Knowledge3
Well-Known Member
There is no clear definition of Catholics and Protestants.
People are not defined by their religious beliefs.
People are not defined by their religious beliefs.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
- Status
- Apr 11, 2005
- 73,951
- 10,060
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
The Church does NOT say we cannot marry...it advises us to make sure we are prepared. Best advice going...if you ask me.Regardless if I agree with that advice, I find it very sad that Christians of different denominations may have problems with dating.
AS a Catholic [strong in faith] who is married to a man who is Protestant, I can verify that the marriage is difficult at best.
And this is even after the fact he attends the Catholic Mass with me and prefers Catholicism. But does nothing to become baptized.
WHY? Because he doesnt want to fully become Catholic as not to offend his family.
So many issues stand in the way of two strongly opposed branches of Christianity.
It tears a marriage into pieces...trust me.
Holding on for the sake of one's vows before God [as it should always be] is hard. Take the average problems of marriage and mix this in...and you have some serious problems.
Raising children could be much worse, if he didnt agree to raise them Catholic.
And I will say, he has not stood in the way of their faith.
And even pushes them to know it well.He pays for their tuition to a Catholic school. And he makes sure they attend CCD.
Yet....his resistance for his own baptism due to his family makes it a struggle.
Practical advice;
Do not marry someone whom you strongly disagree with in matters of practicing religion. It is harder than it seems.
BUT if you believe in the notion of love conquers all..be fully prepared to be humble and to at least seek the history of the Catholic Church.
I believe that is why my husband relented to Catholicism as the religion of choice....because he researched it 1st.
We were just about to walk away from one another....when he decided to find out for himself who was right.
And I still ask for continued prayers for my husbands initiation into the Church...fully!
Upvote
0
Absolutely. And I have to ask myself "what is the best way to provide for my sanctification?" and be satisfied with the answer. I cannot see that as being anything other than marrying a good, practicing Catholic.
Maybe I'm holding out for the highest ideal, but I figure that if God has ordained it from all eternity, I can be patient.
Upvote
0
Simon_Templar
Not all who wander are lost
out of curiosity... what kind of protestant is he, that his family doesn't believe in baptism?The Church does NOT say we cannot marry...it advises us to make sure we are prepared. Best advice going...if you ask me.
AS a Catholic [strong in faith] who is married to a man who is Protestant, I can verify that the marriage is difficult at best.
And this is even after the fact he attends the Catholic Mass with me and prefers Catholicism. But does nothing to become baptized.
WHY? Because he doesnt want to fully become Catholic as not to offend his family.
So many issues stand in the way of two strongly opposed branches of Christianity.
It tears a marriage into pieces...trust me.
Holding on for the sake of one's vows before God [as it should always be] is hard. Take the average problems of marriage and mix this in...and you have some serious problems.
Raising children could be much worse, if he didnt agree to raise them Catholic.
And I will say, he has not stood in the way of their faith.
He pays for their tuition to a Catholic school. And he makes sure they attend CCD.
Yet....his resistance for his own baptism due to his family makes it a struggle.
Practical advice;
Do not marry someone whom you strongly disagree with in matters of practicing religion. It is harder than it seems.
BUT if you believe in the notion of love conquers all..be fully prepared to be humble and to at least seek the history of the Catholic Church.
I believe that is why my husband relented to Catholicism as the religion of choice....because he researched it 1st.
We were just about to walk away from one another....when he decided to find out for himself who was right.
And I still ask for continued prayers for my husbands initiation into the Church...fully!
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 73,951
- 10,060
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
They are Brethren.
They believe in baptism...when the person is ready. However; if death comes b4 that time...then what?
This is my major cause of worry.
And the fact he cannot completely convert to Catholicism out of obligation to his family.
Believe it or not, of the many forms of Christian sects, some do not believe baptism is necessary.
How divided it all has become. Which is truly why inter faith Christian marriages are so very very very hard.
Even the most in love couple will have a difficult time.
Upvote
0
Hey all,
Here is an article I came across on Catholic discernment in dating. It's a bit lenghty, but I got alot from it, and thought it might be benefical to this discussion.
God Bless
FROM: http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/V,7,3-27-2000/vanSchaijik.htm
the University Concourse
Volume V, Issue 7
March 27, 2000
[SIZE=+2]A Catholic critique of a current notion of courtship[/SIZE]
by Kathleen van Schaijik
When I was a freshman I went to a talk on dating, given on campus as part of a "Christian Formation" series. One of the things the speaker said was "Feelings don't really matter. Feelings come and go. What matters is compatibility." I've heard the same idea expressed many other times this way: "Love is not a feeling; it's a decision."
The de-emphasis on "feelings" was a fundamental aspect of a general philosophy of dating promoted on campus (though certainly not shared by all) at the time. Dating was (and still is) regarded by many as "a process of marriage preparation." Singles who truly wanted to "give their love life to God," were taught that they ought not to be dating at all until they were ready to get married, and that then it should be kept to the minimum necessary for finding an appropriate potential spouse and rationally discerning compatibility for marriage. A great deal of stress was put on the need to avoid sexual sin and occasions of sin, as well as on the danger of "going by your emotions." Young men and women were told they should not kiss until they were engaged, and were "challenged" to wait until they were married. ("If you're not going to start the car, why put the key in the ignition?") Older couples were encouraged to "get married as soon as possible" in order to avoid sin. The mystery of love was given very short shrift.
This way of thinking about courtship and dating seems to be on the rise in Christian circles. There are a number of Protestant ministers and teachers today promulgating what they call (very misleadingly, I think) "the biblical approach" to marriage, which they term "courtship" in explicit opposition to the dating scene of the world.[SIZE=-2](1)[/SIZE] Dating, they say, with its pattern of emotional attachments ending in breakups is "preparation for divorce." In courtship, by contrast, "the decision to marry is entered into rationally," without the interference of the emotions and with the express permission and guidance of the parents. The emotions come later, during the betrothal period. "The betrothal period [is] given to allow the emotions to catch up with the decision. The emotions are supposed to follow reason, not lead it." [SIZE=-2](2)[/SIZE] (No distinction is made here between critically different types of emotions, such as between arbitrary sensations and deep spiritual responses.)
I have heard prominent Catholics expound similar ideas recently, including the notion of parental permission to begin courting, no kissing until the wedding day, and the idea that feelings should follow the rational decision to court, not vice versa.[SIZE=-2](3)[/SIZE]
This method of courting has a strong appeal among young Christians, for two main reasons. The first is that it has a very large kernel of truth in it. The dating scene of the world is a disastrous mess. It is almost completely focussed on pleasure and self-gratification. Sexual promiscuity and emotional anguish abound. More and more couples are living together unmarried, more and more marriages are ending in divorce, more hearts are being broken, more lives are being ruined. Serious young Christians are looking desperately for something better and purer--a godly way to get married. And this method promises to provide it.
The second reason for its appeal, I think, is that it so greatly simplifies things for singles. It makes the pre-marriage period manageable. It gives a safe formula for getting through an extremely complex, confusing and peril-fraught time of life. By putting things on a clear, up-front, rational basis, much of the uncertainty and vulnerability that inevitably accompany "affairs of the heart" is eliminated.
The problem with it is that it is drastically lacking the fullness of truth about the mysteries of love and sexuality. And the lack here is not a mere incompleteness--so that if a few additions or adjustments were made, we'd have it in full. Rather, it is the kind of lack that entails a reduction and distortion of reality. And any distortion on the philosophical level is bound to work its way into the practical realm, doing damage in human lives in proportion with the seriousness of the error. (I could give many sorrowful examples here if put to it.)
Love and discernment
Perhaps the prime way it distorts reality is in the way it denigrates the role of love in courtship. In some cases, love is treated as irrelevant or worse, since "emotions" can cloud our judgement.[SIZE=-2](4)[/SIZE] More often, though, the "feelings" that go with courtship are seen to be good and valid, but still incidental to the "discernment process." I can remember very distinctly thinking this way as a freshman and sophomore at FUS--being taught to think this way. If the choice of a spouse was sound, the feelings would click in eventually.
Just last night, reading George Weigel's biography of John Paul II, I was struck by this line: "Love, for Karol Wojtyla, was the truth at the very core of the human condition..." (p.101) Similarly, he saw it as the core of authentic courtship. In the experience of falling in love, Wojtyla shows, the meaning of the universe is mysteriously revealed, and with it the lover's personal vocation: to give myself in love to this other, and to receive the gift of his love for me.[SIZE=-2](5)[/SIZE]
This theme is also stressed repeatedly in the writings of the great Catholic philosopher, Dietrich von Hildebrand.[SIZE=-2](6)[/SIZE] True love between a man and a woman, so far from being a matter of bodily urges or appetites, or of sub-rational, superficial "feelings" needing to be dominated by reason, is a profoundly, a pre-eminently spiritual reality--one that shakes us to the very depths of our being. It is, further, decisively an affective reality, centered in the heart, not the intellect or the will (though it is of course intimately related to both.) Jacob did not labor fourteen years for Rachel's hand because he had "discerned a compatibility" with her, but "because he loved her." (Gen. 29:19-20)
To insist on the centrality of love in courtship, however, is not at all to suggest that discernment has no place. It is vitally necessary; for instance, in helping us to distinguish between authentic love and counterfeits like infatuation or mere sexual attraction, or to decide whether or not this particular love ought to end in marriage, or whether it might be right to marry even in the absence of an intense "inloveness."[SIZE=-2](7)[/SIZE] But, crucial at it is, rational discernment is not the essence of the matter, and if we talk as if it is, we will end by cheating young men and women out of the height of human happiness, and with it the moral power they will need to live out their married lives well.[SIZE=-2](8)[/SIZE]
The objective and subjective dimensions
A second distortion in the above-described courtship method, related to the first, is in its too impersonal or lop-sidedly "objective" treatment of the vocation to marriage. This can be seen in the very idea of making lists of potential spouses, and in the notion of needing parental permission to begin courting.
In Catholic understanding, marriage is a vocation--not just to a general state, but to a particular person. And like a vocation to the religious life, it is based on an intimate, interior call of God. In other words, it is something profoundly subjective[SIZE=-2](9)[/SIZE]--beyond the reach of purely objective judgements and categories.[SIZE=-2](10)[/SIZE] Therefore, it is not fitting for a man who wants to marry to make lists of the qualities he's looking for in a wife, or lists of the various women who attract his interest. This exposes and reinforces an impersonal and de-personalizing view of marriage--as if it didn't really matter whom one marries, as long as she has the right qualities for the role she is to play. It encourages a man to be on the lookout for a "type" rather than for a person--an approach that has devastating consequences, particularly for women.[SIZE=-2](11)[/SIZE]
Neither is it fitting for a couple to put the decision to court or to marry a particular person in the hands of their parents, or any other superior. No matter how much he may have the best interests of his daughter in mind, a parent cannot see into her heart, and is therefore simply unqualified to make that most intimate and ultimate of decisions for her. But, again, to say that the parents should not hold veto power over their adult child's choice to court or marry is not at all to suggest that they do not have an essential role to play in helping their off-spring to court and marry well. A parent's perspective is priceless and irreplaceable.
My own parents never did anything to try to "control" my dating in college. The unspoken understanding was that they had done for me what they could by raising me well, and now it was up to me to live as I thought right.
When I was a sophomore I had a boyfriend--someone I thought of as a great Christian leader and a potential spouse. I was not in love with him, but I expected that would come in due course. One day I asked my Dad, "Would you be happy if I married him?" He hesitated before answering, and in that single instant of fatherly hesitation (which surprised me) all the subtle doubts I had been harboring in my own heart crystallized into certainty: this relationship would never work; he was a great person, but he was all wrong for me. My father's knowledge of me and his broader experience of life allowed him to see it before I did. And my implicit trust in his judgement and his loving concern for my happiness made me see it much sooner than I would have on my own--which spared me (and the boyfriend) a lot of needless heartache.
My parents never had the least hesitation about Jules. But neither would they have picked him for me out of a crowd of potential husbands. Until they saw how we loved one another, they could not have imagined how right he is for me. It was a revelation for them too.
Parents wield an enormous influence over their children. They have a right and a duty to advise their grown sons and daughters, and to bless or withhold their blessing from their "courtship choices," as their loving parental wisdom dictates.[SIZE=-2](12)[/SIZE] But they cannot make those choices for them, and they can do damage if they try.
Here is an article I came across on Catholic discernment in dating. It's a bit lenghty, but I got alot from it, and thought it might be benefical to this discussion.
God Bless
FROM: http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/V,7,3-27-2000/vanSchaijik.htm
the University Concourse
Volume V, Issue 7
March 27, 2000
[SIZE=+2]A Catholic critique of a current notion of courtship[/SIZE]
by Kathleen van Schaijik
When I was a freshman I went to a talk on dating, given on campus as part of a "Christian Formation" series. One of the things the speaker said was "Feelings don't really matter. Feelings come and go. What matters is compatibility." I've heard the same idea expressed many other times this way: "Love is not a feeling; it's a decision."
The de-emphasis on "feelings" was a fundamental aspect of a general philosophy of dating promoted on campus (though certainly not shared by all) at the time. Dating was (and still is) regarded by many as "a process of marriage preparation." Singles who truly wanted to "give their love life to God," were taught that they ought not to be dating at all until they were ready to get married, and that then it should be kept to the minimum necessary for finding an appropriate potential spouse and rationally discerning compatibility for marriage. A great deal of stress was put on the need to avoid sexual sin and occasions of sin, as well as on the danger of "going by your emotions." Young men and women were told they should not kiss until they were engaged, and were "challenged" to wait until they were married. ("If you're not going to start the car, why put the key in the ignition?") Older couples were encouraged to "get married as soon as possible" in order to avoid sin. The mystery of love was given very short shrift.
This way of thinking about courtship and dating seems to be on the rise in Christian circles. There are a number of Protestant ministers and teachers today promulgating what they call (very misleadingly, I think) "the biblical approach" to marriage, which they term "courtship" in explicit opposition to the dating scene of the world.[SIZE=-2](1)[/SIZE] Dating, they say, with its pattern of emotional attachments ending in breakups is "preparation for divorce." In courtship, by contrast, "the decision to marry is entered into rationally," without the interference of the emotions and with the express permission and guidance of the parents. The emotions come later, during the betrothal period. "The betrothal period [is] given to allow the emotions to catch up with the decision. The emotions are supposed to follow reason, not lead it." [SIZE=-2](2)[/SIZE] (No distinction is made here between critically different types of emotions, such as between arbitrary sensations and deep spiritual responses.)
I have heard prominent Catholics expound similar ideas recently, including the notion of parental permission to begin courting, no kissing until the wedding day, and the idea that feelings should follow the rational decision to court, not vice versa.[SIZE=-2](3)[/SIZE]
This method of courting has a strong appeal among young Christians, for two main reasons. The first is that it has a very large kernel of truth in it. The dating scene of the world is a disastrous mess. It is almost completely focussed on pleasure and self-gratification. Sexual promiscuity and emotional anguish abound. More and more couples are living together unmarried, more and more marriages are ending in divorce, more hearts are being broken, more lives are being ruined. Serious young Christians are looking desperately for something better and purer--a godly way to get married. And this method promises to provide it.
The second reason for its appeal, I think, is that it so greatly simplifies things for singles. It makes the pre-marriage period manageable. It gives a safe formula for getting through an extremely complex, confusing and peril-fraught time of life. By putting things on a clear, up-front, rational basis, much of the uncertainty and vulnerability that inevitably accompany "affairs of the heart" is eliminated.
The problem with it is that it is drastically lacking the fullness of truth about the mysteries of love and sexuality. And the lack here is not a mere incompleteness--so that if a few additions or adjustments were made, we'd have it in full. Rather, it is the kind of lack that entails a reduction and distortion of reality. And any distortion on the philosophical level is bound to work its way into the practical realm, doing damage in human lives in proportion with the seriousness of the error. (I could give many sorrowful examples here if put to it.)
Love and discernment
Perhaps the prime way it distorts reality is in the way it denigrates the role of love in courtship. In some cases, love is treated as irrelevant or worse, since "emotions" can cloud our judgement.[SIZE=-2](4)[/SIZE] More often, though, the "feelings" that go with courtship are seen to be good and valid, but still incidental to the "discernment process." I can remember very distinctly thinking this way as a freshman and sophomore at FUS--being taught to think this way. If the choice of a spouse was sound, the feelings would click in eventually.
Just last night, reading George Weigel's biography of John Paul II, I was struck by this line: "Love, for Karol Wojtyla, was the truth at the very core of the human condition..." (p.101) Similarly, he saw it as the core of authentic courtship. In the experience of falling in love, Wojtyla shows, the meaning of the universe is mysteriously revealed, and with it the lover's personal vocation: to give myself in love to this other, and to receive the gift of his love for me.[SIZE=-2](5)[/SIZE]
This theme is also stressed repeatedly in the writings of the great Catholic philosopher, Dietrich von Hildebrand.[SIZE=-2](6)[/SIZE] True love between a man and a woman, so far from being a matter of bodily urges or appetites, or of sub-rational, superficial "feelings" needing to be dominated by reason, is a profoundly, a pre-eminently spiritual reality--one that shakes us to the very depths of our being. It is, further, decisively an affective reality, centered in the heart, not the intellect or the will (though it is of course intimately related to both.) Jacob did not labor fourteen years for Rachel's hand because he had "discerned a compatibility" with her, but "because he loved her." (Gen. 29:19-20)
To insist on the centrality of love in courtship, however, is not at all to suggest that discernment has no place. It is vitally necessary; for instance, in helping us to distinguish between authentic love and counterfeits like infatuation or mere sexual attraction, or to decide whether or not this particular love ought to end in marriage, or whether it might be right to marry even in the absence of an intense "inloveness."[SIZE=-2](7)[/SIZE] But, crucial at it is, rational discernment is not the essence of the matter, and if we talk as if it is, we will end by cheating young men and women out of the height of human happiness, and with it the moral power they will need to live out their married lives well.[SIZE=-2](8)[/SIZE]
The objective and subjective dimensions
A second distortion in the above-described courtship method, related to the first, is in its too impersonal or lop-sidedly "objective" treatment of the vocation to marriage. This can be seen in the very idea of making lists of potential spouses, and in the notion of needing parental permission to begin courting.
In Catholic understanding, marriage is a vocation--not just to a general state, but to a particular person. And like a vocation to the religious life, it is based on an intimate, interior call of God. In other words, it is something profoundly subjective[SIZE=-2](9)[/SIZE]--beyond the reach of purely objective judgements and categories.[SIZE=-2](10)[/SIZE] Therefore, it is not fitting for a man who wants to marry to make lists of the qualities he's looking for in a wife, or lists of the various women who attract his interest. This exposes and reinforces an impersonal and de-personalizing view of marriage--as if it didn't really matter whom one marries, as long as she has the right qualities for the role she is to play. It encourages a man to be on the lookout for a "type" rather than for a person--an approach that has devastating consequences, particularly for women.[SIZE=-2](11)[/SIZE]
Neither is it fitting for a couple to put the decision to court or to marry a particular person in the hands of their parents, or any other superior. No matter how much he may have the best interests of his daughter in mind, a parent cannot see into her heart, and is therefore simply unqualified to make that most intimate and ultimate of decisions for her. But, again, to say that the parents should not hold veto power over their adult child's choice to court or marry is not at all to suggest that they do not have an essential role to play in helping their off-spring to court and marry well. A parent's perspective is priceless and irreplaceable.
My own parents never did anything to try to "control" my dating in college. The unspoken understanding was that they had done for me what they could by raising me well, and now it was up to me to live as I thought right.
When I was a sophomore I had a boyfriend--someone I thought of as a great Christian leader and a potential spouse. I was not in love with him, but I expected that would come in due course. One day I asked my Dad, "Would you be happy if I married him?" He hesitated before answering, and in that single instant of fatherly hesitation (which surprised me) all the subtle doubts I had been harboring in my own heart crystallized into certainty: this relationship would never work; he was a great person, but he was all wrong for me. My father's knowledge of me and his broader experience of life allowed him to see it before I did. And my implicit trust in his judgement and his loving concern for my happiness made me see it much sooner than I would have on my own--which spared me (and the boyfriend) a lot of needless heartache.
My parents never had the least hesitation about Jules. But neither would they have picked him for me out of a crowd of potential husbands. Until they saw how we loved one another, they could not have imagined how right he is for me. It was a revelation for them too.
Parents wield an enormous influence over their children. They have a right and a duty to advise their grown sons and daughters, and to bless or withhold their blessing from their "courtship choices," as their loving parental wisdom dictates.[SIZE=-2](12)[/SIZE] But they cannot make those choices for them, and they can do damage if they try.
Upvote
0
Dating Pt. 2
A right understanding of human sexuality
The third serious defect of this method of courtship (also related to the first two) is in the way it treats human sexuality. It is not exactly a puritanical treatment, since it grants that sex is good and innocent in the right context, i.e., marriage. But still, it is reductive. When we compare a kiss to "putting a key in the ignition" and "challenge" young people to wait until they are married, we obscure the deepest meaning of human sexuality as the expression of our nature as persons created to give ourselves in love. We reinforce the disastrous misconception that sex is basically the satisfaction of an appetite (designed by God to induce us to marry and reproduce)--a pleasure process that begins with kissing, ends with intercourse and results in children. Since that appetite is so powerful--so the thinking goes--it needs to be strictly controlled until marriage, when according to God's law it may be satisfied without guilt. Therefore, the less we indulge ourselves before marriage, the safer we are. No mention is made of tenderness, romance, reverence, self-donation. Physical intimacy is reduced to sexual foreplay, and sexual morality is to its negative aspect of sin avoidance.
The truth is that a man may refrain from kissing his fiancee until their wedding day and still have an impure attitude toward her, because he views sex as a form of self-indulgence, rather than as a gift-of-self. And another man, who kisses his girlfriend with tenderness, may actually grow in purity as he does so, because he gives her that kiss as a sign and seal of his intention to love her and lay down his life for her. This is what a kiss between a man and a woman is meant to be.
In June of 1987, a year before Jules and I got engaged, Alice von Hildebrand asked me to drive her from New York to Virginia, where I was to take a summer course of hers. Knowing that my own courtship was about to begin, and wanting desperately to do it well, I asked her if she would share her thoughts with me. One of the many wonderful things she said to me that day was: "Reserve intimacy for only the most exceptional moments." It was only a few words, but they managed to encapsulate and communicate a profoundly true and beautiful image of human sexuality (one without any reductive tendencies) that served as a help and inspiration for Jules and me throughout our courtship. Her words were pervaded with profound reverence for the sexual sphere, as well as with a humble awareness of its depth, seriousness and power, and therefore its potential to do great harm if misused. It is the kind of teaching I wish every young couple could receive before they approach courtship. (How much less unhappiness there would be if they did!)
People will say that I am too romantic and idealistic; that the sex-saturated culture of today demands that we get practical with young people if we are going to protect them from sin and devastation. But, I think we give much more genuine help when we teach single men and women reverence, when we hold up for them images that reveal the heart-melting beauty of a pure human love (in place of the obscenity, violence and vulgarity pop-culture bombards them with.) Once they see it, they cannot help but long for it, and, under Grace, aspire to it. Their aching desire for authentic love gives them courage and insight; they begin to recognize intuitively and shrink from the impurity that threatens their chance of attaining it...
I know this was true in my own life, and I know I am not alone.
Feelings and femininity
If I had the space, I would like to develop here one final thought--a background problem attendant on the de-emphasis on feelings. I would like to show how this way of thinking tends in practice to devalue women, because they are generally speaking more "emotional" while men are more "rational." If we see feelings as needing to be dominated by reason, which is superior to them, we will be under psychological pressure to imagine that men are superior to women. We will blind ourselves to the many important ways that, spiritually speaking, the emotions (rightly understood) "lead" reason--because they are deeper and more sensitive. (Recall Pascal's words: "The heart has reasons that the reason does not know.") But that will have to wait for another place. I have already gone way beyond the normal length limits of a Concourse article.
To conclude my critique of this method of courtship, let me say two things. First, that for all its errors it embodies a moral and religious seriousness that are greatly to be admired and infinitely to be preferred over the thoughtless self-centeredness and promiscuity prevailing in the dating scene of the world today. Though it is not the fullness of truth, it can be for many young people what it was for me--namely, a giant step in the right direction. And second, if I fault FUS for sometimes promoting bad ideas about dating, it is also true that it was in philosophy classes there that I first encountered the writings of Von Hildebrand, Wojtyla and Kierkegaard, among others great thinkers about Love (for which I give special thanks to Dean Healy.) Even more, I met Jules at FUS, and FUS provided the backdrop of our courtship. So, when I criticize, I do so only with a very grateful sense of how much I owe my alma mater for what she gave me in the way of love--which is much mor e than I can ever repay. n
[SIZE=-1]1 [/SIZE]A recent article in the NY Times Magazine (2/27/00) about a fundamentalist Christian family (the father of which is studying to become a pastor) sums up this view succinctly: "It goes without saying that they do not approve of premarital sex, but what is a little more surprising is that they do not approve of premarital emotional intimacy either. If a couple are courting, they are supposed to be seriously considering each other as husband and wife, and they are supposed to do so with some overt participation by parents or other elders. Ideally, they should not be alone together, or if they are it ought to be in a public place--a Friendley's, say--where liquor is not served and where they are unlikely to give into temptation."
[SIZE=-1]2 [/SIZE]I have lost the reference here, though I saved the quotations. It was from a pamphlet advertising a series of tapes on this subject by a Protestant minister named Jonathon Livingston, I think.
[SIZE=-1]3 [/SIZE]Some of these principles can be found in Kimberly Hahn's tape series, "Dating and Courtship: A Catholic Perspective" (recorded in Steubenville in 1997, and available through St. Joseph Communications.) But it would be unjust to lump her views on this subject with thoroughly rationalistic approaches. Her tapes give a lot of good practical advice, and they reveal a genuine openness to the fullness of Catholic truth. There is much to be admired in them. For instance, she makes a very clear distinction between the basic self-centeredness of fornication and the self-donation of the marital act. Also she acknowledges the phenomenon of "falling in love," and agrees that marriage is a vocation to love a particular person. Still, I think some aspects of her teaching can be fairly criticized for betraying a rationalistic tendency not completely unsimilar to the method I'm here crititiquing.
[SIZE=-1]4 [/SIZE]I have heard of cases wherein the fact that the man felt no love for the woman he was thinking of marrying was conscientiously disregarded in his "discernment process." (My heart aches for those women.)
[SIZE=-1]5 [/SIZE]This insight, which is the basis of the Pope's profound "theology of the body," is elaborated in his ethical work Love and Responsibility, and very movingly illustrated in his play, The Jeweler's Shop.
[SIZE=-1]6 [/SIZE]See his The Heart, or Man and Woman, or Marriage: the Mystery of Faithful Love.
[SIZE=-1]7 [/SIZE]I am thinking for instance of the case of a widow with small children, who finds a good man who wants to marry her and provide for her and her children. She may sense that it is good and right to marry him, even if she is not madly in love.
[SIZE=-1]8 [/SIZE]Max Scheler has shown that happiness is a source of moral strength in human persons. This is something we experience all the time: when we are happy we are able to do good that is beyond us when we are depressed. The happiness that comes into a person through the experience of loving and being loved is a very vital help in meeting the challenges and demands of married life which might otherwise be crushing.
[SIZE=-1]9 [/SIZE]The term subjective is unfortunately ambiguous, and easily misunderstood. I am by no means advocating subjectivism, which is as different from subjective in my sense as feminism is from feminine. I mean, rather, to follow the Holy Father's use of the term to denote the unique and inscrutable interior plenitude of each individual human soul.
[SIZE=-1]10 [/SIZE]The mysterious subjectivity of this call is stirringly expressed in The Jeweler's Shop. When Andrew, who has just proposed to his future wife says about her: "There must have been something in Teresa that suited my personality. I thought much at the time about the "alter ego". Teresa was a whole world, just as distant as any other man, as any other woman--and yet there was something that allowed one to think of throwing a bridge."
[SIZE=-1]11 [/SIZE]This is material for a whole article in itself. It has many dimensions. One is in the psychological dynamics that come into play. A single woman who wants to be married will feel pressured to conform to an artificial ideal of wifeliness. She might be depressed at how little she measures up to it, at how many younger, prettier women there are who are better representatives of it than she. In a desperate effort to appear attractive as a potential wife, she will try hard to appear to be what she is not, even though it makes her feel phony and fills her with despair... A married woman, after the initial thrill of being a wife wears off and hardships begin to crop up, might experience a demoralizing doubt that her husband loves her. "Did he marry me for me, or did he marry me for my home-making skills?" She starts to feel "objectified," used. A pitiable longing to be loved as a person may drive her to do terrible things, such as unconsciously suppress her "positive attributes" in order to test her husband--to see whether his love for her really goes to the heart of who she is. (The worst thing a husband can do in this circumstance is rebuke his wife or "call her on" for not fulfilling her wifely duties.) But this is not the right place for developing this point.
[SIZE=-1]12 [/SIZE]That wisdom may in some circumstances suggest prudential action. For instance, if parents fear that their freshman daughter has gotten involved in a very destructive relationship, they may decide not to continue paying her tuition to the college her boyfriend attends. In a very serious case, such a measure might well be justified, even called for.
[SIZE=-1]R[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]elated Articles:[/SIZE]
� [SIZE=-1]A Catholic critique of a current notion of courtship, Kathleen van Schaijik (V,7)[/SIZE]
� [SIZE=-1]Reforming our thinking about courtship and sexuality, William Craig (V,8)[/SIZE]
� [SIZE=-1]Thank you, thank you!, Catherine Egan (V,8)[/SIZE]
� [SIZE=-1]The influence of Puritanism, Jeff Zare (V,8)[/SIZE]
A right understanding of human sexuality
The third serious defect of this method of courtship (also related to the first two) is in the way it treats human sexuality. It is not exactly a puritanical treatment, since it grants that sex is good and innocent in the right context, i.e., marriage. But still, it is reductive. When we compare a kiss to "putting a key in the ignition" and "challenge" young people to wait until they are married, we obscure the deepest meaning of human sexuality as the expression of our nature as persons created to give ourselves in love. We reinforce the disastrous misconception that sex is basically the satisfaction of an appetite (designed by God to induce us to marry and reproduce)--a pleasure process that begins with kissing, ends with intercourse and results in children. Since that appetite is so powerful--so the thinking goes--it needs to be strictly controlled until marriage, when according to God's law it may be satisfied without guilt. Therefore, the less we indulge ourselves before marriage, the safer we are. No mention is made of tenderness, romance, reverence, self-donation. Physical intimacy is reduced to sexual foreplay, and sexual morality is to its negative aspect of sin avoidance.
The truth is that a man may refrain from kissing his fiancee until their wedding day and still have an impure attitude toward her, because he views sex as a form of self-indulgence, rather than as a gift-of-self. And another man, who kisses his girlfriend with tenderness, may actually grow in purity as he does so, because he gives her that kiss as a sign and seal of his intention to love her and lay down his life for her. This is what a kiss between a man and a woman is meant to be.
In June of 1987, a year before Jules and I got engaged, Alice von Hildebrand asked me to drive her from New York to Virginia, where I was to take a summer course of hers. Knowing that my own courtship was about to begin, and wanting desperately to do it well, I asked her if she would share her thoughts with me. One of the many wonderful things she said to me that day was: "Reserve intimacy for only the most exceptional moments." It was only a few words, but they managed to encapsulate and communicate a profoundly true and beautiful image of human sexuality (one without any reductive tendencies) that served as a help and inspiration for Jules and me throughout our courtship. Her words were pervaded with profound reverence for the sexual sphere, as well as with a humble awareness of its depth, seriousness and power, and therefore its potential to do great harm if misused. It is the kind of teaching I wish every young couple could receive before they approach courtship. (How much less unhappiness there would be if they did!)
People will say that I am too romantic and idealistic; that the sex-saturated culture of today demands that we get practical with young people if we are going to protect them from sin and devastation. But, I think we give much more genuine help when we teach single men and women reverence, when we hold up for them images that reveal the heart-melting beauty of a pure human love (in place of the obscenity, violence and vulgarity pop-culture bombards them with.) Once they see it, they cannot help but long for it, and, under Grace, aspire to it. Their aching desire for authentic love gives them courage and insight; they begin to recognize intuitively and shrink from the impurity that threatens their chance of attaining it...
I know this was true in my own life, and I know I am not alone.
Feelings and femininity
If I had the space, I would like to develop here one final thought--a background problem attendant on the de-emphasis on feelings. I would like to show how this way of thinking tends in practice to devalue women, because they are generally speaking more "emotional" while men are more "rational." If we see feelings as needing to be dominated by reason, which is superior to them, we will be under psychological pressure to imagine that men are superior to women. We will blind ourselves to the many important ways that, spiritually speaking, the emotions (rightly understood) "lead" reason--because they are deeper and more sensitive. (Recall Pascal's words: "The heart has reasons that the reason does not know.") But that will have to wait for another place. I have already gone way beyond the normal length limits of a Concourse article.
To conclude my critique of this method of courtship, let me say two things. First, that for all its errors it embodies a moral and religious seriousness that are greatly to be admired and infinitely to be preferred over the thoughtless self-centeredness and promiscuity prevailing in the dating scene of the world today. Though it is not the fullness of truth, it can be for many young people what it was for me--namely, a giant step in the right direction. And second, if I fault FUS for sometimes promoting bad ideas about dating, it is also true that it was in philosophy classes there that I first encountered the writings of Von Hildebrand, Wojtyla and Kierkegaard, among others great thinkers about Love (for which I give special thanks to Dean Healy.) Even more, I met Jules at FUS, and FUS provided the backdrop of our courtship. So, when I criticize, I do so only with a very grateful sense of how much I owe my alma mater for what she gave me in the way of love--which is much mor e than I can ever repay. n
Kathleen van Schaijik graduated in 1988. She now lives in Ypsilanti, Michigan, where her husband, Jules (class of '89) teaches philosophy at Ave Maria College. She is currently writing a book on Catholic courtship.
[SIZE=-1]Footnotes:[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1]1 [/SIZE]A recent article in the NY Times Magazine (2/27/00) about a fundamentalist Christian family (the father of which is studying to become a pastor) sums up this view succinctly: "It goes without saying that they do not approve of premarital sex, but what is a little more surprising is that they do not approve of premarital emotional intimacy either. If a couple are courting, they are supposed to be seriously considering each other as husband and wife, and they are supposed to do so with some overt participation by parents or other elders. Ideally, they should not be alone together, or if they are it ought to be in a public place--a Friendley's, say--where liquor is not served and where they are unlikely to give into temptation."
[SIZE=-1]2 [/SIZE]I have lost the reference here, though I saved the quotations. It was from a pamphlet advertising a series of tapes on this subject by a Protestant minister named Jonathon Livingston, I think.
[SIZE=-1]3 [/SIZE]Some of these principles can be found in Kimberly Hahn's tape series, "Dating and Courtship: A Catholic Perspective" (recorded in Steubenville in 1997, and available through St. Joseph Communications.) But it would be unjust to lump her views on this subject with thoroughly rationalistic approaches. Her tapes give a lot of good practical advice, and they reveal a genuine openness to the fullness of Catholic truth. There is much to be admired in them. For instance, she makes a very clear distinction between the basic self-centeredness of fornication and the self-donation of the marital act. Also she acknowledges the phenomenon of "falling in love," and agrees that marriage is a vocation to love a particular person. Still, I think some aspects of her teaching can be fairly criticized for betraying a rationalistic tendency not completely unsimilar to the method I'm here crititiquing.
[SIZE=-1]4 [/SIZE]I have heard of cases wherein the fact that the man felt no love for the woman he was thinking of marrying was conscientiously disregarded in his "discernment process." (My heart aches for those women.)
[SIZE=-1]5 [/SIZE]This insight, which is the basis of the Pope's profound "theology of the body," is elaborated in his ethical work Love and Responsibility, and very movingly illustrated in his play, The Jeweler's Shop.
[SIZE=-1]6 [/SIZE]See his The Heart, or Man and Woman, or Marriage: the Mystery of Faithful Love.
[SIZE=-1]7 [/SIZE]I am thinking for instance of the case of a widow with small children, who finds a good man who wants to marry her and provide for her and her children. She may sense that it is good and right to marry him, even if she is not madly in love.
[SIZE=-1]8 [/SIZE]Max Scheler has shown that happiness is a source of moral strength in human persons. This is something we experience all the time: when we are happy we are able to do good that is beyond us when we are depressed. The happiness that comes into a person through the experience of loving and being loved is a very vital help in meeting the challenges and demands of married life which might otherwise be crushing.
[SIZE=-1]9 [/SIZE]The term subjective is unfortunately ambiguous, and easily misunderstood. I am by no means advocating subjectivism, which is as different from subjective in my sense as feminism is from feminine. I mean, rather, to follow the Holy Father's use of the term to denote the unique and inscrutable interior plenitude of each individual human soul.
[SIZE=-1]10 [/SIZE]The mysterious subjectivity of this call is stirringly expressed in The Jeweler's Shop. When Andrew, who has just proposed to his future wife says about her: "There must have been something in Teresa that suited my personality. I thought much at the time about the "alter ego". Teresa was a whole world, just as distant as any other man, as any other woman--and yet there was something that allowed one to think of throwing a bridge."
[SIZE=-1]11 [/SIZE]This is material for a whole article in itself. It has many dimensions. One is in the psychological dynamics that come into play. A single woman who wants to be married will feel pressured to conform to an artificial ideal of wifeliness. She might be depressed at how little she measures up to it, at how many younger, prettier women there are who are better representatives of it than she. In a desperate effort to appear attractive as a potential wife, she will try hard to appear to be what she is not, even though it makes her feel phony and fills her with despair... A married woman, after the initial thrill of being a wife wears off and hardships begin to crop up, might experience a demoralizing doubt that her husband loves her. "Did he marry me for me, or did he marry me for my home-making skills?" She starts to feel "objectified," used. A pitiable longing to be loved as a person may drive her to do terrible things, such as unconsciously suppress her "positive attributes" in order to test her husband--to see whether his love for her really goes to the heart of who she is. (The worst thing a husband can do in this circumstance is rebuke his wife or "call her on" for not fulfilling her wifely duties.) But this is not the right place for developing this point.
[SIZE=-1]12 [/SIZE]That wisdom may in some circumstances suggest prudential action. For instance, if parents fear that their freshman daughter has gotten involved in a very destructive relationship, they may decide not to continue paying her tuition to the college her boyfriend attends. In a very serious case, such a measure might well be justified, even called for.
[SIZE=-1]R[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]elated Articles:[/SIZE]
� [SIZE=-1]A Catholic critique of a current notion of courtship, Kathleen van Schaijik (V,7)[/SIZE]
� [SIZE=-1]Reforming our thinking about courtship and sexuality, William Craig (V,8)[/SIZE]
� [SIZE=-1]Thank you, thank you!, Catherine Egan (V,8)[/SIZE]
� [SIZE=-1]The influence of Puritanism, Jeff Zare (V,8)[/SIZE]
Upvote
0
- Dec 2, 2003
- 20,540
- 1,129
- 58
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
All I can say is that I am glad I did not listen to you all and rather went to my priest.
Nowhere, have I had to ask for dispensation for my marriage and in fact they were more than willing to help me in gioving me a Blessing.
They merely asked that any children which in my cases none would result, would be raised Catholic and that my husband not impede me in my Catholicism. Which my husband was more than happy to agree to because he knows that my Catholicism is as much a part of me as anything else and that without it then I would lose my Faith.
Since my husband has been able to see my Faith he too has grown to appreciate my Faith. He attends Mass with me now when at one time he would not. He finds that Mass is a more deliberate and precious way to celebrate our love for the Lord. He appreciates the kindness and gentleness used with him of the priests in our parish.
At one time he would not have thought to go to RCIA and now he is contemplating it.
My husband knew nothing of appreciation of the our Holy Mother and now will recite the Blessed Rosary and ask our Lady for her continual intercession.
And since when did anyone say that marriage was supposed to be easy? Whenever you take two people and meld them togther as one even if they do come from the same background you take the chance that what you thought would work doesn't and you have to fight to keep it together. In this life there are no guarantees of anything! Especially in today's world.
I have been Blessed, by the Lord in the marriage I now have with my husbnd who is still technically a Protestant. What I do know is that he is Catholic because he has not rejected the Mother Church and because he is beaptized therefore according to the Church I attend and go to he is part of the same Body of Christ.
Nowhere, have I had to ask for dispensation for my marriage and in fact they were more than willing to help me in gioving me a Blessing.
They merely asked that any children which in my cases none would result, would be raised Catholic and that my husband not impede me in my Catholicism. Which my husband was more than happy to agree to because he knows that my Catholicism is as much a part of me as anything else and that without it then I would lose my Faith.
Since my husband has been able to see my Faith he too has grown to appreciate my Faith. He attends Mass with me now when at one time he would not. He finds that Mass is a more deliberate and precious way to celebrate our love for the Lord. He appreciates the kindness and gentleness used with him of the priests in our parish.
At one time he would not have thought to go to RCIA and now he is contemplating it.
My husband knew nothing of appreciation of the our Holy Mother and now will recite the Blessed Rosary and ask our Lady for her continual intercession.
And since when did anyone say that marriage was supposed to be easy? Whenever you take two people and meld them togther as one even if they do come from the same background you take the chance that what you thought would work doesn't and you have to fight to keep it together. In this life there are no guarantees of anything! Especially in today's world.
I have been Blessed, by the Lord in the marriage I now have with my husbnd who is still technically a Protestant. What I do know is that he is Catholic because he has not rejected the Mother Church and because he is beaptized therefore according to the Church I attend and go to he is part of the same Body of Christ.
Upvote
0
Da_Funkey_Gibbon
I'm just like the others...
Well, they shouldn't be preferential to Protestants, obviously. But sure, we can date Protestants, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with it.
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 73,951
- 10,060
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
It is NOT impossible, but sometimes it is difficult.
Glad you two are working it through and the Mass is appealing to him.As I said, my husband appreciates the Catholic Mass too.
He has yet to make any moves on conversion after almost 14 years.
MY biggest worry is him getting baptized.
Upvote
0
- Dec 2, 2003
- 20,540
- 1,129
- 58
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
geocagun said:
I do not know what is so funny about knowledge3 statement, maybe you can advise as to what is so funny?
I think how people are defined is by their heart condition which only the Lord knows and is not for us to Judge.
Upvote
0
- Dec 2, 2003
- 20,540
- 1,129
- 58
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I have read it. However did not find someone's personal assessment of something funny. Maybe in need of explanation, but never something to be made fun of. Which it certainly appears that you are doing. I say appears because I know that you would never want to give off that impression deliberately.
So again Jason why would that statement be so funny not so much for my benefit but as to explain why someone that is Catholic does see a difference between being Protestant and Catholic.
So again Jason why would that statement be so funny not so much for my benefit but as to explain why someone that is Catholic does see a difference between being Protestant and Catholic.
Upvote
0
- Apr 11, 2005
- 73,951
- 10,060
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
RaggedRobin. just so I am clear...
You did discuss religion first before marriage?
This topic is about should we date...which I moved it to marriage. Well, by my own experience and how I almost did NOT get married because of the divisions.
And the question arose that the Church [or at least I was advised] accepts marriages of different Christians, yet they advise serious discussions about how the Church desires the children to be Catholic.
So for a protestant, they have to really consider that issue. And they need to be completely open to all the problems if they are not going to yield to understanding Catholicism, then it might be more prudent [from my own experience], to not go thru with the marriage if the one who is protestant refuses to allow the Catholic practices.
However; I am so very glad for you and your marriage, seems that God is Blessing you abundantly.
And in many ways I am so thankful my husband is open to letting our children practice Catholicism.
I want to add something here about his family..[small steps] is they have finally started liking Catholics and dont have as much disgust for us.
I dont know if they will ever convert, but I am hopeful. I suppose it is a blessing they at least dont look at our faith like we have three heads anymore. lol
You did discuss religion first before marriage?
This topic is about should we date...which I moved it to marriage. Well, by my own experience and how I almost did NOT get married because of the divisions.
And the question arose that the Church [or at least I was advised] accepts marriages of different Christians, yet they advise serious discussions about how the Church desires the children to be Catholic.
So for a protestant, they have to really consider that issue. And they need to be completely open to all the problems if they are not going to yield to understanding Catholicism, then it might be more prudent [from my own experience], to not go thru with the marriage if the one who is protestant refuses to allow the Catholic practices.
However; I am so very glad for you and your marriage, seems that God is Blessing you abundantly.
And in many ways I am so thankful my husband is open to letting our children practice Catholicism.
I want to add something here about his family..[small steps] is they have finally started liking Catholics and dont have as much disgust for us.
I dont know if they will ever convert, but I am hopeful.
I suppose it is a blessing they at least dont look at our faith like we have three heads anymore. lol
Upvote
0
- Dec 2, 2003
- 20,540
- 1,129
- 58
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Persistance in some instances is the key to being able to get through to people and our invaluable source of example of how we handle such issues when they arise. That I have learned from my marriage.
Upvote
0
- Dec 2, 2003
- 20,540
- 1,129
- 58
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
geocagun said:
To accuse me of publically baiting is what Jason when I am trying to illicit a direct response to the poster you originally posted that response to? That is improper in example. I was not baiting. That is reproof.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
