|
|
 |
| |
A letter to Latin Mass magazine regarding Courtship |
|
| Fae Stuart |
13495 23 Mile Rd.
Hersey, MI 49639
April 17, 2002
The Latin Mass magazine
50 S. Franklin Turnpike, Suite 1
Ramsey, NJ 07446
Dear Latin Mass magazine:
As a Catholic homeschooling parent, I would like to respond to Virginia Seuffert’s article on Catholic courtship in the summer 2001 magazine. Many homeschoolers have found Mrs. Seuffert to be quite inspiring in talks given around the country. Knowing her excellent credentials as a Catholic homeschooling mother and speaker, I approach this topic with much respect for her opinions and experience. In the summer 2001 article on courtship, Mrs. Seuffert asks, “Does … courtship hold out a lifeline from the past for parents flailing about for a solution, or is it an outdated holdover from a different time with little to offer our Catholic young people today?” Mrs. Seuffert believes it has little to offer. The scenario she paints of what courtship entails is indeed a rather distasteful one. However, as some people misunderstand the essence of homeschooling (they may see it as merely a method to avoid the impure sex education of the parochial school systems, to shelter children from the secular world, or as a way to improve children’s test scores, rather than a way of life which bonds the family together in a unity of Christian love and strengthens the family to be the foundational unit of society), Mrs. Seuffert seems to misunderstand the essence of courtship. One way this essence can be described is as “a way of life which preserves and prepares oneself physically, emotionally, and spiritually for one’s future spouse.” With several years of courtship experience in our own family, I believe courtship can offer our Catholic young people some assistance in marrying well, in love and with purity.
It seems Mrs. Seuffert’s primary objection to courtship is her belief that it is not “a Catholic solution to the problem of impurity,” because she claims that courtship is based on Calvinism’s belief in absolute depravity of mankind. Some parents who are Calvinists may in fact ascribe to courtship for this reason and believe that their children are “snow-covered dung heaps” unable to do any good deed or show any self-control. This does not mean that courtship is unalterably a Calvinist idea. If I decide to give my children guidelines (such as courtship principles) to help them avoid mistakes, it does not mean I do not trust them or do not believe them capable of goodness. It means I am helping them, guiding them, educating them, as our holy Catholic faith teaches is the primary responsibility of parents.
I would like to address other specific points that Mrs. Seuffert raises by quoting from her article, followed by further discussion of that topic.
1. “A young man who feels his soul stirring must first approach the girl’s family and assure them of his serious and honorable intentions. (Young women, one presumes, may not act at all.)” Does Mrs. Seuffert believe that courtship proponents would squelch or ignore a young woman’s feelings or desires? It has been our experience that when a young man and a young woman notice each other, the young lady will be sending unmistakable signals to her parents and/or siblings, especially in a close-knit homeschooling family. Her family will most likely be well aware of the young man’s intentions before he actually makes them known formally. The point of this principle (that the young man makes the first formal move toward the lady’s father) is to reinforce and shore up the time-tested but battered role of men as initiators—the role that God Himself has given to them and in which way they image His likeness as the First Person of the Holy Trinity.
2. “Proponents of courtship promise that couples thus protected from unwise, early, and emotionally intense liaisons, and freed from hormonal distractions, will be able to choose a mate for life rationally…” Maybe there are some extreme proponents of courtship who foolishly believe that a young man and young woman will be free from hormonal distractions, but to suppose that courtship by definition intends to eliminate all hormonal stimulation is absurd. If the couple were attracted to each other enough to initiate a courtship relationship in the first place, this is the manifestation of God’s wondrous design of men and women to be physically attractive to one another. And to say that one chooses a mate rationally does not eliminate the “chemistry” that Mrs. Seuffert seems to believe would therefore be missing. I would hope reason would definitely enter into a decision to marry, and it should be encouraged! Reason + chemistry + God = happy marriage!
3. “Some courtship defenders place the collapse of sexual morality at the invention of the automobile.” I am sure that courtship defenders do not all believe that the car is the sole reason sexual morality has collapsed. Rather, this principle of courtship means that the “car mentality,” which allows a couple to leave the family and be alone together in a sort of “mini-motel” in as secluded a place as the local Lovers’ Lane, is conducive to impurity. In other words, an occasion of sin. Yes, Catholics receive grace from Confession and the Eucharist, grace which allows us to make the right decisions. But not all Catholic young people are receptive enough to this grace to always make the right choices. Parents can help, up to a point, to reduce the temptations. Each and every trip in a car alone is not forbidden; habitual, lengthy car trips alone at night are not a good idea for courters or non-courters.
4. “There are still several problems [with the current courtship practice.] One is the presumption that most, if not all, social interaction with members of the opposite sex will produce such an attraction that it must be delayed until the young person is of marriageable age…” The courtship books I have read encourage social interaction for young people in groups of mixed sexes. Joshua Harris, in his book I Kissed Dating Goodbye, states, “The second step in being just friends with the opposite sex is to include others instead of isolating ourselves with just one person. We can avoid this [isolation] by going out of our way to involve friends, family, and maybe even strangers in our lives.” In courtship, it is not social interaction that is delayed until near marriageable age, it is one-on-one pairing up, the “unwise, early, and emotionally intense liaisons” that are discouraged. By the time one is of marriageable age, much experience with various personalities has been acquired through group activities and working with others.
5. “Another [problem] is the belief that any couple keeping company must refrain from being alone or even from mild expressions of affection…. [This] allows the couple to make a rational decision about the future of their relationship, free from emotional and physical imperatives. Love as an ‘act of the will’, as opposed to a feeling…” Yes, some proponents of courtship advise never allowing the couple to be alone together and refraining from physical expressions of affection. But one need not accept those authors’ ideas if one finds them unnecessary. It seems each family can make this type of decision in prayer, based on their individual family’s past experiences and personalities. Mrs. Seuffert does not, however, give us an adequate reason why we should NOT accept these ideas. She says, “refraining from even mild physical expressions of affection, and allowing no unchaperoned time alone, may also seem wise on the surface. After all, there is no good reason to prime the pump if you have no intention of filling the bucket. But marriage, by its very nature, is physical.” (Emphasis added.) She jumps from talking about a courting couple to a married couple. Yes, marriage is physical, as God intended. But is courtship meant to be physical? Just because marriage is physical does not mean that courtship should be. Mrs. Seuffert goes on to say that displays of affection “allow the couple to discern if they have that mysterious attraction that will be consummated on their wedding night.” If the couple did not already know that they have that mysterious attraction, I doubt that they would be courting.
Again, reason + chemistry + God = happy marriage. Love is not just feelings, as any couple married over 20 years will tell you; neither is love just an act of the will, as any newlywed couple will tell you. Balance is the key; not either/or, but both/and. Actually, this idea of either/or is a typical Protestant approach to theology. Surely, we as Catholics must not fall into this trap. Catholic young people can choose marriage partners with both reason (buttressed by prayer) and romance; I hope and pray for that for my own children.
Mrs. Seuffert seems to have built the typical straw man and has demolished it. What she describes as courtship is not the relationship that my husband and I have investigated and encouraged for our own children, a relationship that we believe is called courtship. Catholics should be able to research this topic from both Protestant and Catholic sources, gleaning what is valuable from both through prayer and discernment and communication within the family. To slavishly follow anyone’s advice about one’s own family life is usually an unwise course. But to label courtship as un-Catholic and to completely disregard the concepts and principles it expounds seems likewise to me an unwise course.
Mrs. Seuffert’s concluding advice to encourage children’s growth in spirituality when young and fill one’s home with Scripture and lives of the saints and pursue open, honest dialogue with one’s children is wonderful. I would add to that advice the encouragement of parents to research what courtship is all about, discuss it within the family, and seek God’s will for one’s own family. With balance, I believe courtship has much to offer the modern Catholic homeschooling family.
Fae Stuart
231-796-2015
efstuart@catholicexchange.com
|
|
|
