What would you consider excess baggage?

[tedfay]

Personally, I think the question of too much baggage is missing the point.

The better question to ask is, “Is God calling me, as my vocation, to be with this person in marriage?”

That is the real question to be answered.

In terms of what to look for, I would be far less worried about his/her past and much more concerned with whether this person loves Christ more than himself/herself? I’d watch out for what the person is doing now. Evidence of porn? Subtle clues that the person is just trying to get in your pants? Evidence of illicit drug use? Carelessness towards the mass? Disagreement with the Holy Father?

Their past might be relevant, and can raise red flags that bear greater investigation and caution. Past ilicit drug use, multiple partners, past addictions, past porn, etc., etc.

However, these things may have lead that person to a much deeper life with Christ. If so, then you would be throwing away not only a potentially beautiful and deeply spiritually satisfying relationship based on some hard and fast rule that doesn’t apply to a particular situation - but you would be denying your vocation that God intended for you.

For example, what if the person was once a drug dealer, convicted murderer, and had six children with six different partners? That person now prays the rosary five times a day, goes to daily mass, lives and breathes the spirit of God, serves the poor, generously gives of time and talent, and shows true remorse for an incredibly sinful past life?

Maybe God is calling you to live out your vocation with this person. You can’t know until you pray for an extended period of time, preferably before the Blessed Sacrament.

Mind you, before marrying such a person you would have to really get to know them well over a long period of time - because those past sins were extremely grave and throw up huge red flags. However, if that person has truly repented - *and **more importantly **if God is calling you to marry that person *- then you should marry him/her.

Just remember, dating is a discernment process for determining whether you are called to the vocation of marriage with a person of the opposite sex. That should be the ultimate question. Secondary things to look for when making that discernment are the way the person lives his/her current life, and how that person has responded to past problems.

God Bless,

 

[whatevergirl]

Astounded over here that children are considered ‘baggage’. Really astounded.

*I noticed that. I never liked the term ‘baggage’ to be honest. I think though, that the term came into being from someone who probably looked at a potential spouse, as not being alone in the dating process. If I were single for example, I would have to take into consideration how is this person going to treat my kids? It isn’t just between the couple, it involves the kids, and rightfully so. But, that said…the person coming into a relationship with a person with kids, also has to think about what that means for him/her. I don’t blame any single person who does not have children, for not wishing to date someone who does have children. It’s their option. I just don’t like the terminology–’‘baggage.’’ *

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Astounded over here that children are considered ‘baggage’. Really astounded.

Children can be heavy baggage. Poor St. Joseph even had to escape to Egypt for several years, and why? All because Mary had “baggage”. LOL

And a friend of mine married a widow with “baggage”, a sweet little girl. But they must have been happy with their “baggage”, because they later added more “baggage” to their load, in the form of a baby boy.

With some people, there’s just nothing you can do to open their eyes. They love “baggage”.

 

[sanctamaria17]

Astounded over here that children are considered ‘baggage’. Really astounded.

Me too…If I knew a single guy who was eligible for marriage in the Church, an all-around good, Catholic man, and he had kids for whatever reason (divorce then annulment, wife passed away, premarital sex but changed his ways after having kids…), that would not be “baggage”. Children are nothing less than gifts of God. Honestly, a lot of single parents out there really strive to do the best for their kids. If they were not good parents, were ineligible for marriage in the Church in any way, or just not good people, that’s one thing. But that really has nothing to do with the presence of the children themselves.

 

[tedfay]

The term “baggage” is also (IMO) self-centered - indicating that something is undesirable *to you *in a potential marriage partner.

Again, the real question is whether God is calling you to the vocation of marriage with a given person, regardless of whether or not that person has some traits that are undesirable to you.

That doesn’t mean that you should marry someone whom you can’t stand. What it means is that the focus on finding a marriage partner should first start with God and discerning what God is calling you to do.

 

[whatevergirl]

The term “baggage” is also (IMO) self-centered - indicating that something is undesirable *to you *in a potential marriage partner.

Again, the real question is whether God is calling you to the vocation of marriage with a given person, regardless of whether or not that person has some traits that are undesirable to you.

That doesn’t mean that you should marry someone whom you can’t stand. What it means is that the focus on finding a marriage partner should first start with God and discerning what God is calling you to do.

*I wholeheartedly agree with this, although, God gave us the ability to discern qualities, etc…and perhaps that is part and parcel of joining our free will to His will. I do agree though with your premise. My husband was a smoker when we met, and because my dad died of lung cancer directly related to smoking I never thought I’d marry a man who smokes. But, I truly TRULY felt God called me to be with him. And he has quit the habit, so if I had passed him up solely on that one ‘dealbreaker’ I would have missed out on a special man.

I think there is great merit in what you say here. *

 

[Tosk]

I am one who definitely believes in looking at a persons past before entering into a serious relationship with them. People don’t change or at least it only occurs once in a blue moon. Criminals usually just come out of prison smarter criminals, but underneath they are still the same kind of person.

If you are called to marriage then it means that you need to find the right kind of person not “the” right person. A Michael Corlean or Luca Brasi will never make a proper spouses no matter how much they might seem like the one God is calling you to marry.

 

[kage_ar]

I grew up in an area where the mob had a presence…

Seems that putting “practicing Catholic” on the list would take care of ruling out criminals

 

[fultonfish]

How about if the “date” is divorced, not annulled, and has children. The children are not the “baggage”, but the obligation to the divorced spouse and to the children take precedence over the new date-person.

[It is possible to set it up so that the new date person is irresistible. But how about if the new date-person is parent to foster children who are repeat arsonists and car thieves and assault/battery juvenile offenders. You want to be married to someone whose kids are firebugs and/or who have a lot of car wrecks and / or are serial accusers of child abuse?]

Or someone whose family has an unusual number of deaths that are difficult to explain? A lot of people who “just get sick and die”?

[Maybe I’ve just seen too many strange cases]

Anyone interested might want to read Dr. Laura Schlessinger’s books about men and about women who marry badly.

 

[chevalier]

However, these things may have lead that person to a much deeper life with Christ. If so, then you would be throwing away not only a potentially beautiful and deeply spiritually satisfying relationship based on some hard and fast rule that doesn’t apply to a particular situation…]

For example, what if the person was once a drug dealer, convicted murderer, and had six children with six different partners? That person now prays the rosary five times a day, goes to daily mass, lives and breathes the spirit of God, serves the poor, generously gives of time and talent, and shows true remorse for an incredibly sinful past life?

Yes and yes. It’s a great thing you brought that up and I totally agree. Needless to say, one’s got to be careful and not fall for only superficial signs of supposed reform and repentance, while also minding the person’s capacity to enter into marriage for psychic and mental reasons.

• but you would be denying your vocation that God intended for you

I would be very careful with that kind of thing. We have the vocation to marriage written into our nature - it’s not the same as a priest receiving his calling.

Just remember, dating is a discernment process for determining whether you are called to the vocation of marriage with a person of the opposite sex.

Again, respectfully (and sorry if I appear to be pushing it), dating is just one of the many ways in which things can happen before engagement, and the discernment is more about whether marriage to that specific person should or should not be. We shouldn’t be using other people to find out what we like or if we like it at all (having a coffee and talking just for that learning purpose is fine, going to a dance may be fine, sitting-in-the-tree-kissing not kinda). Not what you were saying, of course, but still.

How about if the “date” is divorced, not annulled, and has children. The children are not the “baggage”, but the obligation to the divorced spouse and to the children take precedence over the new date-person.

The obligation to an “ex-spouse” (it wasn’t a spouse to begin with) isn’t really a central one. I’ve never done any reading on the specific issue of the “natural obligations” of an invalid marriage with regard to the “spouse” (with regard to children, it’s kinda obvious), but it doesn’t seem to me to be anything more than financial alimony (and a share in duties relating to the children).

 

[jenlovesyu]

*I noticed that. I never liked the term ‘baggage’ to be honest. I think though, that the term came into being from someone who probably looked at a potential spouse, as not being alone in the dating process. If I were single for example, I would have to take into consideration how is this person going to treat my kids? It isn’t just between the couple, it involves the kids, and rightfully so. But, that said…the person coming into a relationship with a person with kids, also has to think about what that means for him/her. I don’t blame any single person who does not have children, for not wishing to date someone who does have children. It’s their option. I just don’t like the terminology–’‘baggage.’’ *

I just wanted to jump in and say as a single mom myself, I definitely agree with this. I have no interest in dating/courtship anyway but if I were “lookin” for someone I wouldn’t get upset if a guy told me he couldn’t date someone with children. In fact I would be very pleased with such honesty. Children are much too precious and vulnerable. No one should venture into a relationship where children are involved unless they are absolutely positive they can handle the situation. And don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that those who do not wish to date single parents are any less than those that do. Everyone is different and has their different preferences.

 

[SeekingWisdom]

Baggage is based on our own experiences, I don’t know that it’s possible to compare your own wants with someone else’s. The person you marry, obviously isn’t going to carry about your baggage.

 

[MercyMia]

Dealbreakers, well I am already married, but here is part of the litmus test that I used…

• Is not pro-life, probably #1 dealbreaker
• Thinks its okay to go to strip clubs, etc.
• Divorced (even if his ex was to blame…I know myself and I am far too insecure to always wonder if I am being compared to the ex…if he still has feelings, etc. In the case of a widow I might find it easier to feel love towards the deceased spouse instead of jealousy so that would be okay. My husband has never had a girlfriend beside me and he didn’t date until he was almost 20…I admit, it is a comfort to me)
• Treats waitresses or service workers poorly
• Is cheap (and no, I don’t mean poor, I mean cheap because there is a huge difference)
• Has a wandering eye (I have never seen my husband even glance at another female for a split second)

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

• Treats waitresses or service workers poorly
• Is cheap (and no, I don’t mean poor, I mean cheap because there is a huge difference)

LOL, MercyMia, I agree. In many restaurants, waiters/waitresses only get a symbolic wage of $1 or 2 per hour, and they are essentially living off the tips. I prefer to err on the side of being too generous, and generosity is something I appreciate in my family and friends. But someone who is cheap or rude to service workers, treats subordinated or simple/poor/uneducated people badly, and is trying to limit my generosity towards people in need and towards charitable causes - that would be ANATHEMA to me, especially in a romantic interest. I would much rather deal with financial hardship alongside a loving and generous wife, than having to put up with someone who watches my hand and counts the pennies in direct opposition to Jesus’ words: “when you give, your left hand shouldn’t know what the right hand is doing” (or something like that).

 

[tedfay]

Being rude to waiters shows a lack of charity towards other human beings. Being “cheap” may be an indicator of loving money more than God.

So, yeah, these would be big red flags, IMO, that God would not be calling me to be with that person.

However, I am married, so this is all theoretical in my mind.

 

[whatevergirl]

Something that hasn’t been talked about yet, thought I’d mention it…childhood baggage. Things from our childhood that we haven’t healed from, but carry into a relationship. I admit, I had major baggage that I carried with me around since I was little, and my husband was willing to carry it ‘‘with’’ me, sometimes ‘‘for’’ me. So…I guess the moral of it all is this–we all have "baggage,’’ to varying degrees…but if you find someone to carry it with you, the load can get lighter.

 

[chevalier]

Something that hasn’t been talked about yet, thought I’d mention it…childhood baggage. Things from our childhood that we haven’t healed from, but carry into a relationship. I admit, I had major baggage that I carried with me around since I was little, and my husband was willing to carry it ‘‘with’’ me, sometimes ‘‘for’’ me. So…I guess the moral of it all is this–we all have "baggage,’’ to varying degrees…but if you find someone to carry it with you, the load can get lighter.

Galatians 6:2?

Being rude to waiters shows a lack of charity towards other human beings. Being “cheap” may be an indicator of loving money more than God.

So, yeah, these would be big red flags, IMO, that God would not be calling me to be with that person.

However, I am married, so this is all theoretical in my mind.

So all those Roman and mediaeval princesses married off to convert savage pagan princes were not called? I’m not sure how kind they were to staff or if they would even think about paying for dinner.