How are Catholics supposed to date?

[whatevergirl]

Hi Belgarion–so, the gist is ( I browsed through the thread you mentioned) is that this girl from your parish, her dad won’t permit you both to date…is she 18 also? If so, that’s kind of strange…I mean, she’s an adult, and her dad is making her decisions on who she can date? You seem like a great guy, so I don’t get it?

Sorry…don’t mean to go OT here…I’ll reply from now on in your other thread.

 

[Belgarion]

Hi Belgarion–so, the gist is ( I browsed through the thread you mentioned) is that this girl from your parish, her dad won’t permit you both to date…is she 18 also? If so, that’s kind of strange…I mean, she’s an adult, and her dad is making her decisions on who she can date? You seem like a great guy, so I don’t get it?

Sorry…don’t mean to go OT here…I’ll reply from now on in your other thread.

Yeah replying in the other thread would be best…the topic can get lengthy…

But you’re not far off here…there ARE other details that factor in, but that’s the gist of it. Though perhaps its even worse than you think, since we are both 19 now. She turns 20 in April, and I follow in June.

 

[PJM]

=Jonikiro;4815899]Hi guys. First time poster here, but I get the feeling this thread is gonna pick up some flak. Please be gentle!

Well…now what? To me, the difference between dating and just being friends was always physical. Now, I love developing intimate friendships with people, man or woman, but that’s all they are: Friendships. Friends talk, couples talk and kiss, right? After discovering what celibacy truly means, though, I’m no longer sure. Maybe I just have a perverse idea of how relationships work.

So tell me, guys. How exactly are Catholics supposed to date? What signals the difference between a friend and a catholic girlfriend?

Son, in this world any secular understanding is possible.

First, welcome to CAF! We are sooo happy to have you join us.

Allow me also to Congratulate you on your decision to remain celibant. It will ot be easy, but walk with your God, and it is possible.

Before I offer suggestions on your question, be aware a very important key to your goal will be extremely vigliant in avoiding “the near occassions of sin.” This is vital to maintaining your sanity and sacity.

Pray daily, and if possible attend Daily Mass. Go to Confession at least every two weeks, even if you do not “HAVE TO.” The grace you receive will of great help.

As for dating. You’ll know if there is an mutual attraction.

Try to date only Catholic girls who share your values. This needs to be a first date topic of discussion.

On your dates, try to either double with another Catholic couple, or at least stay in VERY PUBLIC places.

 Holding hands is fine (holding glands is NOT!) 

 Kissing is OK  but do not allow it to get "your motors going." 

 Discuss what is and will be acceptable, and stick to it.

 AVOID THE NEAR OCCASSIONS OF SIN!

 If you fall, pick your selves up. Dust yourselves off and re-
 commit to avoiding what ever got you in trouble.

 God does not expect you to be perfect, God does however 
 expect good judgement and common sense.

 Pray for the assistance of the Holy Spirit daily. Pray to the 
 Mother of God; Ever Virgin, and to your Guardian Angel.Pray
 that they send into your life the womwn He wants you to meet.

 Your doing what God wants you to do, so work with Him, and 
 know that God will work with you.

 God bless, let us know if we can be of futher assistance.

  Welcome HOME!

 

[Belgarion]

 Holding hands is fine (holding glands is NOT!)

…Sorry…I LOL’d at that part…

 

[chevalier]

A word on two on the purpose of dating. Human sexuality in the broad sense (including matters of romance) is ordered towards marriage. If dating doesn’t lead in that direction - be it by consciously looking for a partner, or by pursuing an interest in good faith, or by at least playing the field - then it is outside its purpose and it’s empty. Kids and young people growing up and realising these things gradually are one thing. Adults rejecting this would be a different matter. Otherwise, it would be fine to do for priests or married people. I don’t want to say that two single people should behave as if one of them were married or a priest, because I wouldn’t like to go that far, but decidedly romantic activities have no place if one isn’t interested in the person involved at least as a potential candidate.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Chevalier, I’m sorry you’re so far away. You’d be lots of fun to talk to.

He’s right by the way. Any contact like “that” with someone you don’t intend to have a serious relationship with falls under the category of “using.”

 

[Rose71]

Okay, I might sound very European about this and I am not quite sure how to phrase the question but…

I totally agree that chastity in dating is important and that it is entirely sensible to build up a bond of friendship and establish compatability before becomming physically involved through a proper marriage.

However, I think it is impossible to completely detatch physical attraction from a meeting of minds. I like men:thumbsup: Men are great:thumbsup: I love spending time in their company Some men I really ‘click’ with because we share the same values and outlook on life and in cases where I do feel very attracted to them, I believe it is healthy to accept the way I feel and not feel ashamed or confused about enjoying their company a little bit more than the company of men who I don’t get that feeling from.

The crux of the matter to me is that I have been given free will. In other words, I have a choice and I can choose to behave according to my values - which is what I do. It is because I acknowledge the way I am feeling (to myself) and because I know (despite lots of women’s magazines and tv shows trying to convince me otherwise) I do have free will and I can be on control of my sex drive, that I can enjoy and appreciate these encounters for what they are - a bit of a buzz and an affirmation that I am (in some men’s eyes) an attractive woman.

Correct me if I am wrong - but don’t men actually, on the quiet, appreciate parameters as much as women? If we lived in a world in which we could not pay one another compliments, give eachother a hug sometimes, indulge in some tongue in cheek flirting (I meant that metaphorically - not tonsil hockey!) and actually recognised that men and women are different - what a dull place it would be!

If everyone had a grip on their emotions and had the confidence to be in control of their own lives - maybe we could all loosen up a bit more and then sex would not become such an all-defining factor in so many relationships; where couples feel obliged to sleep together because they felt such ‘chemistry’ and then stayed on in otherwise unfulfilling relationships because although they have nothing else on common, they are brainwashed by a secular society that dictates sex as the be all and end all and a force that we shouls allow to dictate our lives

I would say to the OP - don’t be afraid of paying women compliments and making it clear how much you enjoy their company. Good manners, dependibility and kindness are very, very attractive. Just make it clear that you do have moral boundaries - but that this has not dimmed your appreciation of us women! Eventually, you will find someone whow shares your values and you will be able to have a great time together without acting against your beliefs, but without feeling as though you are supressing your masculinity.

I am quite sure that makes no sense to anyone but me - but I’m going to post it anyway!!!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Rose, I so fully agree with you! Hanging out with female friends (not talking of dating now) is one of those innocent pleasures of life and I would never hold back on a compliment! When I was a graduate student, I had a small circle of friends, both male and female, and on every single party we had at the house of one of us, I had to invite to dance all the ladies at least once (and quite often they invited me, before I could, and they wouldn’t let me go until their “dance reservoirs” were filled up really well ). Whenever these parties fell on a weekend, they would never end before the sun was up! In a way, that was our mechanism of endorsing each other as friends during some very stressful years and we guys always made sure that the girls felt entertained and cheered up!

More than once, I ended up going with two or three ladies to watch a movie, or to have dinner somewhere. Maybe those cell cultures didn’t grow as they should have, or the experiment wasn’t working out as expected, and we just decided that we needed to take a break! I remember one evening, sitting at the dinner table in the company of two stunningly beautiful ladies! Both were colleagues and friends, there were no romantic interests there from anybody’s part, and we just plain enjoyed the evening and each other’s company. Fortunately my circle of friends was never touched by those sour feminist ideas and political correctness!

And this circle of friends still goes strong, although more difficult to get together because we are now scattered across Europe and the USA…

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Joseph, you hit upon something very important here. It is always a good sign that a man is able to have platonic friendships with females. It indicates two things, both good indications of a positive character:

1. That women trust him and can abide his company and that he is actually likeable to the fairer sex.
2. Tied in with that, that he respects women and has a use for female companionship that won’t ultimately lead to sexual intercourse and using them.

It’s a bad indicator if a man ONLY has female companions that he sleeps with. It indicates a level of immaturity and exploitation and a view that a woman doesn’t deserve friendship and respect outside of what sexual favors she can grant.

That’s the difference between a predator and a friend. And a man who can’t be friends with a woman for her own sake, ultimately won’t be friends with his own wife.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

You know, Liberanosamalo, I agree with you. That’s just freaky when a guy doesn’t know how to be friends and how to appreciate female companions, because he fails to see that they are not sexual objects for his consumption.

 

[Primrose]

Did I step on someone’s blue suede shoes again?

 

[chevalier]

Liberanos, thank you. :tiphat:

Rose, agreed on principle, but there’s always the issue that we aren’t entitled to consumption if we aren’t married. This means attraction is fine, looking for stimulation is not. Therefore, simply accepting the fact we’re attracted to someone and enjoying it is fine. On the other hand, accepting the fact that someone “turns us on” is problematic. Without going scholastic, such interaction as we are considering ought not to degenerate into a mental form of masturbation. We cannot forget Matt 5:28, i.e. that lustful looks are adultery in the heart. If the looking (and touching etc) is respectful of the dignity of the person and there is no intent of getting stimulated sexually but only of enjoying the interaction, that should be fine - as long as the sexual stimulation, once it occurs, is not consented to. We are no more entitled to sexual stimulation from talking to a live person than we are to the same stimulation from watching porn. Our initial lack of content doesn’t prevent us from sinning if we consent to what we didn’t intentionally intend. According to traditional moral theology, this would be understood as consenting to the “movement of generative organs”. It’s rather tricky in practice and I have problems with judging specific situations sometimes, so I recognise it can be rather difficult. But it’s not meant so that you spend two hours a day reading Aquinas and five hours dealing with scruples. Better go to an orthodox (i.e. faithful) priest for a short conversation. At any rate, whatever you can identify as sexual gratification is not fine to consent to mentally. The priest will give you proper pastoral guidance with less obscure vocabulary in it.

 

[ultraswamy]

I’ve been following this thread quite avidly…IMHHHO the early posts were a bit severe, and i must say that i am relieved to read the recent posts reaffirming that as young Catholics we can continue to live a expressed life…where a normal need for physicality and interaction is not despite or contrary our Catholic morals, but is a part of our normal life in society (of course, of course, of course, with our Catholic values having primacy and dictating the relationships we have…)

 

[twinmom319]

I’d just like to throw my 2 cents in to the whole dating “the wrong people” part of this discussion. I too dated several people prior to meeting my husband. Most of these several people were horrific mistakes. However: 1) I never started dating them knowing that it would not parlay into a serious marriage bound relationship
and 2) I would not actually change any of it (even though much of it was quite heartbreaking). Why? Because looking back, I can see what I learned from each relationship about myself, about what God expects from us, and about what makes a good spouse. These are things I could not have learned another way. Finally, God actually brought me to my future husband through my last failed relationship (it’s rather the long story).

This is why I really disagree with the concept that dating someone whom you will not marry is always a waste of time. I believe that dating should be chaste, and that once you realize that the relationship is not heading in the right direction you shouldn’t continue in it “just for fun”; but I also think that there are some people who need those dating experiences in order to learn from them.

 

[chevalier]

This is why I really disagree with the concept that dating someone whom you will not marry is always a waste of time. I believe that dating should be chaste, and that once you realize that the relationship is not heading in the right direction you shouldn’t continue in it “just for fun”; but I also think that there are some people who need those dating experiences in order to learn from them.

Dating someone whom you will not marry is not necessarily a waste of time retrospectively. In reality it’s more likely not than yes.

However, a decision to date (careful with vocab) someone whom one already knows one is not going to marry is illicit. By this I don’t mean taking a friend to a dance. Heck, not even if you stroll all the way down the beach holding hands while she’s carrying a bunch of flowers she has just got from you - as long as you both understand it’s friends. On the other hand, when it’s a boyfriend and girlfriend kind of thing, when the other person is a designated romantic partner, that is not rite if the possibility of marriage is excluded from the beginning by your own choice. Mutual learning doesn’t make it right. Mutual use never does. Learning doesn’t justify it.

I’ve been following this thread quite avidly…IMHHHO the early posts were a bit severe, and i must say that i am relieved to read the recent posts reaffirming that as young Catholics we can continue to live a expressed life…where a normal need for physicality and interaction is not despite or contrary our Catholic morals, but is a part of our normal life in society (of course, of course, of course, with our Catholic values having primacy and dictating the relationships we have…)

Careful with “expressed” because on the one hand it may involve perfectly healthy, legitimate and honourable displays of affection, while on the other hand it may involve one’s desire to express himself in the sense of leaving a mark on all around him, people included. Careful with normal needs for physicality too because the need for sex is perfectly normal and it’s perfectly normal that some days are rather awful when you’re single. It’s natural that some people even *burn *as St Paul put it. That doesn’t mean it’s in accordance with the natural law for a human person to engage in sexual interaction, not even finished intercourse, but also the turning-on foreplay that doesn’t get finished, to someone one isn’t married to. Things like hugging are fine. Expressions of closeness such as holding hands, also. Expressions somewhere between respect and affection, such as when people kiss cheeks or hands, as well. Romantic kisses that don’t cross the line of sexual consumption and yet you wouldn’t feel the need share them with a sibling, can be. But things like groping or peeking or such, are not fine. Therefore, while it’s fine that you want to hug your girl or even kiss her, I wouldn’t focus on the physicality. You’re spiritual first and foremost and expression is even less important yet. There’s actually no need to express the sex drive one unmarried person feels for another. Love, yes, affection, yes, sex drive? I don’t see it as needing any special expression other than admitting it exists.

 

[Rose71]

Liberanos, thank you. :tiphat:

This means attraction is fine, looking for stimulation is not. Therefore, simply accepting the fact we’re attracted to someone and enjoying it is fine. On the other hand, accepting the fact that someone “turns us on” is problematic. Without going scholastic, such interaction as we are considering ought not to degenerate into a mental form of masturbation.

I understand what you mean, but distinguishing between the two scenarios is definitely difficult sometimes! I suppose my take on it is that I can enjoy the fact that I find someone attractive and be flattered if someone finds me attractive - but the line is crossed when you start to ‘feed’ those initial thoughts with mental images of what else could transpire if one were to allow it.

A question though: if one first imagines a chaste courtship and a proper wedding - is it acceptable to mentally prepare for the wedding night after the former two thoughts have taken place?

(yes, I know - unfair question! That little joke aside, however, during a sincere process of discernment, I would argue that it is necessary to think about how you might grow old together; whether you might be able to love and support the candidate were he/she to become severely ill or injured; mentally or physically; whether the candidate’s interpretation and understanding of your faith is the same as your own and so on. Therefore, bearing in mind that the contract of marriage is in part an agreement of both parties to have sexual intercourse with one another, it is essential that there is an underlying attraction to make this physically possible. Unless one accepts and recognises the fact that somebody ‘turns them on’ as opposed to being a great friend maybe, but nothing more; has the process of discernment been carried out in full?)

 

[chevalier]

I understand what you mean, but distinguishing between the two scenarios is definitely difficult sometimes!

I honestly don’t think God meant us to kill our brains doing it. Chances are it’s a fruit of the original sin that we can’t figure it out without playing scholars, but something is telling me that those are situations that a well-formed conscience should handle without mind-numbing logical operations. I try to cut it short. If I can’t, I try to stop thinking and tell the priest how it is in confession. Some priests say, and with good sources, that one shouldn’t presume mortal sin if one isn’t certain of it, but this obviously doesn’t mean that one should presume lack of consent or knowledge in grave matter and lust is grave matter, complicating things. There are kinds of thoughts that can involve sex and be venial when they are limited to occasion, and just because your body reacted doesn’t mean your mind gave consent, but I sometimes fear to rely on lack of consent.

I suppose my take on it is that I can enjoy the fact that I find someone attractive and be flattered if someone finds me attractive

I suppose there’s more danger of pride than of lust in that kind of thing.

• but the line is crossed when you start to ‘feed’ those initial thoughts with mental images of what else could transpire if one were to allow it.

Yes and no. Most likely yes when it gets physical in the sexual way. Most likely no when it doesn’t. Generally we have no business fantasising how great it would be to roam the park with that man/woman with twins in a pram, but that would hardly be a mortal sin if any at all (it could degenerate into some form of venial sin by obsession or lack of respect for that other person’s lack of interest in us that way).

A question though: if one first imagines a chaste courtship and a proper wedding - is it acceptable to mentally prepare for the wedding night after the former two thoughts have taken place?

Not if in doing that, one would in fact be aiming to receive current unlawful gratification by imagining future lawful gratification. One can look forward to it, but not fantasise in such a way that already gives one sexual gratification. If one merely planned how one would act, I wouldn’t call it necessarily sinful, but it could be imprudent. It could be near occasion of sin, too.

(yes, I know - unfair question! That little joke aside,

I’m gonna kill ya… You should have known I had no sense of humour and I would write a reply before reading that it was a joke!

however, during a sincere process of discernment, I would argue that it is necessary to think about how you might grow old together;

Nothing at all wrong with that.

whether you might be able to love and support the candidate were he/she to become severely ill or injured; mentally or physically; whether the candidate’s interpretation and understanding of your faith is the same as your own and so on.

Necessary and good and proper.

Therefore, bearing in mind that the contract of marriage is in part an agreement of both parties to have sexual intercourse with one another, it is essential that there is an underlying attraction to make this physically possible.

Depends. It doesn’t require a huge level of attraction to make it merely physically possible. It would be physically impossible if the man were unable to be stimulated intensely enough by the woman. Ability to stimulate someone with enough effort is not the same as permanent attraction. It would take impotence for a man to be completely unable to have intercourse with a woman.

Unless one accepts and recognises the fact that somebody ‘turns them on’ as opposed to being a great friend maybe, but nothing more; has the process of discernment been carried out in full?)

By all means not! Sometimes people are friends and there is sexual attraction, but something is still lacking. Also, one is able to be “turned on” by many different people unless one has a very low sex drive. Discernment is a complex process which involves many factors, some of which you mentioned above.

 

[Rose71]

A very good reply! Just one small observationride is sinful but gratitude is not.Believe me that at my age when a man indicates he finds me attractive I feel much more of the latter!
(If you can produce an example of canon law that specifically forbids pulling a lawyer’s leg I will allow you to win this debate)

 

[chevalier]

A very good reply! Just one small observationride is sinful but gratitude is not.Believe me that at my age when a man indicates he finds me attractive I feel much more of the latter!
(If you can produce an example of canon law that specifically forbids pulling a lawyer’s leg I will allow you to win this debate)

Don’t confuse gratitude with gratification and you’ll be fine.

 

[Rose71]

good answer! I will make sure I carry a dictionary around with me just in case I ever get mixed up