Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Raoul76 on March 22, 2011, 09:37:21 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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."
-
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 Jєωs 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 Jєωιѕн 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 ʝʊdɛօ-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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Telesphorus said:
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 --
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Raoul - these traditional Latin societies were taken over and dominated by Freemasons. Another thing to remember is that duelling over insults and the code of honor was always something abhorrent to the Church.
If you want to know how violent anti-clericalism took over these countries you have to consider the paradox of a society where the men are duelling Freemasons and the women are devout.
-
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 --
No one's blaming the Spanish.
Another thing to remember is that duelling over insults and the code of honor was always something abhorrent to the Church.
Dueling over honor and family honor are not the same thing if that is what you're alluding too (I'm not sure that you are). Dueling over honor and insults existed more in Prussia and other Germanic lands in the 19th century.
-
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 --
No one's blaming the Spanish.
Another thing to remember is that duelling over insults and the code of honor was always something abhorrent to the Church.
Dueling over honor and family honor are not the same thing if that is what you're alluding too (I'm not sure that you are). Dueling over honor and insults existed more in Prussia and other Germanic lands in the 19th century.
I'm thinking more of Uomini d'Onore and Cavalleria Rusticana than I am of honor and loyalty in their positive sense.
-
Telesphorus said:
Children are not bound to obey parents in such matters - that's what St. Thomas Aquinas says.
Quote it. You're not backing up anything you say.
I'm sure there are some cases where the parents are being unjust, but it is a commandment to honor your parents, so their opinion carries some weight -- no? It's not to be discarded like a used-up snotrag at the sign of the first cute guy or girl that comes along, despite how you're acting. She was surely attracted to you, but you can't know she loves you, you simply did not go into enough depth with her.
Now you're bringing duelling into this? You're getting a little eccentric, making connections that aren't really there. This kind of fight about honor is not confined to Spanish or Latins, there were duels in France and elsewhere.
-
Here, let me sum it up for you Tele -- everything anti-Catholic that has ever existed, everything that is foul and unjust about humanity throughout history, conspired to keep you from this girl at SSPX.
-
Nevertheless man is bound to obey his fellow-man in things that have to be done externally by means of the body: and yet, since by nature all men are equal, he is not bound to obey another man in matters touching the nature of the body, for instance in those relating to the support of his body or the begetting of his children. Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like. But in matters concerning the disposal of actions and human affairs, a subject is bound to obey his superior within the sphere of his authority; for instance a soldier must obey his general in matters relating to war, a servant his master in matters touching the execution of the duties of his service, a son his father in matters relating to the conduct of his life and the care of the household; and so forth.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3104.htm
-
Telesphorus said:
Raoul - these traditional Latin societies were taken over and dominated by Freemasons.
What? They held out against Masons longer than France! Have you forgot about Viva Cristo Rey, or the Spanish cινιℓ ωαr. The Enlightenment was very slow to make inroads into Spain, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was PRECISELY BECAUSE of their strict paternalistic attitude.
You're babbling now.
-
St. Thomas said:
Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like.
That is about children being able to choose their own vocations, not about children flouting their parents when it comes to the choice of a mate.
Even then it didn't always work out that way. St. Rita obeyed her family who wanted her to be married, even though she didn't want to be. There are times to obey, and times not to obey. Are you sure that this 18-year old girl should have thrown over her family to run away with you?
-
What? They held out against Masons longer than France! Have you forgot about Viva Cristo Rey, or the Spanish cινιℓ ωαr.
The Latin American states that gained their independence were dominated by freemasons. Spain under Isabella II was dominated by liberals. It was only later that rabid murderous anti-clericalism grew out of that.
The Enlightenment was very slow to make inroads into Spain, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was PRECISELY BECAUSE of their strict paternalistic attitude.
What is the evidence that it was strict paternalism that limited the advance of the "Enlightenment" in Spain? You know the Spanish expelled the Jesuits in the 1770s.
You're babbling now.
Spanish speaking Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ has always been more virulent than French.
-
Are you sure that this 18-year old girl should have thrown over her family to run away with you?
I'm sure she should have been allowed to talk to me like a normal human being.
-
Spain had a Catholic government longer than almost any other country, they held out up until Vatican II. Then with one phone call from Paul VI, it was all over.
Telesphorus said:
What is the evidence that it was strict paternalism that limited the advance of the "Enlightenment" in Spain. You know the Spanish expelled the Jesuits in the 1770s.
There is none, that's why I said "I wouldn't be surprised" if that is what held back the forces of liberalism in Spain, along with the fact that the Spaniards are not brainiacs like the French. It was books and ideas that really undid the French.
But Spanish people are "narrow" and simple in a certain way that protected them, in my opinion. You don't hear of Spain as a nation of intellectuals, and intellectuals created the Enlightenment. Who is the Spanish Voltaire?
I admit I don't know much about Masonry in Spain. I've read books about Masonry, though, and it is always mentioned as having its strongest presence in Germany and France. Spain never even gets mentioned.
-
St. Thomas said:
Wherefore servants are not bound to obey their masters, nor children their parents, in the question of contracting marriage or of remaining in the state of virginity or the like.
That is about children being able to choose their own vocations, not about children flouting their parents when it comes to the choice of a mate.
Reply to Objection 1. 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. Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another's power without her father's consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent's consent.
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5045.htm
-
Spain had a Catholic government longer than almost any other country, they held out up until Vatican II. Then with one phone call from Paul VI, it was all over.
Telesphorus said:
What is the evidence that it was strict paternalism that limited the advance of the "Enlightenment" in Spain. You know the Spanish expelled the Jesuits in the 1770s.
There is none, that's why I said "I wouldn't be surprised" if that is what held back the forces of liberalism in Spain, along with the fact that the Spaniards are not brainiacs like the French. It was books and ideas that really undid the French.
But Spanish people are "narrow" and simple in a certain way that protected them, in my opinion. You don't hear of Spain as a nation of intellectuals, and intellectuals created the Enlightenment. Who is the Spanish Voltaire?
I admit I don't know much about Masonry in Spain. I've read books about Masonry, though, and it is always mentioned as having its strongest presence in Germany and France. Spain never even gets mentioned.
Read Leon de Poncins Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and Judaism and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the Vatican.
-
Telesphorus said:
You know the Spanish expelled the Jesuits in the 1770s.
A Pope dissolved the Jesuits, too. Was he being anti-clerical?
:scratchchin:
-
Telesphorus said:
You know the Spanish expelled the Jesuits in the 1770s.
A Pope dissolved the Jesuits, too. Was he being anti-clerical?
:scratchchin:
He was forced to by anti-clerical governments that interfered in the Papal Election.
-
Telesphorus said:
Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another's power without her father's consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent's consent.
That's better. So it is proven, children have power over their bodies.
Does this mean they should always use it? Does this mean they shouldn't give their parents' opinion the greatest possible weight?
-
Telesphorus said:
Hence, in so far as she is free, she can give herself into another's power without her father's consent, even as a son or daughter, since they are free, may enter religion without their parent's consent.
That's better. So it is proven, children have power over their bodies.
Does this mean they should always use it? Does this mean they shouldn't give their parents' opinion the greatest possible weight?
It means a priest can't bind a girl on pain of sin not to talk to me because her father doesn't approve, that's what it means.
-
Telesphorus said:
He was forced to by anti-clerical governments that interfered in the Papal Election.
All right. I still don't see that the Spaniards have been proven to have a deleterious machismo that led directly to ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic governments, and I've never heard anyone say this before.
My belief that the Spaniards were standing in the way of a liberal flood-tide is more plausible, but you can say "equally plausible" if you'd like.
Who was it that the American Masonic government had to get out of the way when they wanted to set up their Republic? The Catholic Spaniards. Who did America go to war with over Cuba, trying to rid Cuba of fusty old religious rule? Spain. Who fought the last great Catholic war against communism? Spain under Franco. Yet you're trying to make me believe these people have some twisted, bad form of Catholicism because some parents are too strict according to you. Sorry, not going to happen.
-
Telesphorus said:
It means a priest can't bind a girl on pain of sin not to talk to me because her father doesn't approve, that's what it means.
Did I say otherwise?
The point of this thread is that your experience in Iowa or wherever you are can not be laid at the footsteps of Spain or even the "Latins." That is a huge sweeping generalization.