Author Topic: Lawful Authority of a Father (Read 13919 times)

MaterDominici · « **on:** March 23, 2011, 11:58:58 PM »

So, a father raises his daughter and she finally reaches the ripe old age of 18. He, of course, has an opinion on what she should and shouldn't do with her life.

What are his rights as a father in determining her path?
What are his responsibilities?
What is he simply not allowed to do? Anything?

This would be according to the Church, of course, not the American legal system.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #1 on:** March 24, 2011, 12:00:00 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

So, a father raises his daughter and she finally reaches the ripe old age of 18. He, of course, has an opinion on what she should and shouldn't do with her life.

What are his rights as a father in determining her path?
What are his responsibilities?
What is he simply not allowed to do? Anything?

This would be according to the Church, of course, not the American legal system.

I don't know what he should do, but I know he shouldn't claim to have a veto power over who his daughter is allowed to speak to.

LM · « **Reply #2 on:** March 24, 2011, 08:46:47 AM »

Quote from: MaterDominici

So, a father raises his daughter and she finally reaches the ripe old age of 18. He, of course, has an opinion on what she should and shouldn't do with her life.

What are his rights as a father in determining her path?
What are his responsibilities?
What is he simply not allowed to do? Anything?

This would be according to the Church, of course, not the American legal system.

A father does not loose the right to counsel the daughter even when she reaches the age of 18. Depending on the circuмstances, it could well be irresponsible for the father not to counsel the daughter. She can choose whether or not to follow the father's counsel.

Matthew · « **Reply #3 on:** March 24, 2011, 10:17:41 AM »

Tele, here's something that hasn't been brought up yet.

Ok, you want your 18-year-old spouse to dismiss her father's wishes -- who clearly doesn't want her dating you. To this end, you quote Church teaching, St. Thomas, etc.

But you're really missing a vital point here: If you want her to (respectfully, I hope!) disobey her father to follow the "higher path" of pursuing marriage with you, you'd BETTER be REALLY well established, because you'll need to pay for an apartment for her to live in until you're married!

Long story short: Even if a woman can oppose her father in certain cases, she most certainly can't while she's under his roof. Children must not only respect their parents, but obey them as well, while they still live under their roof. She is welcome to leave home at 18, and then do whatever she wants.

If she is "of age" according to the Church, that just PROVES what I'm saying. A person "of age" is only living with their parents for their own convenience, and there is a certain contract between them and their parents. It is just that the father who provides for his 19-year-old physically gets a bit more say over that (adult) child's life than if she were on her own.

You think to think about that one for a few minutes, deeply. How could she (or any woman) oppose her father on a daily basis, while telling him, "Oh, and I'm going to live here, and you'll keep feeding and clothing me." Sorry; it doesn't work that way. You don't get some kind of "best of both worlds" where you're an adult as regards obedience, but a child as regards who supports you.

Matthew

Telesphorus · « **Reply #4 on:** March 24, 2011, 03:57:35 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

but obey them as well, while they still live under their roof. She is welcome to leave home at 18, and then do whatever she wants.

Matthew - it's clear that living at home does not give a father a right to decide who a girl may speak to. In the past nearly all women lived at home until they married - obviously that didn't give their fathers the right to forbid contact with suitors - St. Thomas said slaves were free to marry against their masters wishes, and certainly a slave is totally dependent on his master.

Why do I insist it is so clear and obvious? Suppose a young woman was interested in the religious life, but her father forbade her to talk to religious orders about it? Would have have the authority to do so, because she was living under his roof?

Absolutely not.

Remember that Joan Scholastica was told by SSPX priests to wait for parental permission before becoming a novice! These SSPX priests are seriously in error.

St. Thomas said the freedom to marry is like the freedom to enter a religious order. So the pretense that the father controls all the girl's allowable contacts so long as she lives at home simply doesn't stand up.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #5 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:03:00 PM »

Quote from: LM

A father does not loose the right to counsel the daughter even when she reaches the age of 18. Depending on the circuмstances, it could well be irresponsible for the father not to counsel the daughter. She can choose whether or not to follow the father's counsel.

And of course, the claim is made, dishonestly, that it was just counsel, and not an order.

Listen, it's not "counsel" to tell a girl not to even say "hello"

That has nothing to do with wisdom. It's not "counsel" to tell your daughter to lie. To tell your daughter to deny ever doing or feeling anything.

That's poisonous sinful advice from a sick man.

Matthew · « **Reply #6 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:24:47 PM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Matthew
but obey them as well, while they still live under their roof. She is welcome to leave home at 18, and then do whatever she wants.

Matthew - it's clear that living at home does not give a father a right to decide who a girl may speak to. In the past nearly all women lived at home until they married - obviously that didn't give their fathers the right to forbid contact with suitors - St. Thomas said slaves were free to marry against their masters wishes, and certainly a slave is totally dependent on his master.

Why do I insist it is so clear and obvious? Suppose a young woman was interested in the religious life, but her father forbade her to talk to religious orders about it? Would have have the authority to do so, because she was living under his roof?

Absolutely not.

Remember that Joan Scholastica was told by SSPX priests to wait for parental permission before becoming a novice! These SSPX priests are seriously in error.

St. Thomas said the freedom to marry is like the freedom to enter a religious order. So the pretense that the father controls all the girl's allowable contacts so long as she lives at home simply doesn't stand up.

If she wanted to join a religious order, that is fine. First of all, she would be right and her father would be wrong. However, with romantic relationships the parents are almost always right, as they always see things more clearly than the starry-eyed couple.

Second of all, joining a religious order means you leave the house, so no problem there.

Likewise, marrying someone against your father's wishes is fine, as long as you're marrying him and not just talking to a guy against the father's wishes.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #7 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:29:31 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

If she wanted to join a religious order, that is fine. First of all, she would be right and her father would be wrong.

Second of all, joining a religious order means you leave the house, so no problem there.

How do you know the father is wrong? Maybe she is not suited for the religious life and is deceiving herself? The bottom line is that the father has absolutely no right to forbid contact with the religious order just because she's under his roof.

Quote

However, with romantic relationships the parents are almost always right, as they always see things more clearly than the starry-eyed couple.

I'm sorry, but saying "they're almost always right" is not a license to forbid all contact, conversation. That has nothing to do with making the right choice. If a father's criterion for rejecting a suitor is that he thinks he gets to decide who is daughter sees, and when she will marry, and thinks that an age difference is too much, that doesn't mean he's right. It means he's wrong - wrong about his authority, wrong about what is reasonable, and wrong about the arbitrary standards he sets for the acceptability of his daughter's suitor.

Quote

Likewise, marrying someone against your father's wishes is fine, as long as you're marrying him and not just talking to a guy against the father's wishes.

So a girl is free to marry who she wants, just not to talk to anyone her father disapproves of so long as she's at home?

That's totally nullifying the spirit of the law. It's no different than a father forbidding his daughter to speak to a religious order. If a girl can't speak to anyone about religion she can't become religious - if a girl can't speak to the suitor of her choice she can't marry the man she chooses.

Matthew · « **Reply #8 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:38:53 PM »

Tele, a father can (and should) kick out any daughter who disobeys him. If the father believes in something (even though his opinion is fallible), he should act on it. It's his responsibility. In exchange, he has to answer to God for any mistakes he made in this regard.

It's part of living under your parent's roof past the age of 18.

Like I said, you can't have this magical fairly-land zone where you get to be an adult, with all its freedom and privileges, with all the "good parts" of childhood thrown in (no responsibilities, free room & board).

I think that's what's wrong with America today. The teen years -- extending on into the twenties in some cases -- are just TOO awesome to give up. I have a brother who's 20, and he doesn't want to move out on an "entry level" job, because he wouldn't have any fun money left over.

The teen years are awesome because you can have fun like an adult, but have no responsibility like other children. It's a best-of-both-worlds for them, and prevents many a lad (and lass) from properly growing up.

Matthew · « **Reply #9 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:41:08 PM »

Is it just that you pay taxes, which go to pay for abortions? But everyone has to pay taxes -- the only way out is to leave the country.

Same with a family. You have to follow the rules, or leave. A young man or woman can't be some kind of parasite that opposes his/her father with his own money and resources. That would be the opposite of just.

If following the rules results in an injustice to anyone -- God will sort it out at the father's particular judgment and the General Judgment.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #10 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:47:09 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

Same with a family. You have to follow the rules, or leave. A young man or woman can't be some kind of parasite that opposes his/her father with his own money and resources. That would be the opposite of just.

Matthew, seeking a spouse is not parasitism.

Let's recall again what St. Thomas said:

Quote

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.

The father who thinks he owns his daughter and decides who she may or not marry has a completely skewed view of things - as does a father who could possibly see it as "parasitism" if his daughter speaks to man he disapproves of.

If you read that book on colonial Mexico it shows that parents who tried to disinherit children who married against their will would lose in court - until the laws the were changed.

Matthew · « **Reply #11 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:50:14 PM »

And, Tele, you need to realize that the father is not forbidding her to say "hello" to you. That might be a figure of speech, but you're not a 50 year old WOMAN or something -- you're a relatively young, single man -- a suitor.

He doesn't want you marrying his daughter, and he's willing to put his authority (and personal judgment) on the line. That's his prerogative.

If you ever get married and have children, you'll wish there was some way to guide your daughter, even when she's weak and/or stupid, to save her from a lifetime of misery.

He's not forbidding his daughter from thanking the cashier at the grocery store -- he's forbidding courtship/marriage to a specific individual for his own reasons. Marriage is a serious business, one that a father must take seriously. It's his duty before God. If his daughter marries a bad choice it could cost her everything -- even her salvation. And if the father saw it coming but did/said nothing -- it could cost HIM his salvation as well.

You're purely looking at this from the suitor's point of view -- 100%.

Matthew · « **Reply #12 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:53:52 PM »

Tele, we're talking apples and oranges here.

Once she marries, a father might as well support her in her decision -- she's not going to change her mind, nor can she if she married in the Church.

Matthew · « **Reply #13 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:55:45 PM »

Ok, Tele -- let's turn this thing on its ear.

You're married with an 18 year old daughter. She thinks you're a reactionary fuddy-duddy for not letting her have any "friends". She wants to date (yes, date, not court -- make-out sessions and all) the boys in the neighborhood.

What can you -- or should you -- do to prevent this?

Is it just too bad for you? You have no authority, influence, or bully pulpit to wield against a foolish daughter that I described?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #14 on:** March 24, 2011, 04:56:20 PM »

Quote from: Matthew

He doesn't want you marrying his daughter, and he's willing to put his authority (and personal judgment) on the line. That's his prerogative.

Matthew, he's free to have his own preference but he's not free to bind his daughter.

Quote

If you ever get married and have children, you'll wish there was some way to guide your daughter, even when she's weak and/or stupid, to save her from a lifetime of misery.

I'm not going to pretend that forbidding talking to a man is "saving her from a lifetime of misery." And I resent the implication that I am a "lifetime of misery." The bottom line is it's not his decision to make - whether she lives at home or not.

Quote

He's not forbidding his daughter from thanking the cashier at the grocery store -- he's forbidding courtship/marriage to a specific individual for his own reasons. Marriage is a serious business, one that a father must take seriously. It's his duty before God. If his daughter marries a bad choice it could cost her everything -- even her salvation. And if the father saw it coming but did/said nothing -- it could cost HIM his salvation as well.

The idea that it's acceptable to cut off all contact with a suitor - tell her to lie about the way she acted and her feelings - refuse to let her say one kind word to the suitor - it is depraved. It has nothing to do with protecting his daughter - at all. It's all about pride. And he doesn't have the authority to forbid contact. If he has the authority to forbid contact then the girl has no right to marry who she wants - that right is not forbidden because she lives at home - just as slaves had the right to marry who they wanted - even though they were under their master's roof.

Quote

You're purely looking at this from the suitor's point of view -- 100%.

Wrong - I'm pointing out what the Church teaches.

And the SSPX priests put that second.