Forced on the children.  That's unjust no matter how you sugar coat it. 

So the Church has some instruction were families can choose this sort of life.  Please educate me where married couples can go to legally enter such arrangements. 
Wouldn't it be easier to make a law against marriage or that children must be given to the religous.

Actually you have to answer the tough questions in order to come to the truth of any matter.  I think that's the prudent way to approach controversy.

You asked no question to start this whole mess. You slung names and slander. Gray asked the questions. But thanks for allowing the truth of the matter to come to light. Hopefully now more people understand exactly the *who* of the individuals involved in the Fr. Feeney debacle, and how this is integral to the entire nature of the crisis we are dealing with instead of sticking one's head in the sand and saying "1950's hierarchy were the good guys and Fr. Feeney should have trusted them for a fair hearing!" And the truth of the matter was that his excommunication had nothing to do with BOD or BOB. That all came later. Facts are hard.

You aren't following the logic or the argument here, and are letting your feelings get in the way. A trad in this very thread, just a few posts up, posted the link to THIS.  Mark is presenting this notion as Church teaching.

"The same in its own degree must be asserted of the Church, in as far as she is the general help to salvation. Therefore, that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing.

However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

The Baptism of Desire as held by St. Alphonsus and others was not some implicit, vague desire to do what God wants and be a good person. Does God, as it says in your catechism, give all men the graces they need to come to the fullness of truth  or doesn't He?

Exactly. Look at the words of Fr. Feeney himself, the actual docuмents involved in the debacle, the lives of those who "disciplined" him, and the results of what they did. Don't just trust the trad clergy on this because most of them had their opinions on it formed by Fr. Laisney and they are misinformed at best and malicious at worst. The only group that uses "Feeneyite" to mean denial of BOD/BOB are trads. The rest of the world understand it as holding that "There is No Salvation Outside the Church." Even wikipedia defines it in this way because that's the way that any NO clergy mean it when they say it. They, at least, are honest that the case was not about BOD/BOB but about Church doctrine.  BOD/BOB wasn't an issue in the excommunication at all. It came later.  Cardinal Avery Dulles, who later succuмbed to modernism but was involved in the Center early on wrote of Fr. Feeney: He was convinced that Catholics must not hesitate to present the full challenge of the Gospel, which for him included the whole system of official dogma. He felt that too many tended, out of politeness and timidity, to evade the task of forthright witness. As long as any person was alive, Father Feeney used to say, we should urge the necessity of his accepting the fullness of the faith. But after death, the situation was different. We could confidently leave our loved ones to the unfathomable mercy of God, to which we could set no limits. “I would infinitely rather be judged by God,” Father Feeney would say, “than by my closest friend.” Isn't that nuts?

But in the minds of the average NO Catholic, or Catholic in the pew in the 1950's, Fr. Feeney invented the idea that there was no salvation outside the Church and that's a heresy and he was excommunicated for it.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/no-salvation-outside-the-church  This is the Novus Ordo religion and it happened before V2. That the Father Feeney case changed Catholic understanding of the necessity of the Church for salvation is undeniable. The irony here is that Fr. Cekada, any of the SSPX priests, etc... would all be radical Feeneyites under interdict if you transported them back in time to Boston, 1952. They certainly would not agree with 'Fr.' Ryland or 'Fr.' Most or Karl Rahner's interpretations of this doctrine.

https://x.com/RorateCaeli/status/928318989582905344?prefetchTimestamp=1729182565332.

From biography of Bobby Kennedy: "Back in his undergraduate days, he joined other Harvard Catholics at lectures by Fr. Leonard Feeney, an influential Jesuit priest who warned that the Jєωs "are trying to take over this city" and preached that only Catholics could be saved. Bobby was embarrassed enough by those diatribes to discuss them with his brother Ted and his father, who arranged for him to meet with Archbishop Richard Cushing to convey his concern. Even a Kennedy found it difficult to confront a prelate in those days, and Bobby's courage likely played a role in Feeney's eventual expulsion from his order and excommunication from the church."

Side note: it took no courage for Bobby to talk to "Uncle Richard." He was over at the Kennedy compound for drinks with Joe all the time.

Fr. Feeney was a threat to Kennedy political aspirations. You can't get people to vote for you if you tell them they are part of a false religion. This is also detailed in Ted Kennedy's autobiography where he brags about how his family took out Fr. Feeney and the Kennedy family's role in "changing Church doctrine." Go check it out in the library. And then ask yourself if what the Kennedy's hated Fr. Feeney for and persecuted him for was BOD. No, it wasn't. It was EENS. Would you have had the courage to stand up and say "Hang on, this actually IS what the Church teaches! Look at Trent! Look at Florence!" Those professors at Boston College did just that. And they put their names to it. And they lost their livelihoods and reputations for recognizing the creeping liberalism that was happening in Catholic higher education. Fr. Feeney didn't invent anything. He stuck up for them like a good father would do. Like every priest in Boston should have. Those are real men, but you give us an anonymous lawyer who wasn't there and has clearly cherry-picked information. Just don't.

And that's what is so insane about the position of these trads who want to continue to mudsling the man. Even the words of his enemies at the time exonerate him, but we are supposed to trust clerics who came along decades later and know the real story? Please.

(Read this with a sad tone) But what would St. Alphonsus say today?  Where are the Graces today?  If this is the case then millions of souls are falling into hell daily by their own fault because there is always sufficient grace.  How is that a loving God, to allow soooo many choices that we hang ourself spiritually?