Author Topic: Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.  (Read 2225 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Raoul76

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4814
  • Reputation: +2007/-4
  • Gender: Male
Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
« on: March 22, 2011, 09:37:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Tele, I took a look at that book To Love, Honor and Obey in Colonial Mexico ( admittedly, only a couple pages, then I got angry ), and I'm not buying your thesis about the connection between what you consider Spanish anti-clerical machismo and Judeo-Masonic, feminist liberalism.

    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.  

    Number one, I don't even know if this is true or not, I want to see Catholic sources.  I used to read secular university books and Novus Ordo books and they are very good at planting subtle errors in your head.  I remember reading one that talked about how St. Augustine would be against NFP if he were alive today, which really set me off on my road to home-aloneism.  

    Secondly, if it is true, then by taking control of marriages and restricting them, the Spanish -- however clumsily -- only intended to form a bulwark against the liberalism that has exploded full bloom into the America you see around you today.  So you have it all backwards.  The Spanish were trying to stop what later became feminism, what later become Zionism, all forms of liberalism, all these things that flowed like a pustulant river after the decay of the Catholic aristocracy.  

    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.  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.

    I'm not saying there was anything wrong with the priesthood in Spain in this case, because I don't trust this book.  All I can say is, I have never heard the Church rebuke Spain for being "anti-clerical."  Please give me another source besides this book.  

    *************

    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.  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?  It is the aristocracy and monarchy that truly stood against Jewish designs, 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.  

    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 ham-fisted, overly suffocating and less-than-ideal way, you call them "anti-clerical."  But then you complain when you end up having to live with the results -- modern-day Judeo-Masonic democracy.  

    How did this Spanish "machismo" POSSIBLY lead to feminism, what is the link?  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.  

    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.  
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Caraffa

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 836
    • Reputation: +475/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #1 on: March 22, 2011, 09:42:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • A few side notes on Spanish Machismo:

    1. It was not necessarily like the Machismo that we think of today.
    2. It did not exist all throughout Spain. It was located mostly in Southern Spain and Andalusia.
    Pray for me, always.


    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #2 on: March 22, 2011, 09:47:50 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Okay, so Tele is right that the Church gives eighteen-year olds the right to flout their parents and choose who they want to marry.   In this case, he has the quote from Leo XIII to back it up.

    But this book he's reading struck me, from what little I read, as being extremely liberal in outlook and not a trustworthy source.  The tone of it all is "Look what jerks the Spanish were and how they were so unenlightened compared to us today when we can do whatever we want."  This is the general tenor of most "scholarly" books today that come out of these disgusting Judeo-Masonic colleges.  I don't know why Tele is promoting it.  

    There is nothing anti-clerical about trying to preserve bloodlines.  If the clerics were trying to stand in the way of that, they were not speaking for the Church.  As far as being against mixed-race marriages go, I have read that the Spanish CLERICS were against that -- but that was in a secular book too  :guitar:

    This book is not enough proof for me to be able to judge who was really being anti-clerical.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Caraffa

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 836
    • Reputation: +475/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #3 on: March 22, 2011, 09:49:09 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    How did this Spanish "machismo" POSSIBLY lead to feminism, what is the link?


    It can lead to a double standard which women then rebel against.

    Quote
    because you Irish are the most liberal of the liberal of Catholics


    Raoul that's a bit unfair. Men such as Fr Fahey, Fr. Cahill, and most of the Irish Hierarchy in Ireland were not liberals.
    Pray for me, always.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #4 on: March 22, 2011, 09:52:21 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Yeah, I suggested that in my post.  But it's a major stretch.  That's like saying "Everyone who isn't an absolutely perfect Catholic and who never makes mistakes is responsible for feminism and Zionism and Judeo-Masonry."
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #5 on: March 22, 2011, 09:56:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    Quote
     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.

    Quote
    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.

    Quote
     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.

    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    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.  

     
    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    ( 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.

    Quote
    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.  

     
    Quote
    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."

     
    Quote
    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.

    Quote
    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.  

    Quote
    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.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #6 on: March 22, 2011, 10:04:14 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Protestants also attacked freedom to marry.  The bourgeoisie would have found this appealing.

    Offline Caminus

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3015
    • Reputation: +1/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #7 on: March 22, 2011, 10:13:10 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I get a kick out of tying plain old emotions of a father to a grand historical scheme of evil forces against the Church.  Ever thought there might be a simpler cause?  The fact that you've convinced yourself that this is the true motive is also troubling.  Very little grasp of human nature.  

    And that quote from Leo again please.  Was he considering a girl who still lived under her father's care, that depended upon him for all her material needs?  If there is still that psychological and material bond, you're not going to budge it, especially when you start asserting yours and hers "right."  If you would have waited another year, that all would have started to wear off.  Eighteen is the cusp, it's a gray area for families.      


    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #8 on: March 22, 2011, 10:16:01 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Caminus
    I get a kick out of tying plain old emotions of a father to a grand historical scheme of evil forces against the Church.  Ever thought there might be a simpler cause?  The fact that you've convinced yourself that this is the true motive is also troubling.  Very little grasp of human nature.  


    Caminus, the dictatorial way in which he acts has roots in history.  Now some people want to claim that it's perfectly Catholic to act that way - they want Catholic to think it's right for fathers to bind their daughter's choice of spouse.  I'm simply explaining how it came to be that the Latin cultures came to accept this reversal of Catholic practice.

    Quote
    And that quote from Leo again please.  Was he considering a girl who still lived under her father's care, that depended upon him for all her material needs?  If there is still that psychological and material bond, you're not going to budge it, especially when you start asserting yours and hers "right."  If you would have waited another year, that all would have started to wear off.  Eighteen is the cusp, it's a gray area for families.      


    Caminus, not that family.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #9 on: March 22, 2011, 10:16:24 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What are you, The Flash?  How did you cut-and-paste my entire post in the 30 seconds you had before I edited it?  If you go back and read it, I took out some of the more inflammatory stuff, as I'm wont to do.

    I confess my ignorance about this "freedom to marry" concept, and duly submit to your greater knowledge, as you have clearly been studying.  If you'll allow me to ask, how exactly does this square with arranged royal marriages?  If a princess wanted to marry a stable boy in 14th century France, something tells me she wasn't free to do that.

    I am always ready to submit to the Church, but this doesn't make sense to me.

    The reason I bring up the nobility and bloodlines is because, in the chapter you linked to, one of the goals of the "Royal Pragmatic" was said to be to protect the aristocracy, by stopping what they felt were unsuitable marriages, not only for reasons of race but for reasons of class.

    As far as I know, the Church has never been against arranged marriages for the aristocracy.  And isn't that what this is?  

    You tell me to read the book, I am telling you I smell secular propaganda.  I will do my own research on the Royal Pragmatic.  
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #10 on: March 22, 2011, 10:19:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    You tell me to read the book, I am telling you I smell secular propaganda.  I will do my own research on the Royal Pragmatic.  


    Sure, there's propaganda involved - but it's based on court records.

    You know the Pope helped Franz Ferdinand get married to his wife too - even though it meant his issue would not get the crown.



    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #11 on: March 22, 2011, 10:28:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Telesphorus said:
    Quote
    You know the Pope helped Franz Ferdinand get married to his wife too - even though it meant his issue would not get the crown.


    Proof.  I want proof and want it now!

    If that is true, it just goes to show you, Popes aren't perfect in their every decision.  That was a mistake.  I gather it was St. Pius X, I don't care, it was still a mistake.  Cardinal Merry del Val said he made a mistake on changing the age of First Communion so it's not as if I'm not allowed to disagree with Pius X on something, and words cannot express how MAJORLY I disagree with that one.  

    If royalty really has freedom to marry, so be it, that doesn't mean that they can't make stupid decisions that are irresponsible and endanger their countries.

    Leo XIII, Arcanum --

    Quote
    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;


    That leaves some leeway, Tele.
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Caraffa

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 836
    • Reputation: +475/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #12 on: March 22, 2011, 10:31:51 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    Yeah, I suggested that in my post.  But it's a major stretch.  That's like saying "Everyone who isn't an absolutely perfect Catholic and who never makes mistakes is responsible for feminism and Zionism and Judeo-Masonry."


    It is a fact Raoul that male hypocrisy was one of the factors that opened the door for feminism. You're probably not familiar with someone like Sor Juana are you?
    Pray for me, always.

    Offline Raoul76

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4814
    • Reputation: +2007/-4
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #13 on: March 22, 2011, 10:38:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Why not say God opened a door for Satan by being so good that Satan just had to rebel?

    Why not just blame Catholicism itself for pushing people away since its rules are too harsh, no fornication, no remarriage?

    The line between righteous and too-harsh is a very fine one, cut the Spaniards some slack.  Of all who are to blame for feminism, that is about the least likely candidate.  I have no doubt some feminists have used "mean old Spanish machos" as an excuse to do what they do, but if they didn't have that excuse, they'd have another.  That is what rebels do.  Rebels who must be crushed by the force of Spanish mig --

    I'd better stop there, I don't want to trigger a feminist backlash here on CathInfo.  
    As I was a new convert when posting here, my posts are often full of error, even unwitting heresy and rash judgment, all of which I renounce, and all my writings are best avoided -- MDLS

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12714
    • Reputation: +7/-12
    • Gender: Male
    Tele and his "Theory" about Machismo.
    « Reply #14 on: March 22, 2011, 10:40:52 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Raoul76
    Leo XIII, Arcanum --


    Quote
    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;


    I changed the emphasis Raoul.  Children are not bound to obey parents in such matters - that's what St. Thomas Aquinas says.

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16