) with a friend. This young man was very nice, read his Bible, listened to sermons on tape (before youtube !) had good intentions. As a parent now it disgusts me looking back to see that the parents of my peers didn't make him feel welcome. Despite a graduate level education, he works part-time unloading a truck. Many people in that church were executives at a company, they could have nodded and he could have been a manager. Even now they are retired and some are at different churches, they still could help him get a position at their old place or with someone else in their church. It's so not right. They have no trouble asking him to fill in as organist without pay though. I've seen him change too, he isn't who he was before, he has really been crushed.
It is not about Telesphorus being wrong, in this case, or Matthew being right. It is about the fact that all of this has been said before. Many times. I just don't see a need to say it all again.
-
My curiosity about courtship vs. dating has to do with a family member who is interested in a girl who is only allowed to court and only wears dresses and skirts. This young man, who is 20, is a fundamentalist because his mother, my sister, left the Church when he was born. The last I heard, my sister did not know what religion she was. She would be furious if she were to find out that her son was interested in a Catholic--Traditional, no less. If by some odd coincidence, she is Catholic, I need to pray very hard about it.
-
I would like to comment that the word "courtship" even sounds more dignified compared to the word "dating", which sounds too carefree.
Does courtship then involve simply having the family around all the time whether close by or at a certain distance with a chaperon around? I need to purge more of the modern world's thinking from my mind, for I've always seen like many others like how the going out with a significant other alone somewhere in dating is put forth as something normal.
-
So are people here saying that it is common among TradCats in the xSPX chapels to make the decision whom their daughters marry? Don't they realize that marriages under these kind of circuмstances can be annulled? In the 50's it was easier for a man to provide for his family without a post-college grad education. Unfortunately, the times have changed. Ideally, a woman marries when she's still young enough to have children and a man wouldn't have to be fifteen to twenty years older than her to provide for his family--which is what he needs to do. Suitors should be respectful, but fathers should care about their daughter's hearts and needs as well, and trust them a little more.
The 1950s and 1960s were an exceptional time for Western Countries, especially the United States. The economy was massively boosted by cheap oil virtually just sucked out of the ground, technology, population growth, rebuilding after World War II.
You have a very Americentric view of the world. What about Catholic men in Brazil, Russia, Poland, Slovakia and China? They are better off economically and politically now than they were in the 1950s.
How well did it work out for French Catholic men between 1914 and 1918. Men who were fathers or looking to get married?
Guess what, the world does not stand still. It never did. Smart people don't swim against the tide but work with the prevailing winds to get where they wish to go.
If you cannot make it in what is still the wealthiest economy in the world then you are rather pathetic.
-
Why not let the "youngsters" discuss their own contemporary dating/courtship issues and if they want advice from those of us who have been married and have children, I am sure they will ask, ggreg.
-
Men who couldn't make some kind of financial stability for themselves prior to 2008 had to be either unmotivated to work hard or they have a sense of entitlement and don't want to start at the bottom and work their way up.
Again, I emphasize that this would be prior to the 2008 recession/depression we are now in. Even hard workers are broke and jobless.
-
Men who couldn't make some kind of financial stability for themselves prior to 2008 had to be either unmotivated to work hard or they have a sense of entitlement and don't want to start at the bottom and work their way up.
Again, I emphasize that this would be prior to the 2008 recession/depression we are now in. Even hard workers are broke and jobless.
As bad as the recession/depression is in the US of A and Europe it is still better than the economic peaks most countries of the world have experienced for the last 100 years. Personally I am amazed the FED and various governments have limited the damaging effects as much as they have. So far the cassandras have been wrong or way off on their doomsday timing. The dollar has not collapsed and Gold and Silver have not gone through the roof. House prices have not collapse in the UK and interest rates are insanely low.
Let's not pretend it is Mad Max out there, or that the late 1980s early 1990s when I was starting out was a cake walk in the UK economy. There is always a boom/bust cycle.
If you cannot find gainful employment as a white native of your country, even today, then what are you going to do if the economy REALLY does collapse and they cancel all government services, welfare, food stamps as happened in Egypt and other collapsed economies like Argentina, Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany?
You'll then be competing for work with people who up until then have been long term employed and have skills, knowledge, experience and CONTACTS that you don't. They will blow you out of the water at the job interview stage. Their CV will look so much more impressive than yours.
In a economic slump where the GDP shrank 30% (i.e. bread queues and soup kitchens on ever street) why would the opportunities for the limited work be won by people who could not (would not) find a job in better times? They won't. There is work out there and plenty of opportunity if you are prepared to self-learn, adapt, try, fail, pick yourself up and try again.
James03 at SD works in North Dakota and says they are hiring anyone with a pulse and half a brain up there for double or triple min wage. Go North!
Heck if you think it is really THAT bad, then start a business improving resumes or a blog advising people how to find work.
-
Men who couldn't make some kind of financial stability for themselves prior to 2008 had to be either unmotivated to work hard or they have a sense of entitlement and don't want to start at the bottom and work their way up.
Again, I emphasize that this would be prior to the 2008 recession/depression we are now in. Even hard workers are broke and jobless.
As bad as the recession/depression is in the US of A and Europe it is still better than the economic peaks most countries of the world have experienced for the last 100 years. Personally I am amazed the FED and various governments have limited the damaging effects as much as they have. So far the cassandras have been wrong or way off on their doomsday timing. The dollar has not collapsed and Gold and Silver have not gone through the roof. House prices have not collapse in the UK and interest rates are insanely low.
Let's not pretend it is Mad Max out there, or that the late 1980s early 1990s when I was starting out was a cake walk in the UK economy. There is always a boom/bust cycle.
If you cannot find gainful employment as a white native of your country, even today, then what are you going to do if the economy REALLY does collapse and they cancel all government services, welfare, food stamps as happened in Egypt and other collapsed economies like Argentina, Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany?
You'll then be competing for work with people who up until then have been long term employed and have skills, knowledge, experience and CONTACTS that you don't. They will blow you out of the water at the job interview stage. Their CV will look so much more impressive than yours.
In a economic slump where the GDP shrank 30% (i.e. bread queues and soup kitchens on ever street) why would the opportunities for the limited work be won by people who could not (would not) find a job in better times? They won't. There is work out there and plenty of opportunity if you are prepared to self-learn, adapt, try, fail, pick yourself up and try again.
James03 at SD works in North Dakota and says they are hiring anyone with a pulse and half a brain up there for double or triple min wage. Go North!
Heck if you think it is really THAT bad, then start a business improving resumes or a blog advising people how to find work.
For those who genuinely want to know, THIS is why I want "someone like" ggreg as a member of CathInfo.
My favorite part I put in bold.
I disagree with him about many things -- he isn't what I would consider the perfect balance between ideals and pragmatism (he skews too far toward the "worldly" in my opinion) -- but he has a lot of good advice to offer the gaggle of idealistic, unemployed, or underemployed Trads out there. For many of these impoverished Trads, it's not their fault. Their baby boomer parents often haven't trained them very well for life in the 2010's. They really don't know what to do.
I completely agree with him on stuff like this. If there were a real collapse, would the currently unemployed get any of the few jobs that were left? Of course not. It's always survival of the fittest.
Catholics -- and everyone else -- need to learn how to set goals and overcome obstacles. Some people are better at this than others. I also agree that each decade is different, and presents its own challenges. The way to "make it" in 2013 is different than in the 1980's.
There are things that are always a good idea (network with others, give away a small part of your work to spread the word, work hard, etc.) and there are other things you can do in each particular situation.
I suppose it's difficult for some people to put their Faith first, and despise the evils in "the world" in general, while still pursuing excellence in their worldly careers, pursuits, etc.
But how can you raise saints (who are excellent in their service of God) if they never see excellence anywhere in their home life? If homeschooling is done in a slipshod and disorganized manner, and neither parent strives for excellence even in worldly matters?
How can a man fight the world, the flesh, the devil and save his soul -- which basically takes a certain amount of determination, excellence and heroism -- if he lacks the problem solving and brainstorming ability to merely eke out a living for himself in this world?
Notice I say a living, not raking in 6 figures. I think a man can easily support a family on $40K or $50K a year; possibly less depending on various factors (the area you live, your particular circuмstances, and your natural abilities). It just takes frugality and a certain detachment from the world.
-
Anecdotal evidence from a blowhard who has suggested for years that it's easy to earn six figures versus economic statistics.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/90473000-record-number-not-labor-force-almost-10m-under-obama
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/12/news/economy/median-income-poverty/index.html
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/median-wages-have-plummeted-since-1969.html
Face it Matthew, you let that person slander and malign people and it has nothing to do with worldly wisdom. It has to do with someone who is so petty that he complains about being downrated.
Mention aspects of your personal life and someone gets temp banned here.
Criticize too strongly your moderating and the posts are edited.
Weak excuse Matthew.
-
It's a very delicate topic. You have "good men" who are unemployed during hard times, even though they are hard working. My own father was in that situation during the early 80's.
So I wouldn't call him a lazy bum.
NEVERTHELESS -- objectively speaking, he was lacking that which he needed. You can be a good guy and still be ignorant of what you need to do to make a living in the world. Your parents could have been deficient in their training (certainly true in my dad's case).
It's also true that when there's 25% unemployment, the other 75% are employed! Who are those people? Those who slept with the boss? Maybe in a few cases, but usually not. The work world is simply more competitive during hard times, and those best equipped (skills, experience, drive) are GENERALLY SPEAKING going to succeed.
A "good hard working man" who can't make a living could be the result of parents who -- objectively speaking -- did a lousy job preparing their children to live on their own. They might have thrown their children into the world "sink or swim" style, without proper training and guidance how to problem solve, seek opportunities, deal with people, etc. Or they did their best -- what they thought was a good job -- instilling good "Baby Boomer" values in them. Too bad the Baby Boomer system is rotten, and certainly doesn't work anymore!
I'll give you a hint: TV and other time wasters are the bane of the successful. Such things waste time, and many successful men go without them for practical reasons, rather than spiritual/moral reasons. Now successful and worldly men might indulge in TV (for example) now that they're successful, but when they were younger and starting out, they would "do without many things, and for a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one." remember St. Paul's words? The pagans did tons of hard work and fasting just so they could win a race.
To get personal, I'm no stranger to time wasters. Even for those without a TV, there are ways to waste time. Amazon.com has movies on demand (free for Prime members), there's Youtube, and plenty of time-wasting websites. I've been caught wasting time at various points in my past.
Usually I do about "average" -- getting lots of things done (paid and unpaid), but wasting a little time here and there.
But for the past 1.5 months, I've been working on programming a video game with gazelle-like intensity. I can't believe how much I've done in the last 1.5 months. I worked on the game for about 3 1/2 months last year, but I can't believe how far I still had to go. I feel like I've improved or written almost the whole game in these past 7 weeks. In another few weeks, I'll have an 100% complete, polished, mostly bug-free game that I can sell for Android as well as desktop PCs.
I feel much better about myself these days, too.
I also advocate being creative about earning an income. I think a few part-time jobs (including working for yourself) is a more stable income than (1) 9-to-5 job working for "the man". I guess it depends on the person, though. Not everyone is cut out for self-employment. In this case like any other, self-knowledge is a good thing.
-
It's a very delicate topic.
When your situation comes up it becomes delicate. When some weirdo who has to get his kicks by picking on people in poor circuмstances tries to change thread after thread into "I'm rich, you're a poor trad loser" - there isn't any delicacy being displayed. It is vicious crassness that is being tolerated. Tolerated in someone who clearly holds an aversion to traditionalism and publicly casts doubt on the Catholic Faith, and mocks and ridicules the resistance priests.
If it's worth this person's supposedly valuable time to troll this forum some of us must be doing something right. Would it be better to earn minimum wage serving fast food? A man doesn't meet beautiful brilliant trad Catholic 18 year olds doing that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/us-incomes-falling-as-optimism-reaches-10-year-low_n_1022118.html
-
The days of the 9 to 5, 40 hour work week in a single job for 40 years are long gone for most of us. Unemployed does not mean lazy anymore. My parents who are in their mid and late 80s were about the last to not only survive, but thrive on the old model. Their offspring have more than twice the education and work twice the hours at multiple jobs with minimal or no benefits and no retirement in order to survive. It leaves little time for the spiritual, social, recreational.
2013 is indeed, a different world than the 1980s! In the long run, those who have to go without, improvise and will know about survival when the economy crashes.
-
If it's worth this person's supposedly valuable time to troll this forum some of us must be doing something right. Would it be better to earn minimum wage serving fast food? A man doesn't meet beautiful brilliant trad Catholic 18 year olds doing that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/us-incomes-falling-as-optimism-reaches-10-year-low_n_1022118.html
Would working be better than spending time on a forum? Fast food is an honest job and managers vary but if you are a half conscientious worker showing up on time & not calling in, they will give you the schedule you want. Usually you get 1/2 price food and they are on major streets/close shopping centers to get there by public transportation.
What does working or not have to do with meeting virgins?
-
Men who couldn't make some kind of financial stability for themselves prior to 2008 had to be either unmotivated to work hard or they have a sense of entitlement and don't want to start at the bottom and work their way up.
Again, I emphasize that this would be prior to the 2008 recession/depression we are now in. Even hard workers are broke and jobless.
As bad as the recession/depression is in the US of A and Europe it is still better than the economic peaks most countries of the world have experienced for the last 100 years. Personally I am amazed the FED and various governments have limited the damaging effects as much as they have. So far the cassandras have been wrong or way off on their doomsday timing. The dollar has not collapsed and Gold and Silver have not gone through the roof. House prices have not collapse in the UK and interest rates are insanely low.
Let's not pretend it is Mad Max out there, or that the late 1980s early 1990s when I was starting out was a cake walk in the UK economy. There is always a boom/bust cycle.
If you cannot find gainful employment as a white native of your country, even today, then what are you going to do if the economy REALLY does collapse and they cancel all government services, welfare, food stamps as happened in Egypt and other collapsed economies like Argentina, Zimbabwe, Weimar Germany?
You'll then be competing for work with people who up until then have been long term employed and have skills, knowledge, experience and CONTACTS that you don't. They will blow you out of the water at the job interview stage. Their CV will look so much more impressive than yours.
In a economic slump where the GDP shrank 30% (i.e. bread queues and soup kitchens on ever street) why would the opportunities for the limited work be won by people who could not (would not) find a job in better times? They won't. There is work out there and plenty of opportunity if you are prepared to self-learn, adapt, try, fail, pick yourself up and try again.
James03 at SD works in North Dakota and says they are hiring anyone with a pulse and half a brain up there for double or triple min wage. Go North!
Heck if you think it is really THAT bad, then start a business improving resumes or a blog advising people how to find work.
For those who genuinely want to know, THIS is why I want "someone like" ggreg as a member of CathInfo.
My favorite part I put in bold.
I disagree with him about many things -- he isn't what I would consider the perfect balance between ideals and pragmatism (he skews too far toward the "worldly" in my opinion) -- but he has a lot of good advice to offer the gaggle of idealistic, unemployed, or underemployed Trads out there. For many of these impoverished Trads, it's not their fault. Their baby boomer parents often haven't trained them very well for life in the 2010's. They really don't know what to do.
I completely agree with him on stuff like this. If there were a real collapse, would the currently unemployed get any of the few jobs that were left? Of course not. It's always survival of the fittest.
Catholics -- and everyone else -- need to learn how to set goals and overcome obstacles. Some people are better at this than others. I also agree that each decade is different, and presents its own challenges. The way to "make it" in 2013 is different than in the 1980's.
There are things that are always a good idea (network with others, give away a small part of your work to spread the word, work hard, etc.) and there are other things you can do in each particular situation.
I suppose it's difficult for some people to put their Faith first, and despise the evils in "the world" in general, while still pursuing excellence in their worldly careers, pursuits, etc.
But how can you raise saints (who are excellent in their service of God) if they never see excellence anywhere in their home life? If homeschooling is done in a slipshod and disorganized manner, and neither parent strives for excellence even in worldly matters?
How can a man fight the world, the flesh, the devil and save his soul -- which basically takes a certain amount of determination, excellence and heroism -- if he lacks the problem solving and brainstorming ability to merely eke out a living for himself in this world?
Notice I say a living, not raking in 6 figures. I think a man can easily support a family on $40K or $50K a year; possibly less depending on various factors (the area you live, your particular circuмstances, and your natural abilities). It just takes frugality and a certain detachment from the world.
Greg is a pragmatist, he asks what is the cash value of 'excellence', not what is it worth for its own sake.
-
Why not let the "youngsters" discuss their own contemporary dating/courtship issues and if they want advice from those of us who have been married and have children, I am sure they will ask, ggreg.
Good idea.