Should Catholics date Protestants?

I don't think that anyone is personally judging me, however sometimes getting the reactions of how it may be percieved in thought when read can show others that how they have come across seems or appears judgemental. Maybe for me it is too much time in dealing with wiki and a NPOV stance that makes me pick up these things easily. However I never take such writing personally anymore.

I do though try to point out the obvious and troublseome other points of view. This helps in coming up with a more comprehensive point of view for the reader at large. As far as Quantra's obvious problem of telling the children. First in a respectful marrisge then the husband or wife whichever is the case would observe the promise they made to raise the children in the Faith. If this should not happen then of course the dilemma arises where one parent must become the educator, and take that role. Wives and Mothers educate more than they actually know with their wholehearted submission to their husbands. And by still staying strong to their religious convictions themselves.

Even though I am not a Jehovah's Witness like my mother, I did learn the value she taught me of religion and for God from watching her stand firm. So I learned values from my mother that she instilled in me not my father by making her life hard because she stood up for what she believed in. I learned my Love for the Lord initially through her and for that I have to thank her.

My mother's problem was that she also instilled in me the desire for Truth. It is this desire that has brought me home to the Church. It is this desire and Love for my Faith that my husband partially fell in love with to begin with.

I do not question one thing though that I think some here do not have the experience yet to know, that God himself brings people to us everyday. That these people work in our lives for a reason and purpose. Sometimes, it would indeed be perfect to wait for that perfect person. But then I think, what if that is not what God wanted and what if I am throwing an opportunity down the drain?

Sort of like the example of the guy who waited too long to be saved when it started to flood and he kept saying God is going to save me.... Well God tried he sent him many people to help him and he eventually drowned and then asked God why he didn't help him. God answered him by telling him why didn't you take the help of all the people I sent?

My husband I did wait for, this much is true and along the way I think now i was suppose to make the mistakes I did and meet the people I did so that my marriage now would work. Just because I needed that much help to prepare me along the way. I needed to see what it could be like, so now I appreciate truly what I do have. I think God knows me and how think well. What it takes to teach me.

Just the same my husband I will always think of being heaven sent and a Blessing from God for me. Sort of like a miracle that I thought would never happen and had given up all hope on. All that mattered to me was that he accepted me and loved me.

For those that think so little of love, why is it that God told us that charity or Love was above all things?

Enelya Taralom,

I was interested by the article you posted on courtship etc. I have thought about that some, and leaned towards that idea. Some of my family and friends are big into it.
I would agree that in many cases the de-emphasis of feeling goes to far. It is meant to counteract a trend among most of the world that has reduced love to mere feeling, when it is really so much more. The idea that love is just the feeling of attraction, the "rush" as it were, is very destructive. It is probably the most destructive thing in relationships today. It reduces love to selfishness because if it is just feeling, then really love is all about self. Its about how you make me feel. not simply about you. It also makes love very fleeting and temporary. Feelings come and go. Especially in the case of that initial excitement and rush that so many people become adicted to. That always goes, and when it does, many people think that their relationship has "lost its spark". This is because they don't understand what love is, or how it works.
Having said that. I would never get involved in a relationship if I did not have passionate feelings for the person I was getting involved with. At that point I simply have to ask why? what is the point of getting into a relationship, and getting married if you don't have the feeling? I'm not denying at all that such feelings could grow. They absolutely can, and do. But why put in all the effort and time and struggle to create such feelings?
This is where I would agree with the article's point that the mindset tends to push people to get married, and doesn't recognize that maybe marriage isn't everyone's vocation.
I disagree with the article's comments in this regard on asking the parent's permission to court, and marry. This is based on what is pretty much universal tradition, but especially in biblical culture and in western civ. until recently. The idea is that children are under their parents until they are married. They always have the duty to honor their parents, but until they are married they are a part of their parent's household. It is an issue of submission and recognizing God given authority.

Obviously every person must obey God rather than man, but at the same time, I think it is wrong not to recognize that God has given parents authority.

I also disagree with the opinion presented on sexuality in the context of courting. The courting concept is simply a practical recognition that you need to avoid temptation. I have held that view my whole life, and it hasn't given me the idea that sex is just an apetite, I don't know anyone in the "courting" world who thinks that.
There are really two things involved. First is the simple recognition of the reality that there are physiological factors involved that you need to be careful with. You need to be careful not to put yourself in situations where you are setting yourself up to fail. People do that all the time. The idea here is that you flee temptation.
The second aspect is almost the more important in my mind and it is the idea of reserving yourself. Even in a courting relationship, there is no guarentee that the two of you will end up married. Even though that is your intent. God may have something else for you, he may have someone else for you. Until you say the I do's... your not certain that this is the person you're going to marry and be joined with till death.
When you engage in physical intimacy, even at the level of kissing etc, you are sharing yourself with that person. You are giving them an intimate part of yourself, that should be reserved only for your spouse. Sexuality and intimacy is a deep bond, something that goes to the core of our being, it is a sacred link or bond between the people involved. I believe it is foolish, and inconsiderate to share even a small aspect of that such as kissing, with someone, until you are actually joined in marriage.

Objectively speaking, Catholic parents are bound by solemn duty to raise their children in the Catholic faith. There are only so many ways this can go:

1) both parents are Catholic; no problem.
2) one parent is devout, another could care less, both Catholic; still no problem.
3) one parent is Catholic, the other is anything else under the sun except Catholic; instant authority conflict, definite problem.

All of the other words we are using in this discussion are highly particular and emotionally complicated. Granted, there are many circumstances in life that lead people on vastly divergent paths -- we deal with them, but we should perhaps not insist that they are ideal. At best they might be troublesome obstacles that can be overcome in extraordinary cases.

I think talking about what real love is all about and what percieved love is a great topic of conversation for this thread an brought out by Simon Templar.

I think it should be talked about because it helps in defining what should be looked for in an individual and what should be avoided. We live in a society that puts much emphasis on physical love being what love is all about and not going beyond that to truly define that lust is not love but just part of an initial interaction that happens between people. It however is not what sustains a relationship in the long term.

2) one parent is devout, another could care less, both Catholic; still no problem.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. There is a definite problem with this scenario, and the children are still affected.

My dad is a RC in name only. My mom is a very religious Lutheran. They have been together for about 30 years. I suppose if one spouse was not interested at all in thier respective religon, and the other wasnt pushy, the relationship would last for a long time.

Miss Shelby said:

I beg to differ. There is a definite problem with this scenario, and the children are still affected.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking of it from the position that, if there is a devout Catholic mother and a careless Catholic father, he is at least not going to in any way oppose the mother or children in faith, or tell them that some other faith (his own, were he not Catholic) is "just as good, just another expression of Christianity." That sort of relativism is dangerous. It also implies that the children can consider themselves part of both traditions -- which the Church would not in any way encourage. It sets up the children for a potentially schizophrenic spirituality. If we believe the Catholic faith to be the true faith given to us by Jesus himself, then we teach our children that it is absolutely so. What reason should the children have for thinking it could ever be okay for their non-Catholic parent to not be Catholic?

Clarification:
I agree with HOW Quanta brought up issues..that are extremely important to discuss if dating becomes serious.

It is not that a Catholic / protestant relationship cannot work...it is a HUGE problem if it is never addressed until after the nutials.

SeenAndUnseen said:

I'm thinking of it from the position that, if there is a devout Catholic mother and a careless Catholic father, he is at least not going to in any way oppose the mother or children in faith, or tell them that some other faith (his own, were he not Catholic) is "just as good, just another expression of Christianity." That sort of relativism is dangerous. It also implies that the children can consider themselves part of both traditions -- which the Church would not in any way encourage. It sets up the children for a potentially schizophrenic spirituality. If we believe the Catholic faith to be the true faith given to us by Jesus himself, then we teach our children that it is absolutely so. What reason should the children have for thinking it could ever be okay for their non-Catholic parent to not be Catholic?

Click to expand...

By teaching them that their non-Catholic parent is really Catholic by baptism, and thus must be accepted as being a part of the Church and the Body of Christ.

Which btw is a Church teaching. Let us not forget this constantly. However that they are at this point in IMPERFECT Communion with the Church and then teaching the Difference in this.

Thus teaching them the significance of acceptance of our Brethren but at the same time also teaching them the necessity of the Bond we need to have with the Church in Perfect Communion.

WarriorAngel said:

Clarification:
It is not that a Catholic / protestant relationship cannot work...it is a HUGE problem if it is never addressed until after the nutials.

Click to expand...

Err--and it can still be a problem even when it is addressed before the nuptials (and it will be addressed should the Catholic party want to remain Catholic and have a Catholic wedding--the Cana conferences address more than the "chemistry" of the couple.)

Hey Simon,


I agree with what you said about feelings. It's important to keep the role of feelings in perspective and to not over emphasis or dempahses them.

I also agree to a certain extent about what you said about parents. I think the article has to be read carefully in what it says in that regard. I don't think she was saying parent's should have no role (remember she asked her Dad about guy number one and his hesitation proved to her, her own worries), but rather that we should maybe be a bit careful about how much of a role we give them. Marriage is ultimately a decision between the two people involded and God. Granted I would want to have my parents approval in the guy I marry because I also believe that strong families are needed to raise healthy children, but at the same time, my famiyl isn't that strong. We have a lot of issues and don't communicate well. As such, while I would ask my parents about what they think, and would consider what they have to say, I wouldn't base my decision solely on what they had to say. If I lived my life that way, and with the menalitiy that I was under my parent's until marriage, then I wouldn't be Catholic. Becoming Catholic was a decision I had to make based on where God was leading me, regardless of what my Protestant parent's had to say about it. I resepect their concern and respect them for voicing them to me, but I have to obey God above all else, and while He once told us to "respect thy Mother and Father," Christ also said that He came to "set child against Mother" etc. I see these two verses as part of a whole picture: that we are to love and respect our parents, but that sometimes we have to be our own person and make our own decisions, especially if God is leading us to something that would be contrary to the wishes of our parents.

I guess my case is a bit unique in the sense of me having a better understanding of my faith than my parents. I hesitate to say this, because I can't say what's in their hearts, but judging strictly from outward apperances, they may not be that deep rooted in their faith. Nor do they spend much time learning it. Course, on the issue of marriage, I can't really blame them for not having a solid Christian understanding of what it is, as the Protestant church they attend doesn't have a solid, concrete defintion of what it is, unlike the Catholic church. God blessed me by giving me Theology of the Body, a study taht has given me an understanding of our bodies, sex and marriage that does surpass that of my married parents. Granted, I will say theyr experience of being married 20 plus years does give them an understanding I don't have yet, but given the insecurities they have within their marriage, the things they say do etc I know that they do wrestling with a lack of understanding based off a knowledge of what marriage is, and how it's a vocation that God calls us to for our sanctification or doesn't (again, being Protestant, they don't really understand the notion of vocation and disagree with celibacy and that not everyone will be called to marriage). Given that, again, while I would ask and consider what my parents have to say about man I may be considering marrying, I wouldn't place my decision solely on what they have to say.


I disagree with what you said about sexuality. I do agree that it is wise to avoid tempation and reserve yourself, but I think that this menatlity can cause problems.

Have you studied Theology of the Body at all? If you haven't I have posted some notes below from a talk of the Created and Redeemed DVD set that I think relates to this issue:

Theology of the Body: Talk 6: Authentic Chastity


From Legalism to Liberty

1. Chastity & Sexual Freedom

How often is chastity considered something negative- a long list of oppressive "thou shalt nots"?

• Remember, Christ didn't come to give us more rules to follow (legalism).
• Christ came to transform our hearts so we would no longer need the rules (liberty).
• Mature chastity is not oppressive legalism, but true sexual liberation!

1a. "Chastity is very often understood as... one long 'no.' Whereas it is above all the 'yes' of which certain 'no's' are the consequence" (LR,170).


Society talks a lot about "sexual freedom." But this typically refers to unrestrained indulgence.

• Is an alcoholic who cannot say "no" to his next drink free?
• Society's concept of sexual freedom actually promotes addiction- bondage to lust.
• True freedom is liberation not from the external "constraint" that calls me to good, but from the internal constraint that hinders my choice of the good.

1b. "The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good" (CCC, n.1804).


1c. Those bound by lust "experience God's law as a burden, and indeed as... a restriction of their own freedom. On the other hand, those who are impelled by love... feel an interior urge... not to stop at the minimum demands of the Law, but to live them in their 'fullness.' This is a still uncertain and fragile journey as long as we are on earth, but it is one made possible by grace" (VS, n.18).


1d. Grace is that mysterious gift made to the human "heart" which frees men and women to become a sincere gift to eachother (see TB, 68).


2. The "Personalistic Norm"


The guiding principle of all Catholic moral teaching is the dignity of the human person. John Paul II calls this guiding principle the "personalistic norm."


2a. This norm, in its negative form, states that persons must never be treated as objects of use, as merely a means to an end. In its positive form the personalistic norm affirms that love is the only proper attitude towards a person (see LR, p.41).


What is love? Is love a feeling? A physical attraction? An emotion?


2b. Emotions, feelings and physical attraction "constitute only the 'raw material' of love. There exists a tendency to regard them as its finished form" (LR, 139). These "components, if they are not [properly] held together... may add up not to love, but to its direct opposite" (LR, 146).


2c. "Sometimes, what is called... 'love,' if subjected to searching critical examination turns out to be, contrary to all appearances, only a form of 'utilization' of the person" (LR, 167).


2d. Lust impels people very powerfully towards physical intimacy. But if this grows out of nothing more than lust, it is not love. On the contrary it is a negation of love (see LR, 150-151).


2e. Authentic love does not say: "I long for you as a good" but "I long for your good," "I long for that which is good for you." The person who truly loves longs for this with no ulterior motive, no selfish consideration. This is the purest form of love and it brings the greatest fulfillment (see LR, 83-84).


3. Chastity & the Integration of Love


For love to take root, above all we must firmly set our will on the person's good, utterly refusing to indulge lust. But this does not mean we "stuff" or ignore our emotions and attractions.

• What's needed is integration of emotion and attraction withthe dignity of the person.
• This is the role of the virtue of chastity.

3a. "Chastity can only be thought of in association with the virtue of love. Its function is to free love from the utilitarian attitude." It must control "those centers deep down within the human being in which the utilitarian attitude is hatched and grows" (LR, 169, 170).


3b. The essence of chastity consists in quickness to affirm the value of the person in every situation, and in raising to the personal level all reactions to a person's body and sex. It is not a matter of "annihilating" sexual reactions or pushing them into the subconscious where they await an opportunity to explode. Chastity is a matter of sustained long term integration of sexual values with the value of the person (see LR, 170-171).


3c. "The person [who wants] to suceed on mastering [sexual] impluse and excitement, must be committed to a progressive education in self control of the will, of the feelings, of the emotions; and this education must develop beginning with the most simple acts in which it is relatively easy tp put the interior decision into practice" (TB, 408).


4. Chaste Love Recognizes the "Unrepeatability" of the Person


Love reaches maturity when it turns from how the other makes me feel to who the other person is.

• Every person is totally unique and "unrepeatable."
• No person can ever be compared to another, measured by, or replaced by another.

Authentic love is attracted not just by "attributes" or "qualities" of a person that light a "spark."

• Qualities are repeatable- they can always be found in others and to a higher degree.
• If love stops here, a permanent shadow is cats over the permanency of relationship.

4a. "Only the value of the person can sustain a stable relationship. The other values of sexuality are wasted away by time and are exposed to the danger of disillusion. But this is not the case for the value of the person,... which is stable and in some way infinite. When love develops and reaches the person, then it is forever" (KW, 100).


The person who is the object of lust gradually realizes the sentiment of the other:

• "You don't need me. You don't desire me. You desire only a means of gratification."
• Far from feeling loved and affirmed as a unique and unrepeatable person, those objectified by lust feel used and debased as a repeatable commodity.

4b. We often experience sexual stimuli offering equally or more seductive possibilities of new sexual relationships. If the person I "love" is only an instrument for my own pleasure, then he or she can easily be replaced in such a function, a fact which casts a permanent shadow of doubt over the relationship. The case is different when love reaches the person. Then the other is loved not for the quality that he or she has (and which one can lose or which others could have in a higher degree) but for his or her own sake. Only then is their living together something more than the joining of two selfish individuals, and capable of achieving a real personal unity (see KW, 102).



5. Ask & You Shall Receive


5a. "I thought that [chastity] arose from one's own powers, which I did not recognize in myself. I was foolish enough not to know... that no one can be [chaste] unless You grant it. For You would surely have granted it if my inner groaning had reached Your ears and I with firm faith had cast my cares on you" (St. Augustine, CCC, n.2520).


Ask and you shall receive. What father among you, if his son asks for a fish will give him a serpent? How much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him (see LK 11:9-13)?

1. What is the positive meaning of chastity? Who does this term apply to?
2. What is the difference between society's definition of "sexual freedom" and the freedom spoken of in this talk?
3. Often times what is perceived as 'love' is actually 'lust,' especially in today's media. Articulate the traits of each. Discuss how lust can so easily be disguised as love.
4. What is the difference between legitimate passionate love ("eros") and lust?
5. What does it mean when we say that each person is "unrepeatable"?
6. Memorise the "personalistic norm", that we may be reminded to always uphold the dignity of each human person.

For more see:

Created and Redeemed (DVD) : [FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]An Eight-Part Adult Faith Formation Program Based on Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body. This eight-talk presentation on the Theology of the Body offers a more thorough treatment than the Introductory Series. This series will help deepen your understanding of God's Plan for marriage and human sexuality.[/FONT]

Encyclical Letter: "Deus Caritas Est"/"God is Love" by Pope Benedict XVI : An examination of the question "what is love" through consideration of the different kinds of love and how each applies to the Christian life.

Purity in an Impure Age: Discovering God's Glorious Plan for Sexuality: What is Christian purity? More than likely, it is not what you think. Purity is not Puritanism. Nor is it prudishness. These approaches to the body and sexuality actually flow from impurity. Christian purity is the ability to see the mystery of God revealed through the body and sexuality. Available in CD, DVD, VHS and cassette format.

Book: Good News About Sex and Marriage This easy-to-read, question-and-answer book by Christopher West offers a fresh, relevant, and convincing presentation of the Church's teachings on human sexuality and marriage.


END

SeenAndUnseen said:

I'm thinking of it from the position that, if there is a devout Catholic mother and a careless Catholic father, he is at least not going to in any way oppose the mother or children in faith, or tell them that some other faith (his own, were he not Catholic) is "just as good, just another expression of Christianity." That sort of relativism is dangerous. It also implies that the children can consider themselves part of both traditions -- which the Church would not in any way encourage. It sets up the children for a potentially schizophrenic spirituality. If we believe the Catholic faith to be the true faith given to us by Jesus himself, then we teach our children that it is absolutely so. What reason should the children have for thinking it could ever be okay for their non-Catholic parent to not be Catholic?

Click to expand...

I can see what you mean, but in the scenario of the deadbeat Catholic, just because that person is apathetic doesn't mean that his/her behavoir wouldn't cause opposition or be counter productive to the upbrining of the children specifically in regards to their faith. If they could care less, they won't go to Church, if they don't go to Church the kids will wonder why, and later when they understand they will wonder why said parent didn't take the vows they recited seriously at Baptism. This is still just as potentially life threatening to the children as the protestant/catholic marriage. An apathetic non practicing Catholic may still be a Catholic but if they're not practicing it, they're working against the Lord. He who is not with Jesus is against Him.

Enelya Taralom,

I can agree with what you posted regarding human sexuality and freedom, and yet ask, How does that change the practicality of what courtship teaches?

I would argue that it doesn't change the practical aspects of seeking to avoid intimate behavior prior to marriage.
To some degree, the last posts you made, and this disagree with the courtship practice not because of the practical aspects, but because you assume their motivation to be incorrect. At least if I am understanding rightly.
That may be an accurate assumption in many cases. To be honest I haven't liked much of what I've read from the courting advocate literature, probably for the same reasons you have disagreed with it here. I do still agree with the practical aspects however.

I think that the courting idea is trying to deal with a situation in which the foundations for right understanding and right behavior have been totally removed by our culture/society.
The courting people often times probably aren't working from a right understanding because they are just normal people, who probably haven't studied these issues an a theological or philosophical level. They are simply trying to restore right behavior through the appeal to what they do know, which is morality. What kind of behavior is right, and what is wrong.

Really this is but one symptom of a over arching problem within christianity. Christianity as much as the rest of society has lost much of its foundation of understanding (speaking in broad terms of the population of christianity.. the people) Obviously there are theologians and thinkers around who have understanding, but by and large the people don't.
They know the basics of morality, but have lost the foundations of understanding in depth why morality is moral etc. So they get upset when they see things like sexual promescuity, and abortion, etc.. they know they are wrong.. but they don't understand the real problem.

The real problem is that there is a war of worldview that has been going on for the last century or more (specificly in american society). There is the christian world view, and then there is the humanistic world view. The two have totally different foundations, and they have necessarily different results.
People see the results of the humanistic world view winning our society, but they don't recognize that all those symptoms, are just the branches, the root of the problem is the world view itself.
We are now living in an age when the foundations of the christian world view have been replaced with the foundations of the humanist world view.

Thats why people don't even have a basic understanding of love anymore, or sexuality. This removal of foundations extends even into the church.

So people like the courting crowd are trying to do what they can to restore right behavior, but they don't have a good grasp of the right understanding. Then on top of that they are dealing with people who have even less understanding, and certainly less idea of right behavior than they do. Trying to convince them to behave rightly.

But I'm rambling
Anyway, perhaps you should write a book on courting that focuses on a proper understanding of love and human sexuality. Rebuild the foundations as it were.

Basically, it's section 3: Chastity and the Integration of Love, that I think is the really important part.

In the DVD, the speaker, Christopher West, demonstartes the point on annihalitating sexual reactions or situations until a person is ready to explode with this illustration:

Take a dating man and a woman. They both have the noble desire to live out their courtships sexually pure. So to avoid temptation they make sure to never place themselves in a situation where there will be the occassion for temptation. Use the anology here of each chaining thenmselves to a tree. With each being bound to the thee they know that they'll never be able to get at eachother. Again, this is a noble desire, but it what is the danger in this? What happens on the wedding night when the chains come off? *picture here two people ready to explode running toward eachother with no control* The danger is that it might give the two people the idea that now that they are married, they are allowed to lose control.

This boils down to the idea of true sexual freedom and mature sexuality. In the previous example, if the couple doesn't develop the ability to be free in potentially sinful situations, then in the marriage, they run the risk of lacking the freedom to be a gift because of the lack of ability to love truly. Getting married isn't going to be some magic trick that then makes everything you do okay. If you're lustful the day before you're married, what happens within the marriage will most likely also be lustful.

But this is not something that is saying, push the envelope.

The approporiate action to take will vary depending on each couple. I think the idea behind courting, and avoiding situations of temptation, such as kissing, is defintiley the right thing to do for young couples, people not quite mature in their ability to remain chastes. This is where courtship and having set boundaries is very important in order to build a healthy foundation on relationships, love, marriage and sex.

But, if the only thing that kept you from having sex before marriage, or walking into sexual impurity was the fact that you never had an opportunity to do so, then what does this say about your ethos?

That is not to say that avoiding those temptations is a bad thing. Again, if you know that kissing or being alone together will get you into trouble, than don't do it. We have to have a mature evaluations of our own weakness, but that doesn't mean we stop there. Chastity is a continium.

Later in the talk, the speaker uses this anaology when talking about respecting the personalistic norm of a person:

There are two bishops walking along the street as a beautiful young girl passes them. One bishop knows that if he looks at her, he'll have lustful thoughts and will reduce her to an object. So to avoid this, he looks away. The other Bishops knows that if he looks at her, her beauty will lead him to love her for her dignity as a beautiful, young woman created in the image of God. So he doesn't avert his eyes. Who did the right thing? They both did. Because they were both mature enough to recognize the dignity in the woman and what they could or could not handle / do in order to uphold her dignity.

This is what the notes above, and what the article, is getting at. For those who need to grow in their ability to love without lust, avoiding those situations of sexual temptations is a very good and noble thing. However, you have to be careful to not just chain yourself to a tree and say problem sloved. As you're avoiding those situations of sexual tempation who have to also be taking steps to grow in your sexual maturity, so that you can one day enter into a relationship and marry, where you can look at the beautiful young woman (enter into situations that may have been previously tempting for you) with a pure love and heart, and be the gift God made you to be.

enelya_taralom said:

Basically, it's section 3: Chastity and the Integration of Love, that I think is the really important part.

In the DVD, the speaker, Christopher West, demonstartes the point on annihalitating sexual reactions or situations until a person is ready to explode with this illustration:

Take a dating man and a woman. They both have the noble desire to live out their courtships sexually pure. So to avoid temptation they make sure to never place themselves in a situation where there will be the occassion for temptation. Use the anaology here of each chaining thenmselves to a tree. With each being bound to the thee they know that they'll never be able to get at eachother. Again, this is a noble desire, but it what is the danger in this? What happens on the wedding night when the chains come off? *picture here two people ready to explode running toward eachother with no control* The danger is that it might give the two people the idea that now that they are married, they are allowed to lose control.

This boild down to the idea of true sexual freedom and mature sexuality. In the previous example, if the couple doesn't develop the ability to be free in potentially sinful situations, then in the marriage, they run the risk of lacking the freedom to be a gift because of the lack of ability to love truly.

But this is not something that is saying, push the envelope.

The approporiate action to take will vary depending on each couple. I think the idea behind courting, and avoiding situations of temptation, such as kissing, is defintiley the right thing to do for young couples, people not quite mature in their faith, their ability o tbe honest within themselves, with their sexuality etc.

But, if the only thing that kept you from having sex before marriage, or walking into sexual impurity was the fact that you never had an opportunity to do so, then what does this say about your ethos?

But that is not to say that avoiding those temptations is a bad thing. If you know that kissing or being alone together will get you into trouble, than don't do it. We have to have a mature evaluations of our own weakness, but that doesn't mean we stop there.

Later in the talk, the speaker uses this anaology when talking about respecting the personalistic norm of a person:

There are two bishops walking along the street as a beautiful young girl passes them. One bishop knows that if he looks at her, he'll have lustful thoughts and will reduce her to an object. So to avoid this, he looks away. The other Bishops knows that if he looks at her, her beauty will lead him to love her for her dignity as a beautiful, young woman created in the image of God. So he doesn't avert his eyes. Who did the right thing? They both did. Because they were both mature enough to recognize the dignity in the woman and what they could or could not handle / do in order to uphold her dignity.

This is what the notes above, and what the article, is getting at. For those who need to grow in their ability to love without lust, avoiding those situations of sexual temptations are a very good and noble thing. However, you have to be careful to not just chain yourself to a tree and say porblem sloved. As you're avoiding those situations of sexual tempation who have to also be taking steps to grow in your sexual maturity, so that you can one day marry or enter into a relationship, where you can look at the beautiful young woman (enter into situations that may have been previously tempting for you) with a pure love and heart.

Click to expand...

I would agree, but I would say its better to err on the side of caution. In the words of St. Paul, "If you think you stand, beware lest you fall".

A slightly less saintly quote, but true in my opinion none the less is "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

In Christ we experience freedom as you have pointed out and described. We must, however, be vigilant that we never subject ourselves deliberatly to temptation on the assumption that we are mature enough to handle it.

This is especially true in the case of young people who often times do not know themselves as well as they think they do, and are prone to think more of their capabilities than they ought.

I don't think we're really disagreeing, we're just emphasizing different aspects of the issue.

An apathetic non practicing Catholic may still be a Catholic but if they're not practicing it, they're working against the Lord. He who is not with Jesus is against Him.

Click to expand...

Can you see into the heart of this parent? Do you know if this parent has been properly Catechized? Do you know the proper reasoning behind why the person has not gone to Church, and has been led astray?

We can speculate all we like on all sorts of situations, but in the end judgement of that person will still be up to the Lord. In the meantime though it is still our responsibility as that person's Brethren to try to help that person come back to the fold. It would be the responsibility of the wife as well. And many times we ourselves will see such situations and instead of involving ourselves to help we merely look the other way. If this then happens, then who will God blame?

It is all too convenient to blame them and that it is all their fault. Why is it when we are all responsible for one another are we not also to blame for them as well?

Debi, I am speaking in generalities, I am not making judgements on any one individual. Do you see anyone's name in my comment? Stop making these insane baseless accusations, please and spare me your guilt trips. My gosh, it's not as if it's uncommon knowledge that an unequally yolked partnership can be detrimental to the upbringing of children. The whole point of this thread is supposed to be for single people to choose who they date wisely, so they can avoid potential problems. It has nothing to do with blaming anyone. Good Lord.

Simon:

Sorry, I was working on my above post as you posted your response, so my above isn't a response to your last post, but was meant to be a continuation of my first post

Anyway, I agree with what you said about the practicality of courtship and the lack of knowledge etc But that is one reason why I think what was said in the article about sexuality is so important. Yes courtship is the noble thing for those who lack or are still developing mature chastity, but it can be harmful if we stop there and don't then consider the bigger picture (ie: the couple chained to a tree).

edit: Yes, I think we are agreeing, but emphasing different aspect. You're emphasing the aspect appropriate and good for the less mature, and I'm emphasising the approriate for those who have gotten to a place of a more mature notion of sexuality, chasitity etc.

Sorry if I came across a bit forceful or anything like that. I have just read too many threads here on CF recently of people making blanket statements about the evils of kissing before marriage, or being alone together, and while I know they have the best of intentions, it worries me because, as you said, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of love, sexuality etc and I think that this mentality can be just as harmful as the garbage put out there by the world. Because rather than ending up with unhealthy, harmful, lustful courtship, you run the risk of unhealthy, harmful, lustful marriages. It give people only the most elematary understanding and level of development of chastity, but then leads them to the most advanced of levels without providing the necessary developmeny get there. Think of courtship as addition and marriage as calculus. The driving mentality of courtship is vital for developing the necessary skills ot add, but it then asks people to write a calculus exam without having first taught them mutliplication, division etc

But, it's good that you are here to balance my rants with yours!

Miss Shelby said:

Debi, I am speaking in generalities, I am not making judgements on any one individual. Do you see anyone's name in my comment? Stop making these insane baseless accusations, please and spare me your guilt trips. My gosh, it's not as if it's uncommon knowledge that an unequally yolked partnership can be detrimental to the upbringing of children. The whole point of this thread is supposed to be for single people to choose who they date wisely, so they can avoid potential problems. It has nothing to do with blaming anyone. Good Lord.

Click to expand...

It is not as if in todays society it is not something we have to deal with either.

I do not think it insane to deal with all sides of a respective issue, I think it comprehensive. I am sorry you have taken my comments about your post to heart as that is not how they were meant. They were meant to make a point, nothing more.

Unless you would like to remain chaste and celibate then it is a distinct possibility, that some of us may be marrying outside of Catholicism.

Let's see I guess maybe what I have found not so much in your posts Michelle but in other's, disturbing is the sense of elitism. As if marrying outside of the Church would be such a horrible thing indeed.

And the last time I looked I was still part of this congregation, and allowed to voice my opinions as well.

Unless you would like to remain chaste and celibate then it is a distinct possibility, that some of us may be marrying outside of Catholicism.

Click to expand...

Did you read my post that you quoted? I was referring to the hypothetical non practicing Catholic parent --and you accused me of judging their entire lot in life and their salvation. My whole point was that just because someone is Catholic, it doesn't always make them the best choice for marriage.