What are some true deal-breakers for Catholics?

[augustinegirl]

I wouldn’t, either. Romantic attraction is famously fickle and blind. It is wise to have thought about things you do not want to ignore in your blind eagerness to be a fit with someone whose company you enjoy greatly. Enjoying each other’s company is not enough to dismiss all concerns. Knowing what your concerns ought to be in advance is prudent, like having a fire escape plan. Don’t count on yourself to be thinking clearly when the moments of decision come. You could wind up either making a bad match or stringing along a person who deserves to know early on that you’re not going to sign on the dotted line in the end.

I feel like I have to hang this up to read or something haha. I have things that I certainly want, but it’s true that you can blind yourself. I’ve done it before and it’s why I’ve said some of the things that I’ve said on this thread. I certainly can’t imagine what it would be like to date without relying on God in discernment.

 

[augustinegirl]

Also not on the list: giving themselves permission to engage in the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse during conflicts: personal attacks, expressions of contempt, defensiveness and stone-walling (the silent treatment).

That’s some serious wisdom right there. I’d say it’s decidedly less Catholic to engage in any of that behavior (even if one practices Catholicism and puts on a good persona for others…it happens) than it is to have less-than-perfect friends or to have been abused.

 

[MichaelP3]

1. Doesn’t know how to negotiate a conflict without resorting to emotional abuse or blackmail.
2. Uses bullying tactics to get his or her way
3. Has a healthy sense of give and take: neither tries to always be the one doing for others nor expects everyone else’s plans to revolve around him or her.
4. Self-medicates difficulties with alcohol, drugs, shopping, or other behaviors that develop into addictions or “can’t have fun” without this kind of thing…as in “Oh, man, I need a drink.”
5. Cannot reasonably be expected to be an asset instead of an obstacle or “neutral force” in practicing your faith and raising your children Catholic. That normally means Catholic, but there are a lot of people out there who want their children raised in a one-faith home more than they want to continue in whatever it is they were raised with. (I know of one such man who did such a good job supporting his family of Catholics that he was asked if he wanted to run for parish council. The family was very observant, volunteered a lot, and no one had ever noticed that he did not go to Holy Communion.) A person who is “neutral” about your faith will probably grow to resent your religious duties eventually, however.
6. Has friends he intends to keep that you would want as your friends. (It is wrong to isolate someone from friends he wants to keep.)

I don’t know that I would call those “deal-breakers” so much as red flags. Yes, that normally means deal-breaker, but the main thing is for our children to realize that discriminating on the basis of whether or not someone is a good match for us is not the same as judging them to be an inferior human being. Using intuition without any concrete idea of how to rationally discriminate between a good match and a bad one is not a good idea.

In my experience, a parent who even appears to presume to impose rules for finding a spouse on an adult child is also a red flag, however. You discuss the kinds of things that lead to problems, how to spot them and what you’re letting yourself in for, but if you act as if this is in any way your decision to make on behalf of your adult child, you’re on thin ice. (Not that the OP actually said otherwise, mind you.)

Yes take this advice. Probably the best I have ever seen.

 

[AdamP88]

Of course, the problem with these lists coming from parents is that having a list of what to look for in a spouse that you got from Daddy or Mommy doesn’t exactly catapult you to the top of anybody’s “what I’m looking for” list, either.

Nothing wrong with parents advising their children and the children taking that advice on board. But I doubt many people broadcast their dealbreakers to all the women they meet. Usually you go on a few dates then find out that something does not tick one of your boxes then you are free to make a decision.

 

[phil19034]

Alright everyone…I would like some general insight from reasonable Catholic people.

 When I first started dating, I had a long list of "requirements" that included physical appearance and personality, but also morals.  As I've grown, I've learned that my list wasn't exactly realistic (shocker!).  I also think a lot of Catholics have super high expectations, at least in my experience.

 There's an odd problem: we're not supposed to try to change anyone (people won't change unless they want to), but we're also supposed to be open to people and not write them off right away.  This is a confusing concept for me, as I've recently only dated devout Catholics (who had other reasons for not working out, like personality or desires).  Humans are imperfect, and I haven't been in many serious relationships where I've dealt with a lot of differences.

1. Religion - I used to require that someone I date is Catholic; changed that to Christian, but that doesn’t have to mean attending a service - it can mean that they have a relationship with God or desire one. While Catholic should = person striving for virtue, it doesn’t always. I have a few people in my family who are converts and I felt hypocritical just going for Catholics. Like I said, I know we aren’t supposed to try to change people, but does anyone have advice on not trying to convert someone even if we wish they were Catholic? Or can we be okay without them converting?
2. Politics Is politics truly a deal-breaker? A lot of people would say yes, but the funny thing is that the way I “politically identify” is generally totally different from the people I spend time with and enjoy. Some people aren’t familiar with pro-life teachings or have been raised in a different background, and I don’t know what is acceptable or not. Now if the other person is totally immersed in his political party, I’d steer clear, but I’ve found that most people just say “I personally disagree with that, but I don’t know if the government should control it” or something.
3. Number of kids Let’s say you’re far enough into a relationship when you talk about kids. Obviously we must be open to children, that’s a given. God gives you however many kids you should have, but should you both want the same amount? (Note: obviously the person should want kids in general, I know that haha, but does the amount preference matter?)
   
   And then of course personality, but I already have a good idea of what I need there (well, I’m sure I’ll find out if I’m wrong haha). I’m mostly just asking about these things like religion and politics that are notoriously polarizing. I have many friends of different faiths and political beliefs, but it gets much harder for me in dating relationships when that happens.

It’s hard to be patient and just let it all unfold, so I’m seeing if there is any general advice out there.

As someone who is married to a non-Catholic, I used to think as you currently do. But I would strongly recommend that all 3 of those things are extremely important.

From what I’ve learned, EVERYTHING comes down to kids.

1. If you attend Mass every Sunday or more frequently, I HIGHLY suggest you find someone who does the same. It may not be a big deal when you are dating or even when you get married. But it will become an issue when you have children.

If mass and Church is not important to your spouse, then you cannot depend on your spouse to transfer that importance to your children.

So I would argue that it’s very important to find someone equally dedicated to the Church as you are, if not more so.

1. Same with politics. For example: it’s hard to teach your children to be pro-life if your spouse is pro-choice. And politics is much more than just government, it also includes how you “play politics” inside your extended families, with friends, etc. Politics is in many ways, your values in action. If politics of your spouse greatly differs from you, then most likely your values will differ too.

NOTE: this doesn’t mean you have to agree on every single little thing. It’s ok to disagree with trivial implementation differences, but differences on a philosophical, moral, ethical, theological levels can be make child rearing difficult.

1. The number of kids is not an issue, in itself. However, it might be a warning flag regarding their view of birth control and sterilization. It could also be a warning of the role of material goods in their lives and their openness to God’s plan for them.

I highly recommend this one blog post from the Newman Center at Texas A&M

aggiecatholicblog.org/2016/10/20-steps-to-a-great-marriage/

God Bless and feel free to respond or message me with any/all questions.

 

[commenter5]

psa- I’m not catholic.

Must be female, 18-26, christian, chaste, non-traditional peircing and tattoo free, tobacco free, quiet and smart, wear dresses or skirts.
Preferably tall, brown hair (blonde haired races age badly and black haired races tend to have messed up noses), good singing voice, physicaly fit, and dry except for religious purposes.

 

[Allegra]

psa- I’m not catholic.

Must be female, 18-26, christian, chaste, non-traditional peircing and tattoo free, tobacco free, quiet and smart, wear dresses or skirts.
Preferably tall, brown hair (blonde haired races age badly and black haired races tend to have messed up noses), good singing voice, physicaly fit, and dry except for religious purposes.

You know, you could have just said that you prefer brown hair!

 

[phil19034]

psa- I’m not catholic.

Must be female, 18-26, christian, chaste, non-traditional peircing and tattoo free, tobacco free, quiet and smart, wear dresses or skirts.
Preferably tall,*** brown hair (blonde haired races age badly and black haired races tend to have messed up noses),*** good singing voice, physicaly fit, and dry except for religious purposes.

Is this supposed to be a joke? Regardless, it’s coming off as very uncharitable.

And I have never heard of the “blond race” or the “black haired race” :dts:

 

[AdamP88]

psa- I’m not catholic.

Must be female, 18-26, christian, chaste, non-traditional peircing and tattoo free, tobacco free, quiet and smart, wear dresses or skirts.
Preferably tall, brown hair (blonde haired races age badly and black haired races tend to have messed up noses), good singing voice, physicaly fit, and dry except for religious purposes.

You misspelled physically.
You might want to reword your post so’s not to insult 70% of this forum.

 

[commenter5]

Is this supposed to be a joke? Regardless, it’s coming off as very uncharitable.

And I have never heard of the “blond race” or the “black haired race” :dts:

The prematurely obese, freckled nordic brunhilda on the one hand and the mediterranian hawk nose/mustauche upper lip lady on the other hand.

 

[jcrichton]

Smoking is a deal breaker for me as well, no exceptions. I’m allergic to cigarette smoke, and my throat starts to ache and close up around it – sometimes even just being around someone who has a heavy odor of cigarette smoke causes a mild reaction.

No judgment call on the person or on their choice to smoke. My lungs and my system just can’t handle being around it.

But when I say no smokers, no exceptions, I don’t usually take the time to explain my reason. If others want to assume I’m being a prude or judgmental, that’s their call.

Hi, Gertabelle!

I am allergic to almost everything… so I understand what you are saying (the smoke, the ashes, the odor… what is worse, it seems that I’m a magnet for smokers… they cross rivers and towns to sit/stand next to me when they smoke…

…I just found Allegra’s expression so “final;” it was hilarious… cause it placed me directly in memory where I stood next to a gorgeous girl who was smoking… I wanted to see if her physical beauty could tromp/nullify my allergic reactions… as it happens from time to time (God’s humor) another good liking girl stood on the other side of me, also smoking… and I began to get short of breath, watery eyes, and many other irritations… the quick fix was to remove myself from the environment… I was caught right in the middle :slapfight: …ended up :blackeye: …and had to run for the hill!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[AdamP88]

The prematurely obese, freckled nordic brunhilda on the one hand and the mediterranian hawk nose/mustauche upper lip lady on the other hand.

Way to generalise about an entire group of people.

 

[jcrichton]

Yes.

I guess this hasn’t been my experience. I think it would be easier to date someone who is a “lapsed” anything as long as they are not against the faith because that might mean an openness. I’ve posted to other posters about my experience with converts marrying into my own family, so that’s why I have this view.

This is more about dating even though I spoke of it in terms of marriage (but that’s because marriage is the end goal). I think I’d ultimately hope that the man would want to convert or would just be very supportive.

I don’t have an “all religions are sound” belief, however I do believe that there can be real impediments for people to become Catholic (for example, they had very religious parents who were also very abusive and that was their only experience of Catholicism or something). I believe what the Catechism says that truth exists in the other churches, but mostly subsists in the Catholic Church (because we can’t contain God to a church even if He created it; his truth is still much bigger than that which we can contain).

I guess I would once again say that in my family this hasn’t been true.

Thank you!

Hi!

The point I meant to convey is that if you want a serious relationship with someone who would support, complement and nourish your Faith, you must start from that point… a lapsed Catholic or a non-Catholic or a non-Believer can very well afford you much of what you aspire; yet, only a person who is as serious and as devote as yourself can prove to be the best candidate.

…as some have commented, they have married into a relationship with non-Catholics and it seems to have worked for them (you yourself have made a reference to this effect), and at least one person has stated that both of the parties were not Catholics when they married, and yet ended up Converting to Catholicism… the variant is always there (the human element); what I am suggesting is that you make note of what it is that you want and not set the threshold at: ‘whatever, cause anything can happen.’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

The prematurely obese, freckled nordic brunhilda on the one hand and the mediterranian hawk nose/mustauche upper lip lady on the other hand.

Hi!

Do you know what “Christian” means?

…it seems that you’ve mistaken this forum for social bashing… could you cleanse your mind or at least your words?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[CatholicRaven]

That’s an interesting answer. My only question is: do we stipulate that clarity is never to be given the label “manipulation”?

In other words – although psychological cleverness might be needed to recognize a stumbling block that somebody is experiencing, and to formulate a message that will get through to that particular person – if the message simply makes something very clear, then the message isn’t manipulative, even if it the message elicits a change that the recipient of the message was previously resisting. Do you agree?

I guess it depends on how you define “manipulative” and “clarity.” I was intending to use the meaning of manipulative that includes a negative connotation, wherein one seeks to control unscrupulously, not simply, “to influence to change.”

Clarifying a message could still be manipulative in that sense, especially if clarity is just being clear about what we mean, and not necessarily about what is true.

It’s after 1 AM here, and my brain’s not fully functional at the moment, lol. I hope I’m making things clearer and not causing confusion. I will have to go back and read what I wrote before, which means I may edit this post next time I’m online… but for now, I’m just going to go get some sleep!

 

[PseuTonym]

Clarifying a message could still be manipulative in that sense, especially if clarity is just being clear about what we mean, and not necessarily about what is true.

Let’s suppose two people – say P and Q – are attempting to communicate with each other and you are listening to their conversation. P says something and Q says, “I don’t understand what you mean.”

**You ask P, “Do you mean …?” **

P says, “Yes, that’s what I mean.”
Now, Q says, “I understand that.”

Were you being manipulative?
You were being clear about what P meant, and not necessarily about whether or not P’s message is true.

The next step would be for P to take on your role while continuing to perform P’s original role. If your role was non-manipulative, then why should P be accused of being manipulative for taking on that role?

 

[stinkcat_14]

Here is the guidance I would give my children.

1. Must be a practicing Catholic
2. No abuse current or past perpetrator or victim.
3. No drug or alcohol abuse past or present
   4 no criminal record.
4. No previous marriages or kids.
5. Thier friends must be like them in character.

1. Parents must treat potential spouse like an adult and know when to keep their mouth shut.

 

[faithsmind]

Is this supposed to be a joke? Regardless, it’s coming off as very uncharitable.

And I have never heard of the “blond race” or the “black haired race” :dts:

Petsmart.

He might try Petsmart, they’d probably have what he was looking for.

 

[faithsmind]

Actually Petsmart isnt a pet store, is it? A healthy farm breeder is probably best.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

1. Parents must treat potential spouse like an adult and know when to keep their mouth shut.

Sure. This conversation and list happens over YEARS while forming the child into adulthood!