Author Topic: Fr Scotts Replacement (Read 7569 times)

Belloc · « **Reply #45 on:** October 02, 2012, 10:55:22 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Belloc
Quote from: Telesphorus
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?

Belloc · « **Reply #46 on:** October 02, 2012, 10:56:51 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Telesphorus · « **Reply #47 on:** October 02, 2012, 12:45:51 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

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.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #48 on:** October 02, 2012, 12:47:23 PM »

Quote from: Belloc

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

Belloc · « **Reply #49 on:** October 02, 2012, 12:48:06 PM »

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.....

Kazimierz · « **Reply #50 on:** October 02, 2012, 01:19:05 PM »

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?