Dating Someone Who Is Discerning

[DameAgnes]

[url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2012/07/dating-the-discerning-man.html"]Found at New Advent[/url]

[url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2012/07/dating-the-discerning-man.html"]http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2012/07/dating-the-discerning-man.html[/url]

[i<3franciscans]

Great article!!

I just met a couple last week and both of them had entered religious and left before they had met each other. They were the cutest couple ever!

[filius_angelorum]

Well, I think she is right for the wrong reasons, but here I am speaking as a guy, and not a girl. I think the blog she links to in this post is vulgar.

Yes, stay away from boys who are either (a) in an on-again, off-again stage of discerning for the priesthood or (b) have just exited the seminary or religious house in the last year or so. Why? Firstly, because feeling that one suddenly has a freedom which one did not think that one had leads to INCREDIBLE temptations such as, among the more mild, the tendency to irreligious attitudes and...well...you can imagine. Second, because that person almost always had a REASON for discerning the celibate lifestyle, even if it turned out not to be the case. He needs time to figure out what those reasons were before he can effectively enter into a relationship with someone.

So, ladies, leave 'em alone! Stay away! Avoid them like the plague! Cooties!

[Lil Red]

The Crescat is not a vulgar blog.

edit: are you talking about the Crescat or Seraphic Singles? Neither are "vulgar"

[filius_angelorum]

I was referring to the post from Seraphic Singles, which I thought was a BIT vulgar. I didn't say anything about the blog.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='filius_angelorum' timestamp='1343768546' post='2460821']I was referring to the post from Seraphic Singles, which I thought was a BIT vulgar. I didn't say anything about the blog.[/quote]

it's fine if you made a mistake, but you did in fact say the blog was vulgar:

[quote name='filius_angelorum' timestamp='1343766199' post='2460791'] I think the blog she links to in this post is vulgar.[/quote]



anyway, why do you think that particular post is vulgar?

edit: I've read the post in question twice now, and I don't see how it's vulgar. No bad language, no "sexy" language or innuendos. please loop me in.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Lil Red

[filius_angelorum]

Oops...I was typing and thinking too quickly. I did mean that the blog [b]post[/b] was a BIT vulgar, because it seems to me that it is possible to make the point she was trying to make without directly referencing the various things that dating couples...immorally, I might add...do together. I did not mean to suggest that the post was immoral, or that the blog as a whole was bad. I also didn't mean to take over the thread, for which I apologize to its original creator, who is raising a very important issue. I suppose that I simply do not know an appropriate word to replace "vulgar" with....perhaps, 'common', 'overly popular', 'unbecoming'?

Again, you are the administrator, but might I suggest that we have hijacked a very interesting thread and turned it into something it is not? Send me a private message with your suggestions.

[Lil Red]

i think we are on topic.

it would help if you would give an example of what you are saying.

(p.s. i am one of three admins, but the boss around the phorums is dUSt. )

[OnlySunshine]

[quote name='filius_angelorum' timestamp='1343766199' post='2460791']
Well, I think she is right for the wrong reasons, but here I am speaking as a guy, and not a girl. I think the blog she links to in this post is vulgar.

Yes, stay away from boys who are either (a) in an on-again, off-again stage of discerning for the priesthood or (b) have just exited the seminary or religious house in the last year or so. Why? Firstly, because feeling that one suddenly has a freedom which one did not think that one had leads to INCREDIBLE temptations such as, among the more mild, the tendency to irreligious attitudes and...well...you can imagine. Second, because that person almost always had a REASON for discerning the celibate lifestyle, even if it turned out not to be the case. He needs time to figure out what those reasons were before he can effectively enter into a relationship with someone.

So, ladies, leave 'em alone! Stay away! Avoid them like the plague! Cooties!
[/quote]

I agree, the post was vulgar. The only person anyone needs to answer to is the Lord. Discernment is a time of trial and error. What if the man or woman just heard or paid attention to the call and was wanting to be obedient to our Lord? Is he or she someone to be rejected because they might have a vocation to the priesthood or religious life? This is why so many Catholics are afraid to discern. They are afraid they will upset their families or friends or the person they are dating. Jesus said Himself: [u][i]Do not be afraid![/i][/u]

Dating is about discerning marriage. It's not about hugs or kisses. It's about discerning the person you could spend the rest of your life with. The way she talks about it on the blog post makes it sound like if the man doesn't kiss you or hug you, he must be gay. What a load of garbage! I've been on dates before and have still not had my "first kiss" because I wasn't ready to take that step. I am not attracted to the same sex just because I won't kiss or hug a guy.

[Spem in alium]

I read something recently which made the point that marriage is our natural vocation, and therefore it should be discerned first. So technically, people do date discerners quite successfully

[quote name='MaterMisericordiae' timestamp='1343771411' post='2460846']
Dating is about discerning marriage. It's not about hugs or kisses. It's about discerning the person you could spend the rest of your life with. The way she talks about it on the blog post makes it sound like if the man doesn't kiss you or hug you, he must be gay. What a load of garbage! I've been on dates before and have still not had my "first kiss" because I wasn't ready to take that step. I am not attracted to the same sex just because I won't kiss or hug a guy.
[/quote]

I agree. I'm discerning religious life - probably not as well as I should be, but I am. At the same time, I'm also experiencing romantic feelings for a guy I know. To date, I've had very little experience with romance mostly by choice and have had a few people question my sexuality. It's just ridiculous. People should not be labelled as homosexual or considered inferior just because they haven't experienced or aren't ready for romance.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Spem in alium

[beatitude]

In fairness, I don't think Seraphic was saying that. She wrote 'dating someone [b]for a while[/b]' (emphasis mine). If you love someone, it's natural to want some physical affection - and no, that doesn't mean you go leaping into bed with them or turn your house into some sink of iniquity. Her writing style is humorous and often a bit satirical, so I don't think she is literally saying that someone who won't touch you is automatically gay - just that something is a bit wrong with the relationship. I think people are reading personal insults into her post that aren't there.

[Spem in alium]

[quote name='beatitude' timestamp='1343774732' post='2460877']
In fairness, I don't think Seraphic was saying that. She wrote 'dating someone [b]for a while[/b]' (emphasis mine). If you love someone, it's natural to want some physical affection - and no, that doesn't mean you go leaping into bed with them or turn your house into some sink of iniquity. Her writing style is humorous and often a bit satirical, so I don't think she is literally saying that someone who won't touch you is automatically gay - just that something is a bit wrong with the relationship. I think people are reading personal insults into her post that aren't there.
[/quote]

Just read the Seraphic post for the first time. She makes some very good points - personally, I don't really see any sort of vulgarity or insult there, just opinion. And it was quite a humorous read. What resonated with me the most was this statement: "[color=#333333][font=Georgia, Utopia, 'Palatino Linotype', Palatino, serif][background=rgb(255, 255, 229)] I can only imagine how awful it must be for a son of a pious Catholic family to discover he is gay", [/background][/font][/color]and also her words on Confirmation. Food for thought.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='beatitude' timestamp='1343774732' post='2460877']
In fairness, I don't think Seraphic was saying that. She wrote 'dating someone [b]for a while[/b]' (emphasis mine). If you love someone, it's natural to want some physical affection - and no, that doesn't mean you go leaping into bed with them or turn your house into some sink of iniquity. Her writing style is humorous and often a bit satirical, so I don't think she is literally saying that someone who won't touch you is automatically gay - just that something is a bit wrong with the relationship. I think people are reading personal insults into her post that aren't there.
[/quote]

yup yup

[InPersonaChriste]

I am always a tad disgusted at the mothers who throw their daughters at the seminarians over the course of the summer. Something that has always bugged me for their sake!

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

I think it depends whether that person is ACTIVELY discerning the religious life, as apposed to just occasionally considered it.

[somethingfishy]

[url="http://seraphicsinglescummings.blogspot.com/2010/10/discern-this-drama-boy.html"]This[/url] pretty much sums up my views on the subject.

An excerpt: "I am tired of vocation-discernment homilies in which the homilist tells us of the Girl He Left Behind. One character even admitted that he dated his girlfriend all through the seminary, and then said, "Honey, I've gotta tell you this. I've decided to be a priest after all." Well, all I can say is that any guy who strings a girl along for three years is a cad. And I want to hear her side of the story. We never hear her side of the story."

[emmaberry101]

EDIT: This is the user emmaberry, I forgot to switch over from my original account-that one has a topic posting glitch.

I don't think the post is vulgar, but I could see how someone might interpret it differently than I.

When I first went to priests at my university for spiritual guidance/direction, they all told me to go party and date. I said, "But..but..but I am seriously discerning!" They just looked at me as if you were not a candidate for the religious life unless you had dated. I saw their point, but it did not feel right to date some poor guy just so I could check that off my list, especially considering the school was one where a surpirisng amount of freshmen couples went on to marry each other-ie people were not dating so much for fun as they were to find their future spouse. It was not in line with my morals on relationships to date in that situation. Others situations probably differ.

As for mothers throwing their daughters at seminarians, it is a difficult topic, especially in third world countries where mothers will literally line their young daughters outside the seminary's doors to strike up a conversation with the unsuspecting boys. The mothers know devout Catholic guys are rare and the seminary is full of them, so to speak. It definitely makes me sad for those trying to discern. We like to call those girls who actively 'go after' seminarians chalice chippers. Of course, this does not apply to girls who date or marry former seminarians. At my university, a lot of seminarians will meet a girl in a class and consequently leave the seminary and begin a relationship with that girl. As this is a very Catholic school, you know these girls are not trying to 'catch' the seminarians...it is usually a more genuinely innocent situation. I like to think that if a guy was led away fro the seminary by a random girl in a college class, thank goodness he did not become a priest! Quality over quality, I suppose. Not to say that guys who leave the seminary are not quality men-I am sure they make some of the best fauthers and spouses, as the blog suggests. Just saying that it is better to have all of the unsure guys leave BEFORE they are ordained rather than after they have become a priest, which causes scandal.

And to get back on topic (sorry OP!), thank you for posting!

Edited August 1, 2012 by emmaberry101

[TheresaThoma]

[quote name='FutureCarmeliteClaire' timestamp='1343782669' post='2460918']
I think it depends whether that person is ACTIVELY discerning the religious life, as apposed to just occasionally considered it.
[/quote]
I totally agree with this. If they are actively discerning and still want to date then that is a huge red flag. But if they mention after a few dates they have occasionally thought about becoming a priest I wouldn't necessarily dump him at that point. I would consider it him just trying to be completely honest and open.

[Tally Marx]

I've read her posts on discernment and dating before, and she has some points.
But I find her harping tone irksome, as well as her narrow focus. Sometimes the relationship existed long before "The Call" ever came. She never addresses this, even though kids often begin "dating" in junior high, long before "The Call" came for them to even [i]attempt[/i] to ignore it. And sometimes the non-discerner is the guy.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I mostly heard that those who are really discerning shouldn't date... I know that spiritual directors tend to have different views on this. It's not my intention to disagree with someone's spiritual director. But I've heard priests say the opposite as well, and since i've mostly heard this view, I wanted to post some answers to similar questions on vocation.com by Fr Anthony:

[url="http://www.vocation.com/QandAItem.aspx?id=1114&tid=186"]http://www.vocation....id=1114&tid=186[/url]
[url="http://www.vocation.com/QandAItem.aspx?id=1120&tid=186"]http://www.vocation....id=1120&tid=186[/url]
[url="http://www.vocation.com/QandAItem.aspx?id=1116&tid=186"]http://www.vocation....id=1116&tid=186[/url]
[url="http://www.vocation.com/QandAItem.aspx?id=1117&tid=186"]http://www.vocation....id=1117&tid=186[/url]
[url="http://www.vocation.com/QandAItem.aspx?id=1130&tid=186"]http://www.vocation....id=1130&tid=186[/url]
[url="http://www.vocation.com/QandAItem.aspx?id=1130&tid=186"]http://www.vocation....id=1130&tid=186[/url]
[url="http://www.vocation.com/QandAItem.aspx?id=1134&tid=186"]http://www.vocation....id=1134&tid=186[/url]

I don't know.... I have never had a boyfriend. I know that everyone's discernment is different, and for someone who has dated, of course ther'es nothing wrong if they are now discerning religious life! And maybe dating has helped someone figure out their vocation. But then there are stories like these [url="http://singdancepraiselove.wordpress.com/2012/06/15/never-been-kissed-2/"]http://singdanceprai...-been-kissed-2/[/url] I find that very beautiful personally. Dating can also be a distraction as Fr Anthony points out. There are also Saints who never had any relationships because they always felt they are called to religious/consecrated life.

Another thought I had, is that I don't really agree that there's something wrong if a guy doesn't kiss the girl, etc - I recently heard a sermon by a priest on Audio Sancto, he said that passionate kisses are actually mortally sinful for the unmarried because they incite lust. I tend to trust the priest on that, especially as he quoted a Pope. But I am not saying the author of the blog intended it to sound this way: it seems like her style is humorous and ironic a bit, maybe that's how she writes

Edited August 5, 2012 by MarysLittleFlower