Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: wallflower on October 01, 2012, 05:32:00 AM
-
Can anyone confirm for me that it's Fr Doran?
-
Fr. Doran went to Canada, didn't he? Is that where you are? Need more info.
-
Fr. Doran went to Canada, didn't he? Is that where you are? Need more info.
Why are you asking her for more info? That's irrelevant to the question and IIRC not the first time you've gone phishing.
-
Just receive confirmation from Fr. Scott saying that he won't be leaving afterall. My boy goes to the school
-
well thats good...... isnt it....? :stare:
-
Fr. Doran went to Canada, didn't he? Is that where you are? Need more info.
If I were there I could probably confirm for myself. ;)
The person I spoke to said he would be going there but also added that they weren't sure, so I thought someone here might know.
Interesting if Fr Scott stays, thanks Angelia. Schools need stability so it would be good to have the same priest there for many years. Not that Fr Doran wouldn't do a good job as well.
Incidently I am curious about his stance on all this. As far as I know he has been quiet. I haven't even gotten his news-emails for over a year. He must be very busy.
-
Fr. Doran went to Canada, didn't he? Is that where you are? Need more info.
Why are you asking her for more info? That's irrelevant to the question and IIRC not the first time you've gone phishing.
Huuuh???
I'm so confused.
-
Here's some testimony about Father Doran, from posters on this forum:
This reminds me that Fr. Doran spoke in favor of arranged marriages, and brides coming into a marriage with a dowry, among other things.
. . .
I was sitting in the pew with my husband when he said it. He also favored the school run along the lines of a military academy.
. . .
Every morning he had those boys lined up and a retired military man ran them through drills.
Is this the same Father Doran who publicly humiliated a man from the pulpit, publicly smeared him as mentally ill. the same Father Doran who was blamed for interfering in a man's marriage in a civil suit that was won at the jury trial?
What a nutcase. The SSPX has a problem of certain priests who act like members of a cult.
-
spoke in favor of arranged marriages,
there is some truth there, though informal, Trads getting their kids together and fostering potential matches........not actual arranged, but could nudge toward that.....
-
spoke in favor of arranged marriages,
there is some truth there, though informal, Trads getting their kids together and fostering potential matches........not actual arranged, but could nudge toward that.....
Not if they use the confessional and the SSPX "red tape" to manipulate the outcome.
Priests shouldn't have anything to do with trying to set up arranged marriages or trying to militarize SSPX academies, or in trying to branding a man as mentally ill from the pulpit after you interfered with his marriage.
There's a problem with out of control arrogance in these priests.
-
spoke in favor of arranged marriages,
there is some truth there, though informal, Trads getting their kids together and fostering potential matches........not actual arranged, but could nudge toward that.....
Not if they use the confessional and the SSPX "red tape" to manipulate the outcome.
Priests shouldn't have anything to do with trying to set up arranged marriages or trying to militarize SSPX academies, or in trying to branding a man as mentally ill from the pulpit after you interfered with his marriage.
There's a problem with out of control arrogance in these priests.
Whilst I disagree with telesphorus in relation to arranged marriages and a militarized SSPX academy. I was recently in a former school and guns were on display though not a Society school. We must remember Catholics are not meant to be pacifist.
Where I do agree with telesphorus is this business of branding people mentally ill or mad.Disagreeing is one thing but branding somebody mad is disgusting and uncatholic.
There is no doubt some Society priests are arrogant.
-
John Grace, the desire for military schools and arranged marriages has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic teachings, and has everything to do with power and control, and instilling a cult of obedience.
This sort of thing becomes sacrilegious when priests get involved. Priests are not supposed to engage in combat, (yet they want to militarize the boys schools?) and they aren't supposed to being involved in arranging who marries who. (that in particular is very characteristic of cults) This emphasis on control - backed up by the threat of ostracism and of being branded as mentally ill, is not Catholic, it's characteristic of a cult.
-
John Grace, the desire for military schools and arranged marriages has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic teachings, and has everything to do with power and control, and instilling a cult of obedience.
This sort of thing becomes sacrilegious when priests get involved. Priests are not supposed to engage in combat, (yet they want to militarize the boys schools?) and they aren't supposed to being involved in arranging who marries who. (that in particular is very characteristic of cults) This emphasis on control - backed up by the threat of ostracism and of being branded as mentally ill, is not Catholic, it's characteristic of a cult.
what do you mean by the militarization of schools?
-
what do you mean by the militarization of schools?
I mean treating the boys as though they're in a military academy, with military discipline. There's a time and a place for military discipline. A desire to push it on people, outside of a genuinely military context, is highly suspect.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of bored, manipulative old men who want to play martinet. Way too many of them.
-
spoke in favor of arranged marriages,
there is some truth there, though informal, Trads getting their kids together and fostering potential matches........not actual arranged, but could nudge toward that.....
Not if they use the confessional and the SSPX "red tape" to manipulate the outcome.
Priests shouldn't have anything to do with trying to set up arranged marriages or trying to militarize SSPX academies, or in trying to branding a man as mentally ill from the pulpit after you interfered with his marriage.
There's a problem with out of control arrogance in these priests.
Whilst I disagree with telesphorus in relation to arranged marriages and a militarized SSPX academy. I was recently in a former school and guns were on display though not a Society school. We must remember Catholics are not meant to be pacifist.
Where I do agree with telesphorus is this business of branding people mentally ill or mad.Disagreeing is one thing but branding somebody mad is disgusting and uncatholic.
There is no doubt some Society priests are arrogant.
Not nearly as arrogant as Telesphorus who thinks he can expound on anything even things of which he knows nothing. This couple was exceptionally indiscreet and loudly aired their own dirty laundry to the point that Fr was forced to address their rumors publicly. I never before nor have since seen a couple get that nasty in their divorce and involve the whole parish.
Nor did he speak about arranged marriages in the sense that we must implement them, he simply drew parallels and made comparisons between arranged marriages and those of today, also different kinds of love, pointing out some of the pros in arranged marriage. Why that's taboo to Tele, God only knows. Perhaps it's something outside his realm of understanding, therefore it must be condemned. :rolleyes:
I asked a simple question, Tele. Take your calumny to your own thread.
-
Not nearly as arrogant as Telesphorus who thinks he can expound on anything even things of which he knows nothing. This couple was exceptionally indiscreet and loudly aired their own dirty laundry to the point that Fr was forced to address their rumors publicly. I never before nor have since seen a couple get that nasty in their divorce and involve the whole parish.
How old were you when it happened? The SSPX lost the lawsuit in the jury trial. The priest offered a phony apology for smearing the man as being mentally ill, then publicly shamed the man from the pulpit when he was in the basement. Sadly typical of the dishonest, arrogant, shamelessness that is so commonly encountered among certain priests.
About 15 years ago I said to an SSPX priest:
If I said such and such thing about you would you say that it would be calumny?
Yes, he answered.
And if you said the very same thing about me would that constitute calumny?
No, he retorted
Nor did he speak about arranged marriages in the sense that we must implement them, he simply drew parallels and made comparisons between arranged marriages and those of today, also different kinds of love, pointing out some of the pros in arranged marriage. Why that's taboo to Tele, God only knows. Perhaps it's something outside his realm of understanding, therefore it must be condemned.
I'll take Alexandria's word on it, thank you very much. It's very evident to me how these priests operate, how they manipulate young women in the confessional.
:rolleyes:
I asked a simple question, Tele. Take your calumny to your own thread.
It's important for any parents who might send their children to such a school to understand the sort of despicable behavior and the attitudes of extreme arrogance they might encounter.
-
Lol, law is suddenly sacred to you? If you lost for slapping your wife, you'd consider that just? Your views constantly shift according to what's convenient for you at the moment.
Whoever Alexandria is, if she said Fr was advocating arranged marriages, she is mistaken.
Again, take your calumny to your own thread.
-
military schools and arranged marriages has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic teachings
During the heyday of Christendom, most marriages were arranged and most boys received the equivalent of military schooling. These things have everything to do with Catholic teachings and their disappearance has everything to do with the collapse of Christendom.
-
Lol, law is suddenly sacred to you?
Some laws are just, some are not. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas says that if a man catches a priest with his wife he's not excommunicated for striking the priest.
The jury came to the conclusion this priest caused the man a great deal of harm. So don't call it calumny. It's not calumny. It's the public record, of what the SSPX was found civilly liable for, the conduct of this priest, by a jury.
If you lost for slapping your wife, you'd consider that just?
Different situation.
Your views constantly shift according to what's convenient for you at the moment.
Nonsense. You are not well-equipped in logic wallflower.
Whoever Alexandria is, if she said Fr was advocating arranged marriages, she is mistaken.
Again, take your calumny to your own thread.
Groups that try to control who marries within the group are cultish.
-
During the heyday of Christendom, most marriages were arranged
Proof? The simple fact is the Church defends the principle that marriage is a free choice.
It is NOT the business of priests to try to set the social norms in this area.
and most boys received the equivalent of military schooling.
Nonsense.
These things have everything to do with Catholic teachings and their disappearance has everything to do with the collapse of Christendom.
Your assertions are without proof.
The idea that military education and arrnaged marriages has anything to do with Catholic traditionalism is deranged.
-
People who think the SSPX is knowledgeable and equipped to responsibly conduct military style schooling are not right in the head.
The motives for even suggesting such a thing are highly suspect.
As I said, there are way too many wannabe bullies in the SSPX and in their chapels.
(and many want to bully husbands and fathers, their son in laws, their sons, suitors they don't like, etc)
-
The evolving legal principles that Father Sheehan found most apparent throughout the period were the Church's insistence on the validity of personal choice with respect to marriage partners and household formation. Seigneurial, community, and family control over marriage found little or no place in the church courts. Beyond personal choice, the Church sought to make marriages public though the institution of banns, as a means to preventing improper unions of those barred from a sanctified wedding--those related within forbidden degrees, those in holy orders, and those who were already betrothed or married. Cases that appeared in the church courts demonstrated the more frequent use of the courts as a means of proving the validity of marriage rather than as a route to annulment. Father Sheehan thus concluded that the Church was a critical factor in the formation of households based on the personal choice of the marriage partners. His works were among the earliest to demonstrate the agency of the Church in the establishment of independent nuclear households.
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=2054
-
During the heyday of Christendom, most marriages were arranged
Proof? The simple fact is the Church defends the principle that marriage is a free choice.
It is NOT the business of priests to try to set the social norms in this area.
You may have been taken in by some black legends about arranged marriages. Catholic arranged marriages always involved agreement of the participants. If you disbelieve the common knowledge that Catholic arranged marriage was once widespread, read the histories of authors like William Thomas Walsh or perhaps take in a few of Shakespeare's plays.
and most boys received the equivalent of military schooling.
Nonsense.
These things have everything to do with Catholic teachings and their disappearance has everything to do with the collapse of Christendom.
Your assertions are without proof.
The idea that military education and arrnaged marriages has anything to do with Catholic traditionalism is deranged.
Prior to the conquest of society by the bankster class, the primary profession of all the noble born was that of knight and soldier. Boys from these families were trained as squires from the earliest ages. The Scottish Catholic Highland clans trained boys in warfare until that culture was wiped out in the mid Eighteenth century. Millitary orders took in boys at a young age. Boys are naturally suited for military training. When I was young, I spent many hours playing soldier with neighborhood boys using store-bought and make-shift toy weapons.
-
People who think the SSPX is knowledgeable and equipped to responsibly conduct military style schooling are not right in the head.
The motives for even suggesting such a thing are highly suspect.
As I said, there are way too many wannabe bullies in the SSPX and in their chapels.
(and many want to bully husbands and fathers, their son in laws, their sons, suitors they don't like, etc)
I'd expect that fathers (those who are not hen-pecked) would be the primary proponents.
-
You may have been taken in by some black legends about arranged marriages. Catholic arranged marriages always involved agreement of the participants. If you disbelieve the common knowledge that Catholic arranged marriage was once widespread, read the histories of authors like William Thomas Walsh or perhaps take in a few of Shakespeare's plays.
In principle the Church supported free marriage and usually exercised its authority in favor of free marriage choice.
Depending on the time and place, marriage certainly could be forced - or virtually forced. And you don't have to go back to the middle ages. In fact laws were changed more in modern times (for example, in the 18th Century) to give parents more power - and these laws were distinctly anti-clerical in their intent and application.
There are always people who want to use their local influence to be unreasonably domineering. Anyone suggesting that groups like the SSPX should return to arranged marriages should understand the kind of abuses that would be ripe for. Indeed, even without explicitly arranged marriages, abuses are already occurring. The pretty young women are seen as a source of potential revenue.
Prior to the conquest of society by the bankster class, the primary profession of all the noble born was that of knight and soldier. Boys from these families were trained as squires from the earliest ages. The Scottish Catholic Highland clans trained boys in warfare until that culture was wiped out in the mid Eighteenth century. Millitary orders took in boys at a young age. Boys are naturally suited for military training. When I was young, I spent many hours after school playing soldier neighborhood boys using store-bought and make-shift toy weapons.
A military school, or "military discipline" at school, in an SSPX where some priests give sermons against homeschooling - demanding that children go to their schools - is about manipulation and control, and people with a strong desire to control others. It's not about learning to shoot, or training for a future life as a soldier. It's not something for priests to be encouraging.
-
I'd expect that fathers (those who are not hen-pecked) would be the primary proponents.
I don't think any decent father wants to expose his son to a situation ripe for abuse.
-
The evolving legal principles that Father Sheehan found most apparent throughout the period were the Church's insistence on the validity of personal choice with respect to marriage partners and household formation. Seigneurial, community, and family control over marriage found little or no place in the church courts. Beyond personal choice, the Church sought to make marriages public though the institution of banns, as a means to preventing improper unions of those barred from a sanctified wedding--those related within forbidden degrees, those in holy orders, and those who were already betrothed or married. Cases that appeared in the church courts demonstrated the more frequent use of the courts as a means of proving the validity of marriage rather than as a route to annulment. Father Sheehan thus concluded that the Church was a critical factor in the formation of households based on the personal choice of the marriage partners. His works were among the earliest to demonstrate the agency of the Church in the establishment of independent nuclear households.
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=2054
This could be a modern-thinking Catholic embarrassed over the of the non-politically correct Catholic past and therefore attempting to revise the common knowledge.
-
This could be a modern-thinking Catholic embarrassed over the of the non-politically correct Catholic past and therefore attempting to revise the common knowledge.
Why then in the 18th Century were such efforts made under the regime of "Enlightened Despotism" against the Church, to ensure parental control of marriage choice?
The French have always been domineering with their children.
-
You may have been taken in by some black legends about arranged marriages. Catholic arranged marriages always involved agreement of the participants. If you disbelieve the common knowledge that Catholic arranged marriage was once widespread, read the histories of authors like William Thomas Walsh or perhaps take in a few of Shakespeare's plays.
In principle the Church supported free marriage and usually exercised its authority in favor of free marriage choice.
Depending on the time and place, marriage certainly could be forced - or virtually forced. And you don't have to go back to the middle ages. In fact laws were changed more in modern times (for example, in the 18th Century) to give parents more power - and these laws were distinctly anti-clerical in their intent and application.
There are always people who want to use their local influence to be unreasonably domineering. Anyone suggesting that groups like the SSPX should return to arranged marriages should understand the kind of abuses that would be ripe for. Indeed, even without explicitly arranged marriages, abuses are already occurring. The pretty young women are seen as a source of potential revenue.
Prior to the conquest of society by the bankster class, the primary profession of all the noble born was that of knight and soldier. Boys from these families were trained as squires from the earliest ages. The Scottish Catholic Highland clans trained boys in warfare until that culture was wiped out in the mid Eighteenth century. Millitary orders took in boys at a young age. Boys are naturally suited for military training. When I was young, I spent many hours after school playing soldier neighborhood boys using store-bought and make-shift toy weapons.
A military school, or "military discipline" at school, in an SSPX where some priests give sermons against homeschooling - demanding that children go to their schools - is about manipulation and control, and people with a strong desire to control others. It's not about learning to shoot, or training for a future life as a soldier. It's not something for priests to be encouraging.
The principles of arraigned marriage and military schooling for boys are historically well-established, consistent with natural law, and vastly superior the modern customs of marriage and boy education. These principles are not absolute, but have been implemented on a sliding scale basis, fine-tuned to strengthen family and communal ties and develop masculinity in boys.
Bankster-financed moral usurpers notably oppose these principals, perhaps in order to atomize individuals and foster gender role-reversal.
I am on record opposing SSPX cultishness but that is a separate matter.
-
The principles of arraigned marriage and military schooling for boys are historically well-established, consistent with natural law, and vastly superior the modern customs of marriage and boy education.
Having some SSPX priest conceivably pressure a young woman into some bizarre arranged marriage, or having them organize a "military" academy with "military discipline" is a sign of a group that is out of control.
These principles are not absolute, but have been implemented on a sliding scale basis, fine-tuned to strengthen family and communal ties and develop masculinity in boys.
"military" schools shouldn't be run by priests.
Bankster-financed moral usurpers notably oppose these principals, perhaps in order to atomize individuals and foster gender role-reversal.
My opposition to it has nothing to do with them. On the other hand, the desire to control, for the purposes of maximizing contributions, seems to be prevalent.
I am on record opposing SSPX cultishness but that is a separate matter.
Having priests trying to influence who marries who is very cultish. And the idea of "military discipline" in the schools is also about creating SSPX-bots, and gratifying the domineering spirit of martinets.
-
The principles of arraigned marriage and military schooling for boys are historically well-established, consistent with natural law, and vastly superior the modern customs of marriage and boy education.
Having some SSPX priest conceivably pressure a young woman into some bizarre arranged marriage, or having them organize a "military" academy with "military discipline" is a sign of a group that is out of control. [...]
Having priests trying to influence who marries who is very cultish. And the idea of "military discipline" in the schools is also about creating SSPX-bots, and gratifying the domineering spirit of martinets.
Priest-arranged marriages?!? Actually this is done by family members lining up eligible candidates with the voluntary collaboration of the principles. Pastors with the courage to support the principle of arraigned marriage from the pulpit are responsible and truthful, not necessarily cultish.
"military" schools shouldn't be run by priests.
What is inherently wrong about priest-led schools conducting marching drills for boys?
-
Priest-arranged marriages?!? Actually this is done by family members lining up eligible candidates with the voluntary collaboration of the principles.
Priests using the confessional to try to impose parental will on pain of sin - to manipulate who marries whom.
Pastors with the courage to support the principle of arraigned marriage from the pulpit are responsible and truthful, not necessarily cultish.
"the principle of arranged marriage" - you make it sound as though it is a Christian principle. This is absurd, and part of the problem. The problem of making up the religion as you go along, which is what the SSPX often does, often with no consistency whatsoever from one year to the next.
What is inherently wrong about priest-led schools conducting marching drills for boys?
It's not a priests job to make anyone's son march.
They need to stick to their vocation.
And stop pretending to be shrinks, military officers, matchmakers, etc.
-
Priest-arranged marriages?!? Actually this is done by family members lining up eligible candidates with the voluntary collaboration of the principles.
Priests using the confessional to try to impose parental will on pain of sin - to manipulate who marries whom.
Pastors with the courage to support the principle of arraigned marriage from the pulpit are responsible and truthful, not necessarily cultish.
"the principle of arranged marriage" - you make it sound as though it is a Christian principle. This is absurd, and part of the problem. The problem of making up the religion as you go along, which is what the SSPX often does, often with no consistency whatsoever from one year to the next.
Turning down an arraigned candidate would be a sin requiring confession? Supporting the principle of arraigned marriage amounts to claiming it is the only option? You have nothing but straw.
What is inherently wrong about priest-led schools conducting marching drills for boys?
It's not a priests job to make anyone's son march.
They need to stick to their vocation.
And stop pretending to be shrinks, military officers, matchmakers, etc.
You offer nothing beyond your personal dislike of priest-led schools conducting marching drills for boys.
Difficulty in finding suitable marriage partners and lack of hardness in boys are real-world problems among traditionalist families. Seeking traditional Catholic solutions to these problems in a forthright manner is not necessarily a bad thing.
-
Turning down an arraigned candidate would be a sin requiring confession? Supporting the principle of arraigned marriage amounts to claiming it is the only option? You have nothing but straw.
No, I have the evidence of my own eyes the way the SSPX likes to manipulate people. Encouraging "arranged marriages" would be entirely a matter of increasing that abusive manipulation.
You offer nothing beyond your personal dislike of priest-led schools conducting marching drills for boys.
People who want priests to act as drill sergeants are deranged.
Difficulty in finding suitable marriage partners and lack of hardness in boys are real-world problems among traditionalist families. Seeking traditional Catholic solutions to these problems in a forthright manner is not necessarily a bad thing.
No, it's not a bad thing, but that's not what suggesting going back to arranged marriages and encouraging "military discipline" in schools is about. At all.
It's about making up the religion as they go along, anything to increase their power and control.
-
Turning down an arraigned candidate would be a sin requiring confession? Supporting the principle of arraigned marriage amounts to claiming it is the only option? You have nothing but straw.
No, I have the evidence of my own eyes the way the SSPX likes to manipulate people. Encouraging "arranged marriages" would be entirely a matter of increasing that abusive manipulation.
You offer nothing beyond your personal dislike of priest-led schools conducting marching drills for boys.
People who want priests to act as drill sergeants are deranged.
Difficulty in finding suitable marriage partners and lack of hardness in boys are real-world problems among traditionalist families. Seeking traditional Catholic solutions to these problems in a forthright manner is not necessarily a bad thing.
No, it's not a bad thing, but that's not what suggesting going back to arranged marriages and encouraging "military discipline" in schools is about. At all.
It's about making up the religion as they go along, anything to increase their power and control.
So your problem is with negative tendencies you perceive within the SSPX, not with practical solutions historically proven effective among Catholics. Conceivably, the SSPX might use arranged marriage and military schooling for cultish purposes, just as they might use other things such as the faith and the mass. None of these things are inherently evil.
-
So your problem is with negative tendencies you perceive within the SSPX, not with practical solutions historically proven effective among Catholics.
What is proven? "Arranged marriages" in the rest of the world mean that parents decide on the match. Since the Church teaches that there is a free choice in marriage, trying to return to an old system of parents making matches in when it is culturally alien is not going to fly. It's cultish.
Conceivably, the SSPX might use arranged marriage and military schooling for cultish purposes, just as they might use other things such as the faith and the mass. None of these things are inherently evil.
The SSPX has enough troubles with schools as it is. They don't need kooky priests trying to establish military discipline.
In retrospect, we can see that many forms of schooling that were popular in the past were evil in their consequences. Particularly the boys boarding school.
-
In retrospect, we can see that many forms of schooling that were popular in the past were evil in their consequences. Particularly the boys boarding school.
That's not to say they were all evil or that there were not good reasons for establishing them.
Just that certain kinds of schooling are particularly ripe for abuse.
That is particularly true today, when a child's peers are apt to be vicious.
-
So your problem is with negative tendencies you perceive within the SSPX, not with practical solutions historically proven effective among Catholics.
What is proven? "Arranged marriages" in the rest of the world mean that parents decide on the match. Since the Church teaches that there is a free choice in marriage, trying to return to an old system of parents making matches in when it is culturally alien is not going to fly. It's cultish.
Abstinence before marriage is also culturally alien and corporal punishment is practically illegal. Wifely submission to the husband has been obsolete for more than a century. Catholic mass had to be modernized because it too was "culturally alien."
Your understanding of non-Western arranged marriage appears to have originated from neocon war propaganda. East Indians now commonly have websites of marriage seekers maintained by relatives. Using online photos and information and by preliminary communication between maintainers, acceptable candidates are lined up by the family. The principles choose whom to meet first and whether to accept an offer of marriage. This ensures that the marriage partner will be compatible with the inlaws and invests both extended families in the success of the marriage. As should be expected, the success rate and child production of arranged marriages vastly exceeds that of the non-arraigned.
Young women left to themselves are usually attracted to the "bad boy" element. For the most part, Catholic girls suffer the same proclivities. Family involvement in the courtship process helps to protect young ladies from such inherent weakness. The condition of the weaker sex was once widely understood in the West, but such understanding has since become "culturally alien."
The SSPX has enough troubles with schools as it is. They don't need kooky priests trying to establish military discipline.
There are troubles in non-SSPX schools as well. Reliable Catholic schooling is indispensable to the restoration of Catholic culture.
-
Abstinence before marriage is also culturally alien
No, it isn't culturally alien. It's widely approved on paper. And it's a totally different category from arranged marriage. You're treating arranged marriage as though it's Catholic teaching. It's not.
and corporal punishment is practically illegal. Wifely submission to the husband has been obsolete for more than a century. Catholic mass had to be modernized because it too was "culturally alien."
I explained very clearly that arranged marriage is not a matter of the Catholic Faith.
Your understanding of non-Western arranged marriage appears to have originated from neocon war propaganda.
That is a ludicrous comment. Incidentally, I have heard of tragic, heartbreaking marriages (marriages that kept young lovers apart and resulted in a disastrous union) - and not from neocon propaganda, but from from the sister of a man trapped in such a terrible marriage.
East Indians now commonly have websites of marriage seekers maintained by relatives. Using online photos and information and by preliminary communication between maintainers, acceptable candidates are lined up by the family.
This idea that parents are going to be selecting mates for girls in America is ludicrous. If anything, the problem is that parents do not want marriage for their daughters until their daughters have lost their innocence, because of the influence of feminism.
Young women left to themselves are usually attracted to the "bad boy" element. For the most part, Catholic girls suffer the same proclivities.
And you think girls in arranged marriages won't be attracted to those types? The problem is that women are not looking for marriage. If marriage were a priority they would behave differently. The real problem is that the only people these priests and fathers can punish are the "nice guys" - only the nice guys will be vulnerable to their manipulative guilt-tripping, gas-lighting, and lies.
Family involvement in the courtship process helps to protect young ladies from such inherent weakness. The condition of the weaker sex was once widely understood in the West, but such understanding has since become "culturally alien."
There's nothing wrong with family involvement in courtship. But that's totally different from "arranged marriage." Family involvement in courtship isn't "culturally alien" either.
-
guilt-tripping, gas-lighting, and lies.
guilt-tripping - teaching suitors to jump through hoops of approval - when those requirements are not part of Catholic teaching - creating false scruples in Catholic men.
gas-lighting - collectively pretending a situation is other than what it is - this is done as a prelude to
lies - smearing the unwanted suitor with lies and slanders.
-
Abstinence before marriage is also culturally alien
No, it isn't culturally alien. It's widely approved on paper. And it's a totally different category from arranged marriage. You're treating arranged marriage as though it's Catholic teaching. It's not.
Paper schmaper. Abstinence before marriage has become operationally obsolete in youth culture. You are treating arranged marriage as though it's prohibited by Catholic teaching. It's not.
I have heard of tragic, heartbreaking marriages (marriages that kept young lovers apart and resulted in a disastrous union) - and not from neocon propaganda, but from from the sister of a man trapped in such a terrible marriage.
Yes, I have also seen "The King and I" and numerous other silly Hollywood propaganda hit jobs against arranged marriage, but Hollywood is not the arbiter of what is alien to my culture. I never said that all arranged marriages are perfect. However, you notably sidestepped my allusion to statistical evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the vast superiority of arranged marriage over non-arranged.
European Catholics are doomed to extinction unless they can restore those cultural practices that were integral to the building Christendom, such as arranged marriage. Catholic marriage is not the same as Islamic, but it is much less the same as modern-style, birth-dearth Western marriage. Yes, some traditionalist couples are already having large families. Unfortunately there are many, many young trads who cannot find suitable marriage partners or get married too late in life to have many children. What solution do you suggest for getting a large majority of Catholic girls into suitable marriages while they are still young and fertile? Clearly, the current culture of Western marriage is not acceptable.
This idea that parents are going to be selecting mates for girls in America is ludicrous. If anything, the problem is that parents do not want marriage for their daughters until their daughters have lost their innocence, because of the influence of feminism.
Right, but parents that have grown sick of the feminist dichotomy, in both its liberal and conservative formulations, may wish to return to pre-feminist (i.e. pre-"Enlightenment") forms of courtship, such as arranged courtship. By the way, arranged marriage in the Western tradition is the same as arranged courtship.
Young women left to themselves are usually attracted to the "bad boy" element. For the most part, Catholic girls suffer the same proclivities.
And you think girls in arranged marriages won't be attracted to those types? The problem is that women are not looking for marriage. If marriage were a priority they would behave differently. The real problem is that the only people these priests and fathers can punish are the "nice guys" - only the nice guys will be vulnerable to their manipulative guilt-tripping, gas-lighting, and lies.
LOL. Yes, most priests, including traditionalists, are just cogs in the feminist machine. Their conservative feminism serves as an essential counterpart to the liberal side of the feminist dichotomy. Bp. Williamson is a notable exception to that unfortunate rule.
Most young women, married or not, are attracted to bad boys. In the West, single girls give their most attractive and fertile years over to a succession of bad boys, until they are too aged and used up for the bad boys to give as much attention as when the girls were in their teens and young twenties. Then they finally make themselves temporarily available for marriage to a nice guy provider. After marriage, they have a couple kids, file for divorce and go back out prowling for bad boys as Sex in the City cougars with expenses paid by the the hapless sucker who was foolish enough to give them a ring.
If the wife is Catholic enough, she may refrain from divorce, but give her husband hen-peck hell as she continues to struggle with an addiction to bad boys that leaves her secretly pining for previous lovers and tempted by adulterous feelings. In previous times and still today in other cultures, such women were and are considered ruined for marriage.
Arranged marriage (courtship) is a viable alternative to this destructive culture of Western marriage.
Family involvement in the courtship process helps to protect young ladies from such inherent weakness. The condition of the weaker sex was once widely understood in the West, but such understanding has since become "culturally alien."
There's nothing wrong with family involvement in courtship. But that's totally different from "arranged marriage." Family involvement in courtship isn't "culturally alien" either.
I am not talking about Hollywood propaganda characterizations. Real-world arranged marriage is very similar to courtship. Non-arranged courtship is workable in a traditional Catholic society but arrangement is required when there is insufficient supply of suitable candidates within the marriage seeker's circle of acquaintances.
-
So your problem is with negative tendencies you perceive within the SSPX, not with practical solutions historically proven effective among Catholics.
What is proven? "Arranged marriages" in the rest of the world mean that parents decide on the match. Since the Church teaches that there is a free choice in marriage, trying to return to an old system of parents making matches in when it is culturally alien is not going to fly. It's cultish.
Conceivably, the SSPX might use arranged marriage and military schooling for cultish purposes, just as they might use other things such as the faith and the mass. None of these things are inherently evil.
The SSPX has enough troubles with schools as it is. They don't need kooky priests trying to establish military discipline.
In retrospect, we can see that many forms of schooling that were popular in the past were evil in their consequences. Particularly the boys boarding school.
well, I know a muslim lady, went to school w/her. Parents could not see us all out together (no, not dating). They arranged a marriage for her sister, the sister and fellow are, 20+ yrs later, still together.......she? married a baptist white guy (she is dark skinned Pakistani) and is divorced......sister has kids, lives in Pakistan and save for droid bombers, living apparently a good life from what I hear.....my friend? single at age 42 and burned on relationships...would add, she is not all that devout a muslim, more born into it and cultural.....
-
In principle the Church supported free marriage and usually exercised its authority in favor of free marriage choice..
yeah? tell that the the nobles and royals, sometimes arranged marriage prior to or at birth...or when kids in youth.......
-
In principle the Church supported free marriage and usually exercised its authority in favor of free marriage choice..
yeah? tell that the the nobles and royals, sometimes arranged marriage prior to or at birth...or when kids in youth.......
The nobles had the power to enforce their will.
The Church teaching is very clear on this.
-
Paper schmaper. Abstinence before marriage has become operationally obsolete in youth culture.
Arranged marriage has been obsolete in this society for a very long time. You're comparing totally different matters. Even if I were to concede that few believed and even fewer practiced waiting for marriage, that's something that's changed relatively recently. And most importantly, it's IRRELEVANT. Arranged marriage is not something the Church teaches. Which is why it's bizarre that it's encouraged, when there is absolutely no possibility of social support for it among Catholics, unless they submit to a cult regime.
It's possible to raise children to believe in waiting until marriage. It's not possible to raise them to submit to an arranged marriage, unless they are in a cult, not for Catholics in this country. And it's not possible to try to enforce it.
You are treating arranged marriage as though it's prohibited by Catholic teaching. It's not.
I've never said it's prohibited for parents to arrange a marriage for their children. What's morally prohibited is to tell them they're bound to go along with it. And it would be immoral, gravely immoral for priests to exert any pressure in the confessional for any child to go along with it.
-
In principle the Church supported free marriage and usually exercised its authority in favor of free marriage choice..
yeah? tell that the the nobles and royals, sometimes arranged marriage prior to or at birth...or when kids in youth.......
The nobles had the power to enforce their will.
The Church teaching is very clear on this.
so, 2 different rules then on morals? what does it matter if someoen had "power to enforce will"? do you mean that might makes right or, might will do what it wants, like it or not?
-
Paper schmaper. Abstinence before marriage has become operationally obsolete in youth culture.
Arranged marriage has been obsolete in this society for a very long time. You're comparing totally different matters. Even if I were to concede that few believed and even fewer practiced waiting for marriage, that's something that's changed relatively recently. And most importantly, it's IRRELEVANT. Arranged marriage is not something the Church teaches. Which is why it's bizarre that it's encouraged, when there is absolutely no possibility of social support for it among Catholics, unless they submit to a cult regime.
It's possible to raise children to believe in waiting until marriage. It's not possible to raise them to submit to an arranged marriage, unless they are in a cult, not for Catholics in this country. And it's not possible to try to enforce it.
You are treating arranged marriage as though it's prohibited by Catholic teaching. It's not.
I've never said it's prohibited for parents to arrange a marriage for their children. What's morally prohibited is to tell them they're bound to go along with it. And it would be immoral, gravely immoral for priests to exert any pressure in the confessional for any child to go along with it.
please then provide links and/or soruces for your "this is what the church says/teaches", other then statements.......that could help, and not need to be 50 paragraphs either....many say many things are "obsolete", does it make something wrong?
-
so, 2 different rules then on morals? what does it matter if someoen had "power to enforce will"? do you mean that might makes right or, might will do what it wants, like it or not?
It means the nobles got away with doing things they weren't entitled to do.
Tomas Sanchez did say that in cases of dynastic alliances, children could be strictly obligated to marry according to family wishes, but only when it involved grave matters of state.
-
please then provide links and/or soruces for your "this is what the church says/teaches", other then statements.......that could help, and not need to be 50 paragraphs either....many say many things are "obsolete", does it make something wrong?
15. 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
Pope Leo XIII Arcanum
-
Gotcha, thanks for clearing that up!
That said, now, not saying we should go all muslim or hindu, but that families could at least get kids together to play, hang out, etc and hope that a match is made at some point down the road......
better then meeting some disaster at college, work, coffee shop,etc.....
-
If one may ask,bringing us back to the topic at hand, does anyone know why Father Scott's transfer to Zimbabwe was reversed/changed/nullified? As in, has there been given an official reason? Or at least a missive from Menzingen, to whit one can compare the truth of the matter against?