mardi 5 janvier 2016

Disagreeing with Michelle Arnold and an Anonymous Catholic

1) HGL's F.B. writings : Disagreeing with Michelle Arnold and an Anonymous Catholic, 2) New blog on the kid : Carl F. Hostetter on me:

For article of Michelle Arnold, I would normally have used my main blog. But since my comments came under a status by Father John Matthew Fewel, well, it comes in FB writings category.

The Worst Pope Ever
Michelle Arnold, November 12, 2014

Does this person really believe that John Paul II deserves to be placed in the same league as Alexander VI, usually considered by historians to be the most notorious pope in Church history?

My dear, Alexander VI was, a bad liver, but a good Pope.

His public deeds as Pope are beyond reproach, it is just his private life that was a mess (OK, one nomination of a bishop had to do with this, when he tried to force his son Cesare into an ecclesiastical carreer).

And, since he is NOT known for any heresy either before or after election, he was very certainly a POPE. That really makes it impossible to compare him with Antipope Wojtyla.

H/T Belloc for "bad liver, good Pope".

After all, he did concede that John Paul was kind, charismatic, warm, and connected with people in a positive manner.

A good liver - but a bad Pope (if one at all).

I am reminded of Father Bryan Houghton's remarks about his bishop in Viviers. A really good man, with the one default of having no religion.

Last of these comments ("I am reminded") could not be posted.

Reading more on article, after giving up commenting:

The most recent entry on Esquire's list was a pope who reigned five centuries ago:

Leo X (1513–1521) famously said when elected to office, "Since God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it." And he promptly made it rain. His extravagant expenses angered Martin Luther and caused a gang of cardinals to plot his assassination. The alleged attempt failed, and a not-so-mysterious bout of food poisoning soon plagued the conspirators.

Would perhaps Esquire be a somewhat Protestant (a k a unreliable) source? [I also found it is a somewhat "man's magazine" ... if no nudes, at least lingerie is shown.]

I really doubt these food poisonings came from sources close to Papal court - or that news of them did. I am more prone to think of, if not Foxe, someone like Bilious Bale.

Even Protestant apologists like the man behind tecktonics will balk at taking Bilious Bale's word for Gospel truth.

Leo X was a good Pope, as far as doctrine was concerned, unless you count accepting Mounts of Piety (session X, I think, of Lateran V) as too pragmatic. Even there, he prefers if interest ONLY covers HALF the clarks' expenses and communal taxes covers other half, plus they have to live modestly. It is not like giving them a GOOD wage based on interest taken.

But let's suck the juice out of words like "The most recent entry on Esquire's list was a pope who reigned five centuries ago" ... is she implying there is a trend, and as time goes on Popes are automatically getting better?

Or, perhaps, the truth was rather there was a Reform, called Trent, Counterreformation, all that. And as long as followed it led to good Popes, at least decent ones. But was Wojtyla, is Bergoglio, anywhere near the Counterreformation?

Now to the other Catholic, the one I anonymise. She had uploaded pictures of a Christmas party. When a small boy was twice marked with name of a girl - actually, as we shall realise, of her mother - and a teen girl was marked, also at least twice with name of her father, I was wondering whether this Catholic friend of mine was intentionally mislabelling in order to see if a certain one of her friends - me - was sane enough to notice. Not so. I asked and got another reply, to my mind only barely less strange than such a procedure:

xqz me, but why was a girl marked [man's name] more than once?

Catholic FB friend:
I assume you mean from my pics from FTMS party? If so, then that's the father, while the girl is not on FB.

We commonly tag the parents as our young ones are not allowed to have an FB account.

Ah, ok! So "[man's name]" is short for "daughter of [man's name]". At what age do you allow your young ones to have one?

Catholic FB friend:
Depends on the parents. A lot of our parents homeschool their children, so they are held to a different set of standards than public school kids. These parents value their right to make decisions for their children. The ones who are on FB are either past 18 or who are later converts to traditionalism, so the kids were already used to more worldliness. Our FSSP priests do not recommend FB, even for some adults.

Ah, ok. And TV, radio, is that better seen than FB?

Catholic FB friend:
Usually these families are very selective in their choices of tv programs, many don't subscribe to cable services either. In terms of radio, most listen to stations that provide "oldies" but most listen to Catholuc radio. But with homeschooling, there is usually little time for such things anyway.

They are more readers than tv watchers.

That does figure. However, I wondered what marriageable age was in CA. [table entry, cited:] [California[4] : N/A : 18 : No minimum age with approval of a superior court judge and parental consent]. In other words, some of them would be of marriageable age. Even by modern legal standards in your state, if I got it right.

Catholic FB friend:
I am not sure what that age is as it can vary state to state. But the US considers under 18yo to be minors.

Age of marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Preview of article: The age of marriage in the United States varies by state, but is generally 18. There are, however, two exceptions—Nebraska (19) and Mississippi (21). Most states, however, allow minors below 18 to marry (generally they have to be at least 16 but sometimes lower) with parental and/or judicial consent…]

Catholic Church has (without parental consent and as per older Canon law, still valid and agreed as such one hundred years ago) same age limit as Massachusetts WITH consent: 12 for females, 14 for males, Consent can be either parental or judicial.

Catholic FB friend:
But I am certain that no Catholic parents in their right mind, in this day and age, would allow a 12 or 14 y.o. to marry.

In the US, that is.

"In their right mind"? Where do you get that from? No "Catholic"? Why should the schismatics and heretics have a privilege on ACTING Catholic?

Catholic FB friend:
Soory, what??

OK, here is a bit Aquinas:

Third Part's Supplement ... On Matrimony ... Impediments ... the pertinent ones being in impotence, spell, insanity, incest, and defective age (58), so we click Q58 and get to 5 Is defective age? [an impediment to marriage]:

Summa, Supplement, Q58, A5

it is determined that marriage may not be contracted before the age of discretion when each party is capable of sufficient deliberation about marriage, and of mutual fulfilment of the marriage debt, and that marriages otherwise contracted are void. Now for the most part this age is the fourteenth year in males and the twelfth year in women: but since the ordinances of positive law are consequent upon what happens in the majority of cases, if anyone reach the required perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature and reason are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age, the marriage is not annulled. Wherefore if the parties who marry before the age of puberty have marital intercourse before the aforesaid age, their marriage is none the less perpetually indissoluble.

Catholic FB friend:
Hans-Georg, this is getting strange. Why do you keep sending me sources to read, as if to educate me? And I did find your interest in young girls in my photos a bit unusual in my friends, but decided to answer your inquiries anyway. And the topic got to marriageable age (young!!) and you brought up schismatics/heretics, out of nowhere. Who are you accusing? I honor honest, innocent inquiries from my friends. But when things become stranger and stranger, I will not participate. I am protective towards my friends' children. If I sense anyone with less than honorable intentions towards them, I will warn the parents. I'm sorry if my words are unkind, but when minors are concerned, especially ones in my circle, I am watchful.

OK, I see where you come from. In my book, and I have St Thomas Aquinas on my side, the girl marked by her father's name is certainly NOT a child, and wasn't last year either, probably.

Catholic FB friend:
Again, what??

And what's it to you whether she is or isn't a child? What's it to you how I tag my friends? If I want to tag myself with someone else's name, so what?

You just mentioned sth as if she had no choice, since not allowed to have a FB account. I am reminded of the site "myparentsjoinedfacebook". In other words, fun for young people gone when parents come in as hawks.

Does Lobelia Sackville-Baggins ring a bell?

My point is, Protestants are acting more Catholic than you if and when allowing their teen girls to marry should they wish so and other circumstances allow.

Catholic FB friend:
Pictures can (and do) lie, haven't you noticed? How old she or anybody is, especially when in candid shots, should not be judged by one such picture. I am sensing you are being obsessed by this one rather young girl. And stop using Tolkien and his works in this matter. Again, what does Prot/Cath have to do with this?

You are fortunately not Tolkien Estate and even Christopher Tolkien himself could not sue me for making observations to fellow Tolkien fans with comparisons from his work. As said, Protestant parents ARE acting what St Thomas Aquinas thought. And I do NOT think the girl was really under twelve.

So, when referring to Protestants acting more Catholic than she (recommended very intensely), I am among other things thinking of that girl who back in 1995 had the chance of quitting school at 12, by marrying a (much older) man. And of the (girls') magazine adding comment that Clinton had gone out of his way to comment and state he would change the law so as to make that impossible.

I assume that girl had, in South Carolina, Protestant parents.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of Epiphany

Catholic NO LONGER FB friend:
How they behave in France, I haven't got much clue. What I know is my friends are protective of their children and if you think this is wrong, then what you want is for our youth to be left vulnerable. And I have nothing more to argue with you on this because I am sensing more and more you might belong to the group of creeps who troll young girls' site, and this is not acceptable and I must unfriend you, unless you unfriend me first, whichever. You are fast to accuse my friends of fallacies and being schismatics, etc. without knowing who they are. This is unacceptable. You also seem quick to bring up things that are unrelated to the topic at hand. Who's talking about suing? I simply said do not quote the professor's work. It has nothing to do with marriageable age and the impropriety of watching young girls.

In France, first of all, that is NOT my comparison, I have only lived here for ten years. Soon eleven.

Second, when I came, marital age without consent was 18 for males, 15 for females. Next year, 24-III-2006 it was 18/18. Seven years after that, 23-IV-2013, gay marriage was introduced. If girls age 15 could still have married in 2013, perhaps one would have NOT accepted a law which would have made a 15 year old girl a possible victim for lesbian seduction and it being prolonged. There is a connexion between raising matrimonial age for teens and allowing counternatural things. Or at least two: 1) if youngest age needs less proection, so does institution, 2) both agree with depopulationist agenda (both national and world wide). One may add a third, like both are done by people who are really dirty, at least some of the politicians and some of their friends would like to take advantage of things like girls under 18 not being able to marry, or of girls and boys from 18 being able to "marry" someone their own sex.

"what you want is for our youth to be left vulnerable" Not exactly. The higher age limit makes for sexual frustration and vulnerability. Matrimony is also a protection. And being too over protective of at home daughters can provoke strange things. When Yspadadden did, no big problem, he got killed for it, he deserved it, he was a giant. When Shylock did, no problem either, his daughter Jessica ran off with a Catholic Christian, so much the better for her and in the end for him. But when Christians do it, where are they pushing their children, those most frustrated?

"And I have nothing more to argue with you on this because I am sensing more and more you might belong to the group of creeps who troll young girls' site, and this is not acceptable and I must unfriend you, unless you unfriend me first, whichever." Will be done, when I have answered. I am unmarried. Young girls are unmarried. I am too old to get a wife my own age, if I want to have a large family.

Catholic NO LONGER FB friend:
I am done with this topic. I have unfriended you. I apologize if this is unwarranted, but I will not continue to participate in what I sense might be predatorial behaviors.

If by that you deem me heretic/schismatic/whatever, so be it.

"You are fast to accuse my friends of fallacies and being schismatics," I didn't. But again, I consider you as acting like Lobelia. You said yourself that CATHOLICS in US would NOT let daughters under 18 marry, which would leave this very proper behaviour of letting them do so the privilege of schismatics. And as for "predatorial behaviour", you are again acting Lobelia.

As for schismatics doing better, or heretics, I'd call LDS at least that if not Pagans, and here is how they did (and were interfered with for) a few years ago:

deretour : Another take on FLDS (two sets of links) + update

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire