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 ʝʊdɛօ-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 Jєωs 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 Jєωιѕн 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 ʝʊdɛօ-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.  

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 ʝʊdɛօ-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.

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 ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry."

Protestants also attacked freedom to marry.  The bourgeoisie would have found this appealing.

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.

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.

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.

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 ʝʊdɛօ-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?

Leo XIII, Arcanum --

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.