Father Ripperger Four Stages of Courtship

  • Thread starter Thread starter PolycarpOfSmyrna
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I meant the USA. Culturally, parts of the US are Puritan in the sense that Puritanism was more a social thing than it was a personal morality thing. In that sense, many Catholics have taken on Puritanism. It tends to prevail in the east and west coasts. The Puritan tradition gave rise to the Protestant “reform” movements like Mormonism and the “Great Awakening”. Catholics have adopted elements of it in some parts of the country, seeing religion as fundamentally “social”.

In other parts of the country the culture and beliefs are more “Catholic” in that they have a very strong emphasis on redemption and personal morality and salvation.
 
Some have said their kids would run from Catholics with “whackadoodle” traditional dating ideas. Would you prefer your child marry a hardened atheist who is more worldly?
Or neither. This isn’t either/or. We certainly taught our daughter to look for a man who was compatible in faith, but also to run from any man who thought he was anything other than fully equal to her. Terms such as “headship” and “wifely submission”= big red flag.
 
“maybe I’m dating myself” Ironic, given the title of the thread. Does your dad approve? 🙂
 
Neo-Jansenism from a formally moral sense it’s better, I can agree with you.
 
I recently read an interesting book that confirmed, in part, something I have thought for quite some time. The U.S. is divided into cultural groups that largely reflect the origins of the peoples who settled various regions of this country. It is difficult to say whether the religious beliefs of the particular groups affected their culture and therefore their politics, or whether culture influenced religious beliefs and politics.

I am inclined to believe the former, but leaving out some of the groups and many of the details, the author asserted that the East Coast is largely still Puritan to the extent is not still admixed with some aspects of Dutch culture. That culture spread westward into the Great Lakes country, then leapt to the West Coast. Contrary to popular belief, Puritanism wasn’t so much about personal moral principles as it was about construction of a “moral” society. The great religious movements in the U.S. all had their origins there; Mormonism, the Great Awakening, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Adventists, Shakers, and others.

The Appalachians were largely settled by Scots-Irish immigrants, many of whom came from extreme poverty in the British Isles and had a simplified “personal salvation” brand of protestantism that, in its teachings, is not all that protestant. The people tended to follow the hill country from the Appalachians through the uplands of the upper south, through the Smokies, the Ozarks, Ouachitas and into the Texas Hill Country. They lived simple lives. One can travel through that country and see virtually no monumental buildings or homes.

The Deep South is basically English and Anglican except for Louisiana, the southern part of which is French and Catholic.

The upper Midwest is Teutonic in ethnic origin and in its ways. I could go on, but won’t.

Among the interesting things in that book is the assertion that Puritanism is actually more “social reform” than it is “personal reform” in its nature; that the movements that sprung from it are the same way; that a sort of extreme sense of personal responsibility and simplicity pervades the “hill country” through a vast stretch of this country, and that probably all of it is informed by religious belief and traditions.

Where does Catholicism fit in all of this? Well, it’s varied because Catholics came here from quite varied places. In some places, it’s Teutonic, in some it’s “social reform” Puritan, in some it’s “personal relationship with Jesus” fundamental. In some, it’s Jansenistic-influenced Irish. In some, it’s “confess it, forget it, let’s drink wine” Italian. But always, it has that “personal salvation” emphasis that has lately become watered down by “liberation theology” concepts which are akin to the Puritan.

Do I think (with Flannery O’Connor) that the next source of converts in the U.S. is among Southern Fundamentalists? I very much do. Do I think like her that Southern Fundamentalism is more akin to Catholicism than it is to Protestantism? Living in a sea of them as I do, I absolutely believe that.
 
The Deep South is basically English and Anglican except for Louisiana, the southern part of which is French and Catholic.
Some Southerners insist that Louisiana isn’t really Southern since it has a significant Catholic population. Southern equals Baptist.
 
I think one of the changes here is it’s less common now for kids in america to be dating in their teens, or if they are it’s not seen as serious. My understanding is most parents of teens still want to know who their children are dating. But marriage in the USA is now usually happening in the late 20’s. It’s very different for an adult man and woman to be seeking that sort of permission.
Sadly, many teens now, even young teens, skip “dating” and go straight to sex, or at least “sexting” on their phones.

Dr. Twenge’s book about the IGen has some very disturbing stats on the very high percentage of teens who regularly send nude photos to other teens, and who consider sex part of “getting to know someone.”

😦
 
40.png
1ke:
Over and above all the stuff he says in the video about the father giving permission to marry, walking her down the aisle, giving her away— NONE of that is Church teaching. In fact the opposite. The marriage rite does not contain any of that.
Father Ripperger seems to be one of those guys who thinks that if he talks about an idealized past enough eventually it will materialize.
He of all people should know that the past where everything was ideal existed only in the Garden of Eden, pre-Fall.
 
This plays into the idea that women are permanent minors and shouldn’t have the status of a full adult.

That is against Catholic teaching am I right?
 
[snipped for character limits]
I recently read an interesting book that confirmed, in part, something I have thought for quite some time. The U.S. is divided into cultural groups that largely reflect the origins of the peoples who settled various regions of this country. It is difficult to say whether the religious beliefs of the particular groups affected their culture and therefore their politics, or whether culture influenced religious beliefs and politics.

I am inclined to believe the former, but leaving out some of the groups and many of the details, the author asserted that the East Coast is largely still Puritan to the extent is not still admixed with some aspects of Dutch culture. That culture spread westward into the Great Lakes country, then leapt to the West Coast. Contrary to popular belief, Puritanism wasn’t so much about personal moral principles as it was about construction of a “moral” society. The great religious movements in the U.S. all had their origins there; Mormonism, the Great Awakening, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Adventists, Shakers, and others.

The Appalachians were largely settled by Scots-Irish immigrants, many of whom came from extreme poverty in the British Isles and had a simplified “personal salvation” brand of protestantism that, in its teachings, is not all that protestant. The people tended to follow the hill country from the Appalachians through the uplands of the upper south, through the Smokies, the Ozarks, Ouachitas and into the Texas Hill Country. They lived simple lives…

The Deep South is basically English and Anglican except for Louisiana, the southern part of which is French and Catholic.

The upper Midwest is Teutonic in ethnic origin and in its ways. I could go on, but won’t.



Where does Catholicism fit in all of this? Well, it’s varied because Catholics came here from quite varied places. In some places, it’s Teutonic, in some it’s “social reform” Puritan, in some it’s “personal relationship with Jesus” fundamental. In some, it’s Jansenistic-influenced Irish. In some, it’s “confess it, forget it, let’s drink wine” Italian. But always, it has that “personal salvation” emphasis…

Do I think (with Flannery O’Connor) that the next source of converts in the U.S. is among Southern Fundamentalists? I very much do. Do I think like her that Southern Fundamentalism is more akin to Catholicism than it is to Protestantism? Living in a sea of them as I do, I absolutely believe that.
This is a brilliant analysis, and very, very accurate. My only quibble would be that Anglicanism, in the South, is really not that strong of a presence, aside from very traditional parts of Virginia, South Carolina (Charleston), and possibly other small areas. The South is basically Baptist country, as well as those churches that are similar to Baptist. The analysis of the Scots-Irish heritage in Appalachia (and its “tributaries”, so to speak) is dead-on correct.

Just out of curiosity, which book was this? I love this kind of book, something like this would be “bedside reading” for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top