G
Geremia
Guest
That’s true, too.
- Status
C
chevalier
Guest
Depends… “Dating” is not just a different way of “hanging out with”. It presupposes something more than friendship - at least as far as it comes to the potential. I cannot accept non-exclusive romantic relationships as proper. Serial relationships coming in a quick succession aren’t great, either. Generally, I believe people should keep it friends and only engage in the kissy/huggy/whatever part when they have a single target for that kind of affection.
N
Norseman82
Guest
Additionally, I personally think that the whole “my spouse is pre-picked for me” could lead to more divorces, for a few reasons. I remember at a theology-on-tap a nun recounted the story of someone she was counseling that was miserable because he was divorcing and the reason he married that woman was that he thought the spouse was pre-picked, so in this instance, it could lead to poor judgment.
Additionally, what will happen if all of a sudden after many years of marriage you come to a realization that someone else is pre-picked for you - do you divorce your current spouse and marry the other? And continue the cycle - lather, rinse, repeat?
Additionally, if you are marrying someone because someone is implying that God wills you to marry that person and you are afraid of committing a mortal sin, I would seriously question whether that marriage is being entered into freely and so would be grounds for annulment later.
P
pnewton
Guest
The basic idea of Chrisitan freedom would tend to imply the latter. Unless there is a choice between a moral decision and an immoral decision one is free to choose. When two moral acceptable decisions presents itself, then one can choose either of the two paths, or in this case, two people.
P
pnewton
Guest
I would be curious how many people that advocate the theory of dating one person instead of dating several people, are in a situation of dating someone and use this as an excuse to accuse the one who wants to break up with them as being sinful. People in a dating situation often lack the perspective of what is best and confuse it with what they want, even if what they want is a good thing.
If the Catholic Church has not spoken, then one is free to choose, even if that choice hurts. No amount of theology will ever take the pain away from rejection, or make choosing a marriage partner easy.
If the Catholic Church has not spoken, then one is free to choose, even if that choice hurts. No amount of theology will ever take the pain away from rejection, or make choosing a marriage partner easy.
G
Geremia
Guest
See this thread.
C
chevalier
Guest
Never happened to me.
It’s not a “theory” that we are monogamous. While “open relationships” have been around for some time, the idea of having multiple concurrent relationships being acceptable is quite a new one for all I know. In fact, I cannot recall any Christian view in support of concurrent romantic relationships at the premarital stage, other than modern theories.
I object to those ideas and I firmly maintain that it is not acceptable to have concurrent romantic relationships, concurrent romances, concurrent courtships or whatever else it is called.
Whether non-exclusive dating falls under the above depends on how far it goes. If a “date” is a meeting which is not decidedly romantic in nature, but simply implying openness to perhaps having a romantic relationship at some point, then it doesn’t cross the line which I defend. But when dating starts involving romantic kissing (this is contextual because friends sometimes kiss, but the way they do it is different), holding hands “that way” (holding hands is also contextual, as friends will occasionally do it, e.g. when comforting each other or encouraging or emphasising attachment), generally exchanging physical marks of a clearly not brotherly (sisterly) affection (since the above were merely examples, not earmarks), then it crosses that line. Simply put, polyamory is wrong.
I’m not in a dating situation. In my current situation, if I want to go somewhere with someone, I simply do just that, without crossing the line of what is acceptable between friends. The fact that a woman “stands a chance” with me doesn’t mean I need to rush out for Hollywood kissing and cosy cuddling.
On a final note, don’t get me wrong: let me reassert I never say it’s bad to go out with multiple people. It’s not a bad thing, it’s quite beneficial, actually. What’s wrong is polyamory.
P
pnewton
Guest
You seem to have a good understanding of what is best for you. I think your second statement explains why your first statement is true. It does matter the intent and what kind of date it is. I would caution anyone against presenting their opinions as object, though, unless it can be backed up by specific Church teaching and not just an interpolation of Church teaching.
One of the best test for what is wholesome and what is not is whether one is placing oneself in near occasion of sin. This applies not only to pre-marital sex, but also dishonesty.
C
chevalier
Guest
I cannot give any Church teaching that would say, “having several romantic partners, even with whom sexual relationships are not had, is wrong.” However, I can rightly point out that there is no precedent of a saint having multiple romantic partners or recommending such a situation. We also all agree that the default mode for humans is monogamy and that polygamy is wrong.
Obviously, having a couple of simultaneous girlfriends or boyfriends is not the same as real polygamy. Sharing a couple of Hollywood kisses with them is not the same as having a number of sexual partners at the same time. However, marriage is not just sex. It’s a partnership. If it’s wrong to have that with many people, it can’t really be good to have simultaneous preparation or training with multiple people before. It doesn’t strike as a good idea to have multiple such relationships all looking at a potential exclusive marriage at a later date. There are more arguments, but let’s save some for later.
I apologise if I’ve hurt anyone’s feelings. I admit I can be quite confrontational and quite tense when it comes to this subject.
Obviously, having a couple of simultaneous girlfriends or boyfriends is not the same as real polygamy. Sharing a couple of Hollywood kisses with them is not the same as having a number of sexual partners at the same time. However, marriage is not just sex. It’s a partnership. If it’s wrong to have that with many people, it can’t really be good to have simultaneous preparation or training with multiple people before. It doesn’t strike as a good idea to have multiple such relationships all looking at a potential exclusive marriage at a later date. There are more arguments, but let’s save some for later.
I apologise if I’ve hurt anyone’s feelings. I admit I can be quite confrontational and quite tense when it comes to this subject.
L
LilyM
Guest
Uh-huh. And that’s why priests don’t need to spend any time at all learning in seminary, or going through the diaconate where they get a chance to baptise, marry, preach and help say part of the Mass, and get a foretaste of some of what they’ll be doing as priests, before they’re given the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Because God’s some great big fairy godmother in the sky who gives them everything they need to be great priests without their having to lift a finger to prepare for it in any practical way … :nope:
God gave us brains to learn with and expects us to use them to learn, as much as possible, to prepare us for whatever future he has planned for us, whether is is in terms of marriage, parenthood, religious life or Holy Orders or else our secular careers or secular studies.
L
LilyM
Guest
You sure that no saints ever did so? For one thing married saints are way underrepresented, and the ones giving advice were usually celibate. For seconds arranged marriage was the norm for a long time (I hope you’re not suggesting we go back to it, because arranged marriages were usually arranged for money without any concern for the welfare or compatibility of the parties otherwise).
For a third I’d say it’s not necessarily something that we could or would find out about them even if we wanted to - they’re not necessarily going to have recorded anywhere or told anyone how many people they dated before marriage.
Having said that, I’m not specifically defending dating multiple people romantically at once, because the OP was attacking dating fullstop. There may possibly be situations where, while not ideal, it’s OK, such as if one relationship is a long distance one and you’re trying to discern whether that person is right for you when there’s someone closer to home that you’re also attracted to.
C
chevalier
Guest
Well, I definitely have a problem with the whole dating scene. I generally find it not so very great that virtual strangers would set up a meeting which involves an explicit mating-related tone. Too much fraternisation (in the bad sense) for my taste. Note that I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment if I felt such a situation were justified in my own life, though. As a rule, however, I have a problem with it. I associate it with multi-romance and with dating rosters. Whatever. Just not good. I stick by the system in which people are friends, talk like normal people, loosely do some things together socially and then either fall in love or not really, arrange something if they so like, rather than getting emotional - if that is their preference. Whatever.
As for getting romantic with several people, my main points of contention are 1) polygamy - if at an early stage, 2) the pointless of all relationships minus at best one (not more than one can survive, the rest will have to be cut if one is ever to marry).
As for getting romantic with several people, my main points of contention are 1) polygamy - if at an early stage, 2) the pointless of all relationships minus at best one (not more than one can survive, the rest will have to be cut if one is ever to marry).
L
LilyM
Guest
Who says dating usually happens between strangers? Most of the dates I know of will be between people who know each other reasonably well - people who meet at work or university or through other friends and get acquainted that way first. Besides which, every spouse starts off as a stranger, no? What’s wrong with getting to know strangers?
Again, the mere fact that not all dates will lead to marriage and some dates will be rejected as future partners is not a problem, and I am having difficulties understanding why you would see it as one.
The way I see it - everyone almost certainly will need to apply for several different courses of study for university if they intend to get into one, or several different jobs if they want to obtain one. Both processes are usually lengthy and may involve multiple interviews, testing sessions and so on. And you may get more than one offer and have to decide which one is best for you and reject the others.
The fact that you don’t intend to take ALL the jobs and study ALL the courses makes it no less necessary, for most people, to apply for more than one. Employers and colleges understand this, and understand that you may get multiple offers - it’s part and parcel of the process that you check out all the available opportunities first and then make a decision if needs be. You’d be remiss to do otherwise, since you may miss out on your ideal course or job if you stick with a ‘one at a time’ attitude.
Same with dates. If you sit there and wait for the perfect spouse - or any spouse for that matter - to fall into your lap without ever getting out there and dating, and dating multiple people if necesssary, then you’ve got about as good a chance of it happening as you would of getting into a college without applying for any, or getting a job without applying for any!
I’ve sat back and watched this thread unfold, wondering if anyone was going to address what I’ve highlighted.
Does this mean, then, that one who has been widowed should NOT be seeking another marriage? NEVER seek another marriage, even if the widow(er) is young enough to still have a good twenty or thirty years with a second spouse? I mean, if your spouse is the “one and only person God has willed for you to marry since the beginning of time”… well, that rather states that there will be NO other spouse, regardless of the circumstances under which one loses their marriage partner.
A 22-year-old woman whose 23-year-old husband is killed in a car wreck, or a 35-year-old man whose 32-year-old wife dies of cancer has already married their “one and only” and now they’re gone so they must live the rest of their lives without the possibility of having another sacramental union? Seriously?
Now I myself feel that I would never be able to remarry (DH feels the same way) and thanks be to God, circumstances have not forced us to even consider the possibility. But other people might feel called to marriage again after losing their spouse. Nothing wrong with that, at least according to the Church which does not forbid widows and widowers to marry, right? So… what? Which spouse, the first or second, is “the one and only person God has willed for you to marry since the beginning of time”? You can only have ONE “one and only”, right?
Perhaps not relevant to the rest of the thread which is dealing with dating, but that kind of stuck in my mind and I’m trying to work out what was meant by that statement.
R
rpp
Guest
Dating and Courtship.
A distinction without a difference.
A distinction without a difference.
L
LJN21
Guest
These were he answers to it:
G
Geremia
Guest
Are you equating dating to a seminary?
G
Geremia
Guest
I’m not saying it the #1 factor.
L
LilyM
Guest
In the one instance you’re discerning your vocation to the sacrament of marriage, in the other you’re discerning your vocation to the sacrament of Holy Orders. Dating prepares you for marriage, seminary prepares you for Holy Orders. The comparison is reasonable.
C
child_of_God85
Guest
:ehh:.
. . 
. :whacky: .
- Status