Not One Size Fits All

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I was reading a quote from Pope Francis that someone posted on the main OBOB forum. The quote was about marriage. In the post, the quote talked about marriage as between a man and a woman where the husband encourages the wife to become more truly feminine and the husband encourages the husband to become more truly masculine.

It struck me that perhaps he may have been thinking that by posting that he was refuting gay marriage, or even heterosexual marriages between folks who don't conform to gender norms or who don't want to become more masculine and feminine than they already are as the result of their marriage, and that anyone who feels otherwise would thus have to attack Pope Francis' words.

However, my feeling is that what Pope Francis said there is not necessarily a bad model for *some* marriages. That is what marriage can be for some people who choose it and it can be good for them. I would not argue so much with a choice mutually made by both partners to a marriage to live their lives and conduct themselves voluntarily in a way where they look to bring out certain mutually agreed qualities in each other.

Where I think perhaps the poster and I might part ways is that I don't think there should be a one size fits all model for marriage. I think lots of different types of people can get married for lots of different types of reasons and have lots of different goals or ways of strengthening their marriages that can be at variance with how other good marriages work but can be exactly right and good and holy for the two particular people in that marriage.

The key elements of marriage are mutual love (Not necessarily the emotion, but the act of giving your life to someone else and being loyal and caring toward that person) and respect, and being willing to work hard to stay compatible with your spouse and make that marriage work. Within those boundaries, there are a lot of different varying ways to go about making marriage work, and a lot of different ways of having good marriages. What is best for a couple depends on who they are individually and their joint and individual temperaments, personalities, goals and aspirations, and situation(s) in life, and to some degree is a matter of personal preference.

I think when we try to put a one size fits all framework on an institution like marriage, it results in pain and suffering for people who don't fit the norm, and thus either are not allowed to marry, or are allowed to marry and then suffer trying to fit their marriage into a mold that isn't right for the two people involved instead of into a mold that is right for their individual marriage.

And, I think, in a broader sense, as we have the discussion on this forum, which has gone on I think in several different threads, of what it means to be a liberal or progressive Catholic, perhaps one aspect of that is acknowledging that one size doesn't fit all. Not just in marriage, but in general.

Whereas as a generalization conservatives tend to be in favor of enforced conformity to social norms that are viewed as traditional in a culture or region, and want to pressure people into adopting them and rejected those who don't, liberals or progressives tend to emphasize that everyone is different and that we can embrace that diversity and love each other without all being the same, and that indeed our diversity is a strength and not a weakness, and that we self-actualize and build the strongest communities when we be the best people we can be in our own way instead of being the best copy we can be of what someone else holds up as ideal.

I'm replying here rather than there because it relates to discussions we're having here and I didn't want to sidetrack the other thread. Also, I was not sure if this would be considered an appropriate discussion for the other forum. However, of course the person who posted the original quote or indeed anyone who wants to come over here and discuss it with us is welcome to, as far as I'm concerned! The idea isn't to duck conversation, but rather to be considerate of the different sub-forum rules and not sidetrack the other guy's thread. :)
 
Last edited:

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟241,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
I am glad that you believe this is a place where we can have open conversation and debate

as for the "one size fits all" mindset
many of the conservative Catholics would agree with you
like except for separatists like the SSPX, the vast majority of conservative Catholics know that Latin Mass will never become the universal mass for the Latin Rite
they are happy to have their own little parish and keep their own traditions

I mean, if you look at Millennials in general, a lot of them have this "geek" mindset, where they like their own particular thing
if it be metrosexual guys who put a lot of focus on clothes and beauty products, or people who are obsessed over books or movies or video games

be they impassioned Social Justice Warriors or blogers talking about St. Philomina cord
every one is trying to carve out their own niche
I mean, even look at this message board
individualism is all the rage

so I agree, one size does not fit all
but that does not mean that we ignore boundaries all together

sexual relations with members of the same sex, or with anyone who you are not married too (members of the same sex can not have a valid marriage as per Natural Law)
is sinful
and sin separates us from the grace of God

so anything I say about gay marriage, I say out of love for people who suffer from SSA
 
Upvote 0

Fish and Bread

Dona nobis pacem
Jan 31, 2005
14,109
2,389
✟60,685.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
members of the same sex can not have a valid marriage as per Natural Law

To be honest, given that people who are gay often in retrospect can identify having had a strong attraction to the opposite sex from a very early age, and that homosexuality in some form occurs in various human cultures, and in some parts of the animal kingdom, and that the human body has pleasure centers that are associated with gay relations, and that there is likely a genetic element to homosexuality, I would actually say that "natural law" would speak in favor of gay unions. Religious tradition may differ on that point in some cases, of course.

One thing that I find someone what unfortunate is how heavily some theologians in the west have leaned on natural law to attempt to demonstrate points which it does not support, like a prohibition on gay marriage. I think it undermines natural law as a concept, because if natural law becomes whatever a religion's traditional view on a subject has been rather than what nature and genetics and design would naturally dictate irrespective of religion, the term loses meaning as being something that people of any religion can objectively see and simply because another term for a specific religion's dogma or doctrine which is non-obvious or perhaps even counter to what one who is putting that aside would see from an objective point of view.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Rhamiel

Member of the Round Table
Nov 11, 2006
41,182
9,432
ohio
✟241,111.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
infanticide also appears in various cultures and in parts of the animal kingdom
the Aztecs offered human sacrifice, the ancient people of the Levant would offer their children to the idol Moloch
some species of bears and cats will eat their young

but I do not think it is "fitting or proper" for human beings to murder their own children

natural law is more then what just happens in nature

the family is naturally a mother, a father, and children
and the family is the basic building block of society
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Over the centuries, I believe that the Church has emphasized sexual and gender issues much too much. The OT emphasis was carried over by the Church. However, we should understand the underlying reasons for the sexual and gender rules & regulations.

1) In agricultural societies, the emphasis must be on having children, so that they can take care of their parents in their old age. Since children often died of disease (and war) at young ages, it was necessary to have lots of children.

2) In agricultural societies, establishing the right to inherit or succeed one's parents is critical.

Old Testament society was run by men, with women being little more than slaves or property. It appeared that there were lots of movement to change this at the time of the Jesus. All this was snuffed out by the early church when the paternalistic hierarchy system was chosen, and women were again slaves and property.

Jesus made very, very few statements about sexual and gender issues. His statements and actions might be said to support current church regulations, or many other sets of regulations. Also, Jesus made many, many statements about money and our relationship to money. Jesus made many, many statements with regard to helping the weak and disenfranchised.

AND WHERE ARE WE NOW
A) The "need" for a dozen children is long gone in the developed world, and will be gone in Africa and Asia within a couple of decades.
B) We well understand that intimacy is important for our health, and the purpose of sexual intimacy is NOT children.
B) We need more rather than fewer intimate friendships.
C) Girls are physically able to conceive at earlier and earlier ages, sometimes at 10 or even younger.
D) We are living routinely into our 90's, with some interest in sexual relations until perhaps 70.
E) We think of 30 as a good age to marry

THEREFORE, AS CATHOLICS
G) We expect our young to celibate for 15-20 years. Celibacy is difficult for priests; to enforce it on youngsters is difficult.
H) We expect no sexual intimacy until 30 and then a successful marriage for 40 or 50 years.
I) We expect our adults to be married for 60 years. In the prime of life (30-70), we expect them to be married for 40 years devoted to one person, and to use natural family planning with the likelihood that we will have more children than is reasonable in our society.

SOME CONCLUSIONS
1) As the pope has taught, the Church should focus on issues other than gender and sexuality.
2) The Church needs to focus on preparing this world for the coming of Jesus. To that end, it must come to understand what actions and policies will help us to improve this world.
3) The Church must understand the PRIMACY of the TWO commands. All else is include in those two commands. We might pray the beatitudes each day to better understand what it means to be Jesus in this world.
4) The Church needs to re-assess its understanding of sexual issues, and what man-made regulations make sense for pilgrims in this era.
5) And yes, the Church must change many of its rules and regulations, as it has through the ages.

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
One is reminded of Father Girzone's Joshua series of book, where Jesus comes to earth and solves many of our issues, including those of peace and war. One is reminded of the bracelets many Protestants give their children with WWJD clearly written. We would be so much better off if we would ask this question for one full year, each day, and before each of our actions.

And who are today's lepers who need our compassion and healing? And who are the disenfranchised in the US and throughout the world? Where should we using our resources? Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services are great charities. Where also should we give to help the weak?

The Protestants teach that we should give a minimum of 10% of our income to the Church, and in addition give to various other needs and charities. When I taught in our Church in NH, we taught that 5% should go to the Church and at leaf 5% to other charities. We realized that we should be helping through the Salvation Army, the red Cross and other charities.

A FINAL NOTE
We can discuss practical steps in other threads. It is absolutely clear to me that the disenfranchised in the US are homosexuals, prisoners, and the poor (who have little access to jobs and education). Throughout the world, there are the boat people (which governments will deal with) and the poor who need clean water and affordable health care. Thankfully there are many ways that we can help.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
infanticide also appears in various cultures and in parts of the animal kingdom
the Aztecs offered human sacrifice, the ancient people of the Levant would offer their children to the idol Moloch
some species of bears and cats will eat their young

but I do not think it is "fitting or proper" for human beings to murder their own children

natural law is more then what just happens in nature

the family is naturally a mother, a father, and children
and the family is the basic building block of society

The point is NOT to copy the natural world.

You consider unnatural behavior to be sinful. The point is that some of the behavior you mention is NOT unnatural. If such behavior is to be considered to be sinful, there needs to be other reasons. The Church has those reasons.
 
Upvote 0

Tallguy88

We shall see the King when he comes!
Supporter
Jan 13, 2009
32,459
7,737
Parts Unknown
✟240,396.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Those who think women should be "feminine" apparently have never had the pleasure of knowing redneck tomboys! Girls out my way know how to hunt, fish, fix a truck, etc as well as the guy rednecks. Much more enjoyable to be around than demure, feminine girls.

Point being: "to each his own"

Also "redneck" is not an insult to rednecks, so don't get huffy.
 
Upvote 0