Is that book even written by a Catholic? I doubt it. The theme seems to be that the Spanish nobility was trying to survive in its twilight, and so it was banning marriages it felt were inappropriate for reasons of class and / or race.
Raoul, I searched for "Royal Pragmatic" and inadvertently sent you to the chapter about interracial marriage.
Number one, I don't even know if this is true or not, I want to see Catholic sources.
It's based on court records. Parents who attempted to disinherit children for marrying against their will were thwarted, and priests arranged for secret marriages and dispensation of the banns when parental hostility threatened a union.
Secondly, if it is true, it has nothing to do with machismo.
Au contraire - the idea that the men in a Latin family will beat the hell out of someone who tries to court one of the daughters without their consent is the definition of machismo.
Taking control of marriages was, so they thought, a bulwark against the liberalism that has exploded full bloom into the America you see around you today.
No, they were attacking the Church and its teachings on freedom to marry. Read the book. Liberalism is against marriage Raoul - if in the 18th Century it sometimes supported patriarchy it was not because it supported marriage. In the same way the "Enlightened Despots" sought to increase their power through applying "Reason" to government - but those "enlightened" advisors who set thme on this course were not really interested in protecting monarchy - despite the hypocritical claims of those who said they were aiding their sovereign against the interference of the clergy.
They may have gone too far or been too rigid in trying to stem this decay. But let's face it -- the priesthood becomes corrupt at times, and the government steps in.
No Raoul, the Church always supported freedom to marry. This was very annoying to the rising bourgeoisie. In the old days the nobles could have used force, and those who were not were free.
This has happened constantly throughout history. It sounds very pious to say "Oh, how dare they stand up against the priests," but think of the plagues of simony, of absentee bishops. Even then, it may not be right to stand up against the clergy, and to appoint your own bishops, as happened in France with the Gallicans. But it is understandable.
Read it from the beginning Raoul. I sent you to the wrong chapter.
You just want what you want, and whatever stands in the way of that, you call anti-Catholic.
Raoul, it's anti-Catholic to deny what the Church teaches about freedom to marry. And the Royal Pragmatic was definitely directed at the Church.
In this case, you aren't wrong to be attracted to a young woman, so I have nothing to say against you. But please don't bring the Spaniards into your list of enemies.
I'm not a liberal Catholic. Raoul - the King of Spain clamped down on freedom to marry in order to enforce parental will - that's not Catholic - it's anti-Catholic.
You are speaking ill-advisedly and with lots of hypocrisy, because you Irish are the most liberal of the liberal of Catholics, generally speaking. You went right along with the Jews in many ways -- what bigger supporters of democracy and "freedom" are there among the Catholic ranks than the Irish?
I'm 1/4 Irish Raoul. Please don't take my criticism of machismo as being a sign of hatred for Spanish people. I don't like liberal Irish, and I don't like arrogant cockerel gaited Latins either.
It is the aristocracy and monarchy that truly stood against Jewish designs,
No they did not. The combined Estates General could not have formed without a large number of priests and nobles conspiring with the revolutionaries.
and yet here you are raging against the nobility trying to protect itself, which you call machismo, and somehow, through some massive leap of logic, tie this little bit of Tele-revisionist history in with a Puerto Rican guy trying to bar you from seeing his daughter.
Did you know in Puerto Rico a girl cannot marry without the father's consent until she is 21? I've simply looked up what St. Thomas said, what Leo XIII said, what the Church has taught. I've found out that the Spanish state attempted to impose on the Church.
You're trying to have it both ways. You approve of the levelling process whereby all distinctions of class and race are abolished, and when the Spanish nobility tries to stop this, perhaps in a clumsy and less-than-ideal way, you call them "anti-clerical."
Nonsense. Was St. Thomas Aquinas a leveler? He's the one who said that children were free to marry who they wanted because all men are created equal.
( There is nothing anti-clerical about trying to preserve the aristocracy! ) But then you complain when you end up having to live with the results -- modern-day Judeo-Masonic democracy.
Raoul, it is anti-clerical to attack the Church and its handling of marriage. It is anti-Catholic to impose parental will on children in marriage.
I see a metaphor of this in the way you talk about the girl and her father. You call him "that Puerto Rican" yet if he is her father, she is at least half Puerto Rican. Obviously your loins know no race, but I can detect some racism underneath nevertheless.
I am not ashamed of being racially conscious.
You are supporting a certain form of liberalism on the one hand, and then complaining about it with the other. To add insult to injury, you blame the conservatives for being the liberals.
Yes, I certainly do. I blame conservatives for supporting Zionist wars, for supporting fake conservatives like the Republicans, for resorting to feminist inspired laws to punish males they don't like, for having ambitions for their daughters that put marriage second, and for thinking they have rights they don't because they're "conservative."
How did this Spanish "machismo" POSSIBLY lead to feminism, what is the link?
The link is hypocrisy. The crass double standard of the Latin male - leads to a society dominated by masons with religious women - that leads to feminism and Marxism.
The only link could be that the Spanish were so strict and made so many people rebel, that these people became liberals, in the way that kids rebel against overly strict Catholic parents.
Yes, in one respect it is like that.
I don't mean to start bad blood between us, but you have irritated me with your blanket statements about Spain and your pretentious belief you have drawn some connection between the Spanish nobility and modern feminism, which is just wrong and needs to be corrected. Modern feminism is a wild swing in the opposite direction.
I never drew the Spanish nobility into this at all.
LOL you are touchy.
The Spanish king clamped down on freedom of marriages and attacked the Church to do it. No Catholic can support that.