I am not claiming that "mystique" cannot coexist with honesty and reason. I am saying I don't know that it can or cannot exist at all, because it is an undefined, abstract idea. It certainly isn't necessary.



Being sound is good. Nobody is going to disagree with that. So being sound is the same as having "mystique" I guess?



Ah. Good.



Nobody said it could, particularly considering that is not what this thread is about. He implied that things were moving too fast, she wasn't sure what that meant. How is saying, "What do you mean?" when you don't know what someone means "the need to tell everything you're feeling and the need for answers."

If I don't know what someone means, I ask them what they mean. Don't you? Doesn't everyone who wants to understand what people are saying to them?



"Why do you feel this way" and "what do you mean" are two very different things. I don't think anyone is advocating that the young man be required to give a lengthy dissertation on his emotional state. I think people are expecting that he knows if he means he wants more nights of hanging out with his guy friends, wants her to call less, doesn't want her sleeping over, etc... I assume he knows that much, or at least could figure that out if asked.



Nobody has advocated anything so silly as this.



By this rationale, it is also reasonable to assume that if you start by wondering what you can do to keep him and being afraid to ask him what he means when he says something...that's how it will continue in the future. How is that any better?



I'm not sure this is accurate, but it seems reasonable. I'm just not sure what it has to do with the thread. Perhaps you're suggesting that a woman who has trouble defining boundaries is going to have more trouble in a relationship than a woman who has a healthy sense of boundaries? That makes sense.

The Catholic Church teaches us to avoid the proximate (near) occasion of sin. Those situations that put us in a position to be strongly tempted to sin.

As I assume you are not a compulsive shoplifter your first example would be, for you, a remote occasion of sin. You might be tempted in a vague manner, but it is unlikely that you would be seriously tempted to steal. The Church does not tell us that we must avoid remote temptations of sin.

However, Beezle, techno_doll has told us that she and this young man have already engaged in inappropriate physical relations and that she fancies herself to be "in love" with him. This changes the situation of her spending the night at his house. This can by no means be looked upon as a remote occasion of sin and is, instead, clearly a near occasion of sin. And the Church, while not listing individually each possible near occasion of sin, does indeed teach us that we must avoid, whenever possible, the near occasion of sin.

Clearly this was an avoidable circumstance. For a more complete differentiation between remote and proximate occasions of sin read this article.

As for giving scandal. If you are living with a roommate that everyone knows is gay (and you either are not gay, if your roommate is of the same sex, or that you are not the "right" sex if you are not the same sex) they aren't likely to think that you and your roommate are engaging in sexual behaviour. Thus you are likely not giving scandal.

If a woman spends the night with a man that she is dating people will assume that they did engage in sexual behaviour. That can give scandal. Now if it is known that one of the people involved is Catholic (or really any other religious belief that values chastity outside of marriage) and they then think that a Catholic spent the night with someone and engaged in sexual behaviour, thus giving the impression that Catholics are "okay" with such actions then they have definitely given scandal.


You say that you don't lack knowledge or understanding of this. You're wrong. Your insistence that you are Catholic while also telling us that it is "okay" for a woman to spend the night with a man to whom she is not related because it isn't truly a near occasion of sin or giving scandal proves that you lack an full understanding of what remote and proximate occasions of sin and giving scandal really are. It's okay to not have a full understanding of these things. If every Catholic did fully understand these subtle, but vital, distinctions in our faith we would have little need of moral theologians and even forums like this.

Why not just admit that you're Catholic by virtue of your baptism but that you have a lot to learn about what it is to truly strive to BE Catholic? Why try to convince us all that you're something that you're not, when clearly we see otherwise?

We have completely lost the concept of saving some things for marriage. Needless to say, it's common for people to lose their virginity before marriage, and has been common in our society for quite some time. What's worse, though, is that nobody even bothers trying to make a decent impression, or demonstrating virtuous behavior publicly. The average Catholic child in this country grows up witnessing a significant number of family, friends, and neighbors who:

* Dress scantily
* Start "dating" at a ridiculously young age
* Spend the night at a bf/gf's place
* Vacation with bf/gf
* Have out-of-wedlock pregnancies
* Live together before marriage

Even Catholic kids are exposed to (and learn/imitate) sexy dance moves, as well as suggestive body language and flirtation techniques. They're exposed to trashy TV shows and suggestive music. You even have garter belt ceremonies at high school proms!

What is saved for married life? Not a thing.

It's no wonder that a group of modern American Catholics could actually debate the issue of overnighters between bf/gf. There isn't a shred of modesty left. Absolutely nothing is private.

It's funny how something as simple as avoiding the near occasion of sin sounds sillier to some people than the subject of getting treated for STD's, which people have come to accept as normal. Young women commiserate about their less-than-stellar dating experiences, and how shabbily some of their men have treated them; but would it even occur to today's young woman to suggest the concept of avoiding the near occasion of sin? Not just sin itself, but the near occasion which could give rise to sin?

Why do we get defensive when someone suggests that certain conditions make it easy to sin? Are we so far removed from temptation?

I would highly recommend a short video series found on EWTN called Theology of the Body for Teens. These are half hour shows dedicated to breaking open TotB, to make it easier to understand for even the youngest teens. There is nothing about the show that isn't relevant for the single adult, as well. I belive there are 12 episodes that repeat themselves weekly.

Techno, are you still reading? We’ve made you a bit of a case study and I hope you don’t mind!



Perhaps I’ve used a word that has connotations beyond my meaning and I don’t want to sound trippy and New Age so I’ll use strictly Christian examples…. You know how saints are depicted with halos in art? What’s that alluding too? It’s a reflection of something that religious people acknowledge and value and hopefully strive for. Something unquantifiable. A force that’s powered by humility and purity of the soul.

What about Daniels relationship with the lions. That’s another example of how something unquantifiable can be at work in relationships that can’t be contrived or faked or planned.

Most of us don’t get to halo wearing status in our relationships, but as Catholics what distinguishes us from the secular is our acknowledgement of the unquantifiable mysteries in life.




But you’ve read my first comment wrongly here because I didn’t say don’t ask him, I’m saying based on her history with a ‘hot and cold’ kind of guy, (other threads concerning techno's relationship with him) ...what’s the point of asking the same questions over and over looking for clues every time he pulls away. I advocated an attitude adjustment to create a different pattern.



Why start from there though? 'What can I do to keep him'? Is that a good place to start at the get go? Why not start from 'I don't feel good when he does this to me' and let her questions and his answers address that first and foremost.... rather than 'what I can do to keep him', being the agenda.



There's a million books out there explicating co-dependency and how it works, but until you experience you're own boundaries, respecting other boundaries can only be a tiresome effort to implement. Some of these things I say from experience.

Saints are depicted with halos to show that they are holy. This "force" in holiness. If your suggestion is that Techno turn herself to God and grow in holiness, then that is wonderful. I am completely on board with that.



Daniel was spared from the lions because God directly intervened. Does the king not call Daniel the servant of God and does Daniel not state that Got intervened? This is not about some vague force. This is about God.



I think that what distinguishes Catholics from the secular is first and foremost and understanding that we are made to know, love, and serve God.

Quite frankly, the secular world is overflowing with people who will believe anything so long as it is vague and undefined, overflowing with those who are "spiritual but not religious." All that they would acknowledge would be an unquantifiable mystery. Once it is no longer some unquantifiable force but has a decidedly religious definition such as holiness or intervention by God, it loses its appeal to the secular.





OK, to be clear then, what adjustment and what pattern are you advocating?



It's not. That's precisely what I was saying.



Because he didn't do anything to her. She's not a victim. He said he wanted to slow down, and she didn't know what that meant. Simple enough to say, "OK, what do you mean by that?" or "Sure, what did you have in mind?" See. Very easy. If she doesn't want to do that, that's fine, too, but if she chooses not to seek clarification it cannot be because she wants to be mysterious.

If she chooses not to seek clarification and to step back and turn to God to grow in her spiritual life (which she should be doing regardless of how her relationship is going) then that is great.



Again, that is not an agenda I promoted.



Ok.

I'm not sure if you genuinely think that this is what my comments amount to, or if you wanted to lampoon my contribution, but at any rate, it isn't going to be productive to engage this particular argument further.

You've been given no cause to doubt that I am being genuine.

I think it is very productive to discuss growing in holiness. It seemed that maybe that was what you meant in some way, but it also seemed that you were hesitant to turn one of God's children toward Him. Admittedly, I find your outright neglect to recognize God's direct intervention in events to be troublesome to say the least.

These things would not be of such concern if you weren't on a Catholic forum giving advice to young Catholics. Since you are on a Catholic forum giving advice to young Catholics, these things ought to be clarified.

I hope you can also understand that I was raised in a very fundamentalist Catholic tradition and crashed and burned before a genunine 'sinner' should crash and burn. I really really appreciate this orthodox site, but I can't abide fundamentalist tenets. Fundamentalism is as bad as liberalism

What kind of fundamentalism are you talking about?

Wow! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this thread has gone on for 3 pages and will probably continue on for 3 more. It just goes to show you how we are all willing to help each other. That's wonderful.

After reading all of these posts, I've concluded that the advise really boils down to 2 things:

1- focus on your own holiness/grow in your relationship with God
2-Let the guy drive the relationship since he is who wants to slow things down

It really did go round and round with a lot of points.

Beezle, no one was trying to insult you about your level of Catholicism. We are all on our own journey toward our Father in Heaven. Everyone here is at a different place on their own journey. I will admit that in my 20's it was not a very holy time in my life and I often took offense to similar words. The truth is... if I was allowing the secular world to influence me more than what the Church teaches, then I really wasn't a very good Catholic. Yes, I was Catholic by baptism. Deep down I believed everything that the church teaches but I allowed the secular world penetrate my faith and change my views. By God's grace, I found my way back home to the church and am a practicing Catholic. I am still on that journey. I have learned that more often than that, things I've disagreed with about Church teaching usually meant I didn't understand it... or I learned through inappropriate sources that were teaching incorrectly.

As I said, we are all on this journey and any time someone asks for advice, you will get it but it will always be in line with what the church teaches. If it isn't, rest assured that someone with more understanding and knowledge of the Catholic faith will chime in to be sure no one is led astray. What a wonderful gift!!! Sometimes we need a curt tone to get it. I am no different and I'm sure everyone on this list at one point or another on their journey heard that tone at least once.

Peace sister,
Lisa

I own my own business and work by myself all day so I've had time to mull this over.
I have come to a conclusion about this entire situation... and I'm not going to post it because some might think I'm just being mean but I'm 99.9% positive I'm right. Based on what I've figured out she should dump him.

I think most everyone here agrees she should dump him.


SV

Puppi, fundamentalism is pretty much the same across the gamut. It rejects allowing the spirit of the things of creation a significant place in faith, leaving it deficient in the fight against true evil. 'Know thy enemy'. Take the nature of Islamic fundamentalism and its persecution of the Sufi’s for eg. But it’s found in all religions. It gives people certitude about what is evil and the mandate to purge, discredit, and destroy the reputation of people in order to destroy their influence. Most of us probably know the temptation to do that in our small spheres of operation. Doesn’t make us fundamentalists of course, but it is a seed not worth planting in any small patch of ground.

I'm still not entirely sure what you mean. What do you mean by the spirit of the things of creation? In what way have you seen this fundamentalism on DCF?


I'm sorry if this is too off-topic for the thread. I'm just curious.

I don't know where she posted that she has already had physical relations with this boy. Carole said she did and I can't find it. Hmmmm.... Thats what my entire plot hinges on.

Warning: I am going to speak from a standpoint that is very non-catholic/non-religous.

If it is true that techno has been physical(I have no clue if we mean kissing, hugging, sexual relations so if some could clarify that would be awesome because I am just assuming it has something of a sexual nature) with this boy then she needs to break it off now.
If a guy is will to be physical with you but spending the night is moving to fast you are not in the sort of relationship that you want to be in.
Its sad to say but today a great deal of men(I DIDN"T SAY ALL) see sex as casual and cuddling, spending the night, whatever as a commitment or going down the roads of a commitment.
There is no way that she is in love with this boy she is infatuated which is a horrible place to be in a situation like this because it will come down to: He doesn't want to make a commitment. Techno wants to keep him around and winds up doing something that he sees as casual and she still doesn't get the commitment she is looking for.
From what I gather from the other postings techno is younger than me sooo this is all I have to say:
1) Get away from the boys!!! NOW!!!
2) Aren't you in college? If you're not you should be.
3) THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER THINGS TO BE CONCERNED WITH RIGHT NOW. Whether its religon, traveling, throwing rocks at small animals... whatever lights your board but to be consumed with boy troubles at your age. UGH!! Trust me you will have loads of time to date, get married, and have babies. Right now you should be concerned with getting yourself right.

Wow I didn't notice how big this thread got. I'm doing everything I should be doing. I have a job, am passing college, hang out with friends, take care of myself and am always doing something so it's not like I'm just sitting around and thinking about my bf. He hasn't called in 3 days so I'll just let him be. My plan is to do all I can to get closer to God and if it's ment to be then it'll happen.

Beezle,

I found the post that gave me the impression that they have been physically intimate in the past. It was in this thread.



I also believe that based on the first post in this thread that given her statement that she might be addicted to sex that spending the night with any male to whom she is not related or married is a proximate occasion of sin and an something that must be avoided at all costs.


Though I will go on the record and state that my advice, particularly to young people with young, active hormones and very little life experience ... If you're not related by blood or married to a man you have no business spending the night at his house. It is a proximate occasion of sin. And if it isn't one for you it may well be for the young man. As Catholics (as Christians really) we have a responsibility not only to avoid placing ourselves squarely in the face of temptation to sin but also to avoid (whenever possible and reasonable) drawing others into the proximate occasion of sin.

From a purely Catholic standpoint there is no reason at all that would justify spending the night at his house. It's a bad idea - every single time.