I want to find a woman like Mary?

[edwest2]

If you can get hold of a copy, there is a 1950s book by a priest called Leo Kinsella, called ‘The Wife Desired’, which is a book for young women, explaining what makes a good wife. I found my copy when an elderly relative died and the house was cleared. It’s a bit old-fashioned looking and some of the text might not find favour with the PC-lobby, but it’s all solid, sensible stuff. Anyway, the thing is, Fr. Kinsella actually compares the idea wife with Mary…

…and then, you will be please to know, he wrote another book, specifically for husbands and called “The Man for Her” - which is a guide for me as to what makes a good husband.

They are both only small books, but they are packed full of common sense and sound advice and all within a Christian context.

Thanks for the book references. Appreciate it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Sillara]

No, I really don’t

I think what Chevaleresse is pointing out is that with murder, no matter how truly repentant the murderer may be, no matter how reconciled to God he may be, there are temporal consequences for his sin that NOTHING is going to undo. No matter what he does, the person he murdered is NOT coming back.

The same thing with sexual sin. No matter WHAT the penitent does, his innocence is NOT coming back. St. Paul talks about joining the temple of God (our bodies) to those of harlots. That act has consequences that, though we need not be damned for them thanks to God’s mercy and Christ’s sacrifice, we CANNOT avoid, nor should we pretend that those consequences do not exist.

 

[Chevaleresse]

I think what Chevaleresse is pointing out is that with murder, no matter how truly repentant the murderer may be, no matter how reconciled to God he may be, there are temporal consequences for his sin that NOTHING is going to undo. No matter what he does, the person he murdered is NOT coming back.

The same thing with sexual sin. No matter WHAT the penitent does, his innocence is NOT coming back. St. Paul talks about joining the temple of God (our bodies) to those of harlots. That act has consequences that, though we need not be damned for them thanks to God’s mercy and Christ’s sacrifice, we CANNOT avoid, nor should we pretend that those consequences do not exist.

Yes, this is basically it.

And to add to that: suggesting that one sinner is no different than another is really just brushing over the seriousness of certain sins. Bob damages someone’s property, Steve murders an entire family; Bob is “just as much a sinner as” Steve. Most can see the difference, but still manage to obscure those lines.

“The OP certainly has the right to set high standards for his future spouse, if that’s what his conscience and his faith are telling him. I was just pointing out the flip side of the coin, which is that setting high standards also means trying to live up to them yourself.”

Yes, we’re in agreement. Living up to the standards you set for others is an absolute must.

 

[EasterJoy]

…I would be hesitant to completely refuse to look at someone who has made mistakes in the past, you might pass over someone who would be perfect for you, someone who you could have overlooked their past for the sake of giving your life to them and loving them for who they are.

He wrote that he’d prefer for her to be a virgin. Note also that he did not list that as his first description of what a woman modelled after Our Lady would look like. His first description was this: Someone who is spiritually beautiful, has God as the most important thing in their lives, someone who is nice and caring.

He wants a woman who puts God and God’s will before him. What a beautiful desire in a husband!

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, this is basically it.

And to add to that: suggesting that one sinner is no different than another is really just brushing over the seriousness of certain sins. Bob damages someone’s property, Steve murders an entire family; Bob is “just as much a sinner as” Steve. Most can see the difference, but still manage to obscure those lines.

No, that really is not at all what I am saying. I am advocating for recognizing that the only reason we have managed to not sin in a particular way is because of God’s grace. It is not through our own merits, we have no reason to think of ourselves as inherently better than others since it is not because of us, but rather because of God that we have remained free of a partiular kind of sin. This in no way ignores the fact that sins have varying degrees of vravity, but it is very important to remember.

as to the idea that murder leaves a temporall effect, yes, of course it does, as does impurity, but sometimes the effect is very small and not too hard to overcome. I still really don’t understand how the example of murder is supposed to go against anything that I said.

 

[thewanderer]

He wrote that he’d prefer for her to be a virgin. Note also that he did not list that as his first description of what a woman modelled after Our Lady would look like. His first description was this: Someone who is spiritually beautiful, has God as the most important thing in their lives, someone who is nice and caring.

He wants a woman who puts God and God’s will before him. What a beautiful desire in a husband!

I understand that and I agree that it is a wonderful and beautiful desire. I have never said otherwise. If it sounds like I am saying otherwise it is probably just because I am repeating my one point of caution because I am defending my position from chevaleresse who seems to think that anyone who doesn’t automatically advocate only marrying a virgin means you are saying it is a bad idea to want to marry a virgin. This is not at all what I am saying as I have already explained multiple times. I think the OP’s desire’s are wonderful.

 

[mdgspencer]

Good for you.
I found my wife on the website catholic match. In fact, she first turned up when I did a search for those who went to church every day. From her profile it was obvious that she had conservative convictions in morality and in other ways that I believed would count in a prospective wife. Actually, we pray the rosary every day now. I hope you find a wife in your own church who will be what you desire.

 

[Chevaleresse]

No, that really is not at all what I am saying. I am advocating for recognizing that the only reason we have managed to not sin in a particular way is because of God’s grace. It is not through our own merits, we have no reason to think of ourselves as inherently better than others since it is not because of us, but rather because of God that we have remained free of a partiular kind of sin. This in no way ignores the fact that sins have varying degrees of vravity, but it is very important to remember.

What’s your point though? i.e. some people don’t want to date an ex-con. That doesn’t mean they think they’re better, they just don’t like the fact that the person is an ex-con. We need to differentiate between the two. It seems like people feel if you reject someone because of a certain sin (anything), then you think you’re superior when it really is the rejection of the temporal consequences. I always find it funny when people assume malice on the part of others.

“as to the idea that murder leaves a temporall effect, yes, of course it does, as does impurity, but sometimes the effect is very small and not too hard to overcome. I still really don’t understand how the example of murder is supposed to go against anything that I said.”

Your statement can be interpreted in different ways. If you agree with my example, then your statement will hopefully be understood properly by others on the base of that.

 

[Kelfa28]

Ok, this might sound weird (especially coming from a non Catholic), but I’d really like to find a girlfriend (and potential wife) similar to Mary. Someone who is spiritually beautiful, has God as the most important thing in their lives, someone who is nice and caring. I want someone pure, not someone who has slept around. Is this odd? Since I was about 14, Mary has been like a Mother to me, so it’s only natural I want to find someone like her. Right???

Go for it!

Personally, I didn’t become a true believer with the faith until after I had met and was engaged to my husband and it was too late for us to give ourselves this beautiful gift to each other.

Looking back I wish I had the opportunity to but all I can do is thank the Lord he brought my husband and I together and has touched our lives with His presence.

Good luck with your search but remember we are all creatures of God despite our pasts. It’s how we amend ourselves for the future that counts.

 

[thewanderer]

What’s your point though? i.e. some people don’t want to date an ex-con. That doesn’t mean they think they’re better, they just don’t like the fact that the person is an ex-con. We need to differentiate between the two. It seems like people feel if you reject someone because of a certain sin (anything), then you think you’re superior when it really is the rejection of the temporal consequences. I always find it funny when people assume malice on the part of others.

Your statement can be interpreted in different ways. If you agree with my example, then your statement will hopefully be understood properly by others on the base of that.

Sometimes it is because of the temporal consequences, yes, but sometimes it really isn’t.

Either way, I still don’t understand why you brought up murder. I would counsel people to not necessarily reject a truly repentant murderer just as I would counsel them to not necessarily reject someone who repents of their past impurity. Yes, you have to be careful in making a decision about such a person because you need to be sure you can live with the after effects of their past sin (which will vary widely from person to person) but that doesn’t mean you should necessarily toss out all of them ahead of time, in lookin at them individually it’s possible to find plenty of newly chaste people who are most definitely of marriageable material.

I really don’t understand why keep replying as though you disagree with what I am saying when I am not contradicting what you are saying at all. You are saying that some people could never live with the after effects of certain sins in peoples pasts. That’s totally fine, if you’re really one of those people the solution is to not marry such a person, as you’ve been saying. I have admitted this multiple times and then gone on to expand what I was saying for the sake of those who would be able to but who don’t yet realize it or are on the edge. In other words I am given advice meant for different people than you are, not advice that disagrees or contradicts anything you have said. I am honestly at a loss as to why you seem to think I disagree with you.

 

[Chevaleresse]

" because I am defending my position from chevaleresse who seems to think that anyone who doesn’t automatically advocate only marrying a virgin means you are saying it is a bad idea to want to marry a virgin."

For someone who says I am always misinterpreting or misrepresenting your comments, you’ve just done a good job of that yourself.

 

[Chevaleresse]

“Either way, I still don’t understand why you brought up murder.”

Reading through threads on here I noticed that people (not you) frequently say “overlook someone’s past, unless of course they’re a murderer”. I always found that to be strange. You don’t seem to think any past should disqualify a person from consideration for marriage (which is fine, BTW) which is now clear to me.

 

[thewanderer]

For someone who says I am always misinterpreting or misrepresenting your comments, you’ve just done a good job of that yourself.

I’m sorry if I have misunderstood you, that is the impression I have gotten and I am sorry if it is wrong. Perhaps we are both not being careful enough in the way we phrase what we are trying to say.

Reading through threads on here I noticed that people (not you) frequently say “overlook someone’s past, unless of course they’re a murderer”. I always found that to be strange. You don’t seem to think any past should disqualify a person from consideration for marriage (which is fine, BTW) which is now clear to me.

Its not just a matter of seeming. On the general level someone who has repented from any sin, lust, theft, murder, greed, pride etc can still be excellent marriagable material so long as they have truly repented. I think thats the key. People are more used to seeing those who have repented from sexual sins than they are to seeing people who have repented of other sins, so they are more hesitant about some of the other sins, they often picture someone who has not yet fully repented. I even found myself doing that (when you brought this up on another thread) but I realized it and instead imagined someone who was truly repentant and no longer felt the same hesitation.

On the general level it is true for all sins. When you get down to the particular level someones past sins can easily have effected them in such a way that they are not suitable for marriage, or at the very least would bring their own extra difficulties to any marriage, but they can also have had small effects or effects which the person has almost completely overcome, in which case it wouldn’t really make a difference to their ‘marriageability’.

[ETA: I think I see why you keep responding now… thank you for clarifying, it really was not clear to me earlier and it seemed as though you were addressing everything to me, rather than to others who might be reading this thread.**]****

 

[EasterJoy]

What’s your point though? i.e. some people don’t want to date an ex-con. That doesn’t mean they think they’re better, they just don’t like the fact that the person is an ex-con. We need to differentiate between the two. It seems like people feel if you reject someone because of a certain sin (anything), then you think you’re superior when it really is the rejection of the temporal consequences. I always find it funny when people assume malice on the part of others.

Your statement can be interpreted in different ways. If you agree with my example, then your statement will hopefully be understood properly by others on the base of that.

Well, sometimes those who eliminate anyone who has committed some particular sin or even any mortal sin actually do think they’re substantially better, if only better marriage material, but that is not the point. After all, if you were to think you’re better than a wife who had committed the sin of fornication before she married you, she ought not want to marry you, anyway. No offense, but who needs a lifetime of having a particular repented sin held over her head? It would definitely be easier to be married to somebody who made similar mistakes of his own, and to take your temporal consequences together. Sorry, but–and she doesn’t necessarily *blame you *for being bothered about her past!!–good riddance to you, I’m sure. There actually are some scourges that are worse than herpes.

The point is that Moses would have been convicted as a murderer. St. Paul himself was guilty of persecuting the Church directly. The woman who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears and dried them with her hair…no reason to reject her, but let us say that she was apparently more than a little experienced. It is not to say that our past sins are no strike against us as prospective spouses. It is to say that people who do amend their lives, even those with horrible pasts, sometimes amend their lives in spectacular fashion. They become recognizable saints, even in this life. St. Paul not only stopped persecuting the Church. He took that same persecution directly onto his own back, even to martyrdom. Yet who would trust him as an Apostle? The Apostles did. Somehow they put aside the very real thought of what he had done, the horrible things he had done, the things that had gotten others killed, and they embraced him as an Apostle. I think you’d say it was a good decision, yes?

The point is that if you decide in advance that this sin or that is an absolute non-negotiable, you’re excluding some people who could’ve been very good spouses. That would be too bad, and so it is worth cautioning you about that. It doesn’t much make a difference if one person does what you’re doing–that is, if you marry another person who has never committed a mortal sin, more power to both of you!!–but if no one who has avoided mortal sin will ever marry anyone who has not avoided it, that’s a lot of good marriages that can’t happen.

It’s worth thinking about. That’s the point.

 

[POJIUJH]

“A woman’s heart should be so hidden in Christ, that a man should have to seek Him first to find her.”

 

[EasterJoy]

“A woman’s heart should be so hidden in Christ, that a man should have to seek Him first to find her.”

That is quite lovely, and very true.

 

[Chevaleresse]

“Well, sometimes those who eliminate anyone who has committed some particular sin or even any mortal sin actually do think they’re substantially better, if only better marriage material, but that is not the point. After all, if you were to think you’re better than a wife who had committed the sin of fornication before she married you, she ought not want to marry you, anyway. No offense, but who needs a lifetime of having a particular repented sin held over her head? It would definitely be easier to be married to somebody who made similar mistakes of his own, and to take you temporal consequences together. Sorry, but…good riddance to you, I’m sure.”

Yes, the OP should be aware of the potential for that tendency in marriage (in either direction, actually). That is not something that you’d want to bring up in a fight…

“The point is that if you decide in advance that this sin or that is an absolute non-negotiable, you’re excluding some people who could’ve been very good spouses. That would be too bad, and so it is worth cautioning you about that.”

It’s not a bad idea to decide in advance. People fall in love, marry, and then those things they overlook creep back, creating problems.

“but if no one who has avoided mortal sin will ever marry anyone who has not avoided it, that’s a lot of good marriages that can’t happen.”

Which is just fine, BTW.

Just because of our own personalities, appearance, jobs, education, language, location in the world, etc, we eliminate others who would make good marriage partners. That’s the side effect of billions of people, thousands of religions/denominations, and hundreds of cultures.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, the OP should be aware of the potential for that tendency in marriage (in either direction, actually). That is not something that you’d want to bring up in a fight…

It’s not a bad idea to decide in advance. People fall in love, marry, and then those things they overlook creep back, creating problems.

Which is just fine, BTW.

Just because of our own personalities, appearance, jobs, education, language, location in the world, etc, we eliminate others who would make good marriage partners. That’s the side effect of billions of people, thousands of religions/denominations, and hundreds of cultures.

There are a lot of things that this person or not simply cannot look past in the person they share their life with, and that’s just life. If this particular person or that just can’t see themselves marrying someone with (or without!) freckles, there is no use arguing with it. You’re right: you go in knowing you might pass over some very good prospects, but because some particular thing is important to you, you just decide live with that, and nothing against them. I don’t see what good it would be to argue with that. You feel what you feel, arguing won’t change it, and it isn’t anyone else’s business. You’re the one who has to be in the marriage for life.

You are also right that the desire to marry a virgin is not an arbitrary one, either. Fornication isn’t murder, but it is a very serious offense against moral law, all the same. Besides, while those who are virgins at marriage do sometimes go on to have adulterous affairs, the recidivism rate for extra-marital sexual affairs isn’t neglible. As long as you are aware of all that, what is and is not “non-negotiable” is your choice.

 

[SeekNFind]

“A woman’s heart should be so hidden in Christ, that a man should have to seek Him first to find her.”

Basically. Both parties should be hidden in Christ, the third cord that will eventually link them together.

Praying for your future spouse is super important too because while you may not be together in the physical, you will be connected in the spiritual, through Christ. It’s such an amazing thought!

 

[SeekNFind]

Well, guys are visual, so I’m sure apperance does play a lot into them approaching someone.

Sometimes the fact that a woman doesn’t dress and act like a woman of the world does draw attention - the good attention of a Godly man who is looking for a girl to marry not to use.

But don’t sell out guys that quick - I know from talking on this forum that there are a lot of genuine, Godly men - and there are some genuine, Godly young men in my own life that I am privleged to know and grow in God alongside (youth group)

Appearance is definitely important but shouldn’t be the most important IMO. However, it’s said that women will more easily overlook appearance in a guy if everything else is great. Men will more often dump a girl who has all the right wife qualities but may not be his idea of a dream girl physically. Well, to each his own, right? I don’t mean to imply all men are this one-dimensional but it’s pretty common.