was it rape?

[Jaime]

[quote name='skellmeyer' date='Sep 17 2005, 06:50 PM']
And again, you have yet to demonstrate that a 12-year old is a child in the sense that a five-year old is or, indeed, in any other sense at all.
[right][snapback]727613[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Again, the burden of proof is not with me but with those who argue against the laws of the state, culture and Church. You are presenting an argument against the status quo.

[quote name='skellmeyer' date='Sep 17 2005, 08:00 PM']Bias against field psychology in general, I think.

I distinctly remember as an undergrad doing research for a paper.
I ran into two different published studies: one done in 1943 and one done in 1963. Both remarked on the fact that Japanese babies are quieter than American babies.

The 1943 study argued that this demonstrated Japanese babies are intellectually inferior because they don't interact with their environment.

The 1963 study (when the Japanese were beginning to show signs of being an economic Asian tiger) arged that Japanese babies are intellectually superior because they are intellectualizing their environment.

At that point, I realized psychology was all about telling culturally acceptable stories.
[right][snapback]727813[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I would say that reading two studies from over 60 years ago is hardly grounds to dismiss an entire school of thought. I haven't read these studies and since they aren't sourced, it would be a waste of time to try to find them. I have no idea if they were done by legitimate sources and the 1943 study smacks of WWII mentality.

The state and the Church have accepted the findings and the advances of the psychological field. To simply dismiss what is accepted because you don't like it is fine. But it doesn't make for a good argument in debate.

[skellmeyer]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 18 2005, 01:48 AM']A couple of more thoughts on Catholic education.

I think that if we look hard enough, we will find that Catholic education can be traced back at least to 1606 in Maryland.  I believe it was the Jesuits who established that first bit of Catholic education.  Wasn't it the Franciscans who opened a school for boys in 1718 in New Orleans, followed by the Ursulines opening a school for girls in the same city not too far after (1727)? [/quote]

You have taken so much out of context, mixed and matched responses from so many different people into single posts, that I simply shall not respond to most of what you have to say, because it is clear that your reading comprehension is - at best - not high.

However, I will point out - again- that my argument is not against real Catholic parochial schools, but against the mass school system of industrialized America, as it was imitated by the American bishops in their creation of compulsory parochial schools with curricula that mimicked the public school system. This is what the Third Plenary Council constituted into existence.

My book notes the creation of schools by Franciscans, Jesuits and others prior to the foundation of the colonies, but those were mostly mission schools.

While we no longer distinguish between the baptized and the unbaptized in school instruction (and we thereby violate the Magisterium), it was not always so.

Still, Catholic schools in the colonies were few and far between primarily because Catholics were few and far between, making up less than one percent of the population on the British seaboard.

Similarly, as a relation of Carroll should know, the few Catholics in the colonies were mostly slaves or poor dirt farmers with no political influence. Virtually the only Catholic family with any political influence or power in the entirety of the thirteen colonies WAS the Carroll family. There were about a half-dozen priests for the whole of the Eastern seaboard.

Thus, to try to draw some kind of connection between early mission schools (or the handful of schools for the baptized) and the parochial school system of the Third Plenary Council and the school system today that is its legacy, is really more a game of charades than it is anything else.

Mission schools have almost nothing to do with schools for the baptized. The Church in America had essentially NO tradition of education to speak of precisely because there were almost no Catholics in the country for the first fifty years. You can trot out Georgetown and a couple of confreres all you want, but given the economic status of the less than one percent of the population eligible to attend, it's pretty clear that Georgetown was not a decisive influence on anything early on.

BTW, if you don't want to take anything I have to say as fact, then why read any of what I write? Similarly, you don't have to respect the opinions of Fr. McCloskey of Archbishop Burker's former chancellor if you don't want. I do.

[quote]And finally what do we have in 1904 (notice the year); the formation of the NCEA.  Perhaps this is where this is all leading.....a bias against the National Catholic Education Association.....perhaps not.

Hooray for ex Corde Ecclesiae..... (15 August 1990)
[right][snapback]728223[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

For the record, the NCEA is a sham today, regardless of how good or bad they may have been in the past.

I like Ex Cordae Ecclesia as much as the next man. But simply because someone calls a school Catholic does not make it so - as canon law affirms. And ECE has essentially not been implemented in this country, so while I applaud it, there are only about a dozen institutes of American Catholic higher education that can even begin to call themselves Catholic via attempting to implement it.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 17 2005, 05:31 PM']Hmm what else wasn't realized for thousands of years

The earth revolving around the sun
The earth is actually  round and not flat
Leeches don't do much for curing what ails you

Care for few more examples or will that do?
[right][snapback]727484[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Jamie I am suprised at you. The first is impossible to tell with the senses that the Earth moves. It is not analgous to adolesence which supposedly is a stage of development by all people at all times.


The second is simple fallacous and misleading it has been know for thousands of years that the earth was infact a sphere. The Greeks had her diameter figured out to within 1 % in the 4th century BC


And leechs are back, the are useing them for all sorts of things, so maybe those docs of the middleages weren't so wrong after all.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 17 2005, 05:57 PM']Ok I'm officially sick to death of the whole "St Joseph did it" argument.What is that supposed to do, make me go hide under the bed? 

From a psychological and psychophysiological standpoint, marriages of early teens and preteens is unhealthy.  To clarify, putting children in adult situations is unhealthy.  It has been and will continue to be. Including the marriages that took place during the birth of Jesus.  (Waiting for lightning to strike... no?  I'll continue then) 

There are lots of things that we do and there are even more things that our ancestors did that were physically, psychologically and spiritually unhealthy.  But that does not mean that cultures and civilizations don't advance.  It doesn't mean that we are incapable of great and wondrous things.  It simply means that we have the advantage now of knowing things that were not known then. 

"Well my granddad didn't need no stinking horseless carriage"

Its essentially the same argument.
The physiological and psychophysiological changes that occur are also facts of science.  Its not opinion, its not a conspiracy.  Its just the facts.  Accept them, or don't.  But contrary opinions are just that.
opinions
[right][snapback]727555[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[quote]Well my granddad didn't need no stinking horseless carriage"

Its essentially the same argument.[/quote] Jamie agian I am suprised as that argument is absurdly not analgous, it would only be so if your where saying it was perverse immorality to ride a horse. And if you where making such a claim then the statement --- then all of the Knights od the middle ages where horse riding perverts would be appropriate.

The issue here is that ya'll just don't like the end to which you position takes you. Itf it is pedophilia to pursue a developed 12 year old then most of the men of history where pedophiles period end of story. Puberty ends childhood that is just the way it is. I don't care if you are sick of the " St. Joseph did it arguement" or not I am sick of you saying that St. Joseph was a pervert.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 17 2005, 10:18 PM']Exactly right.

[quote name='HSMom']physical maturation for girls is getting younger and younger. A century or so ago, girls weren't fully mature until 16 or so on average. Now it's like ten! There is no way that you are going to convince me that it is right for ten year olds to be married. That's just not right no matter how you deal the cards.[/quote]

You bet.

continued.....
[right][snapback]727977[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[quote]What??? I would like theological proof on that, please. The Church has held the contrary view of that for 2000 years now.[/quote]


Would you kindly show me a church document which say " St. Joseph never had any intention of having sex with Mary, even before the Lord upon here" Please? I Must have missed that one back when I was studying with the Oblates. Since this is supposedly the Tradition of 2000 years ( according to you) I would love to see one from say 1000 AD if you can show it to me. I certianly do not need to show anything that says it was his intent since that is the end of marriage and is presumed to occur in any marriage.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Sep 17 2005, 10:19 PM']So.......what's your point?
So that is a bit disjointed.  First, I would like some hard proof that a seven year old can be allowed to be married.  And you are contradicting yourself in this statement.  You say anyone over the age of seven can be married (THAT'S in canon law), but then there is an age requirement, so which is it?  The answer is that a seven year old is not allowed to marry. A seven year old cannot make that kind of decision Sacramentally or psychologically.

Back your statement up.  Hard proof for the allowance of 7 year olds to marry, please.
Yes ma'am.  That is true.
Gee, that sounds like adolescence to me.  If they were simply adults at this time, why would the new adult need help.  He would be ready to handle it....oh yeah, he is not ready to accept it, he is an adolescent.
Hello.

continued......
[right][snapback]727978[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[b]A seven year old cannot make that kind of decision Sacramentally or psychologically[/b] The Church teaches that a 7 year old has reached the Age of reason and is capapble of makeing adult decisions and having adult understanding, this is why a 7 year old can go to communion and is culpuble for sin. That is basic Chuch teaching, a 7 year old is capable of making adult decisions. And by the Way canon law says 14 which this girl was -- I just thought I'd mention that.

Edited September 18, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 18 2005, 07:15 AM']What does a smile on her face have to do with the fact she was raped by a pedophile?
So we don't prosecute  criminals if the victim isn't screaming in agony?
The guy should be in jail.
[right][snapback]728301[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Actually yes it does matter -- most crimes are not prosecuted if the victim doesn't want charges pressed.