Are All Young Catholics Qualified for Marriage?
No, sodomites, the mentally ill, and folks who attend the Novus Ordo should avoid marriage.
I truly hope this is satire, or I'm all for disallowing bald men to blog. And if this upsets you. it should, because it is the identical thought process you are using for marriage.
Bald men might consider shaving their heads to avoid the dreaded "horse-shoe hair" or take my advice (if they're 35+) and eschew the courtship scene. No, this doesn't upset me.
No, although I inject humorous elements here and there. If we're being entirely honest about it, a large proportion of Catholics have no business getting married. I think the former sodomites, pro-aborts, and pro-contraceptionists are obvious. We might have some debate about the other categories. I did, by the way, distinguish two sections: one definitely no marriage, another probably no marriage. There is some subtlety to this.
You may think that is being entirely honest but I do not.
So by what authority are you making these claims? Are you a marriage counsellor or a psychologist?
Neither of those have authority. They may have expertise, which is not the same as authority. Generally, today's counselors lack any sophisticated understanding of their fields, evident by their poor job performance, lack of scrutiny for mental illnesses like sodomy and transvestitism, and a host of other reasons. In other words, I wouldn't care what "the experts" say. Remember what we learned from that whole Anthony Fauci ordeal?
I contend that what I'm saying is little more than what would have been common sense before the mid-20th century.
No, they have authority -- to diagnose/cure and/or offer help and guidance. You have neither authority nor expertise and I question your common sense, or lack of it. Let's look at your first issue.
I do not support sodomy, however I do support recovery from it and what the Church teaches as forgiveness. If someone was a former gay man or a lesbian, they have made great effort to repent and regain their status in the Church, and have been graced with a healing (No, I'm not nor ever have been gay), and they find someone of the opposite sex they love and who loves them, by what common sense reasoning would you claim they should not get married? It happens all the time, do your research on those who have actually recovered through therapy and prayer (therapy which you seemed to discount in your common sense reasoning earlier). These people have gone on to live normal lives and raise families, some are now grandparents. I see no reason for them not to pursue family life.
2. There are thousands and thousands of people who are married who suffer from mental illnesses, anywhere from depression and anxiety disorders to ADHD. The whole idea behind treatment for mental illness is to bring these people back into society and help them live a normal life. If someone falls in love with someone else who suffers from mental illness, as long as they are aware of the issue, there is absolutely no reason for them not to get married and raise a family. The whole idea of falling in love is to accept who a person is, not who we wish them to be. Marriage was never meant to be skipping down the Yellow Brick road with a basket of flowers.
3. When it come to the "fat" issue. would you consider it outside your realm of common sense to state it might be a possibility that weight can be lost or gained after one is married?
I'll leave it at those three, because the short men point I find ludicrous. I do, however, get the distinct impression that all the issues you chose to disallow marriage, or recommend no marriage, are all issues which do not pertain to you. It is much like what we see with the issue of reducing the population for the climate hoax -- everyone else is on the ledger to go except those promoting the idea.
Finally, what you are proposing is "marriage of the fittest", marriage based on mental and physical perfection rather than "marriage based on love". When I read your blog entry, I found it disconcerting that someone calling themselves Catholic would be comfortable with posting something like this.. Be that what it is, humble it ain't.
@Chris Muniee So the 99% of the worlds population that does not have access to the Latin Mass should not get married? Is this a Bill Gates population control tactic?
Yes, this is much better than having all these disaster "marriages." What they should do, of course, is become Catholic, pressure the few traditional clergy to say the Latin Mass despite the apostate bishops, or otherwise seek refuge in the underground network of Masses (if it still exists). I also suggested that this problem may go away soon once we reach the Triumph of Our Lady. In other words, marriage discerners might lay low for a while.
This is not population control, but the only way to address problems. It is evil to attend the Novus Ordo, and if you have your wedding at one, you will have offended God while petitioning Him to bless your marriage. Such a suggestion seems absurd.
@Chris Muniee While I love the Latin Mass, I think that saying that attending the Novus Ordo is "evil" sounds very protestant to me. Were all of the Masses said before the 1500's evil? Are the Masses of all of the other Rites of the Catholic Church in union with Rome evil? How about the Euchristic miracles that have occured with hosts consecrated during Novus Ordo Masses, are they evil? Did Christ himself say the Latin Mass at the last supper? Perhaps you should step back a little. We love the Latin Mass and pray that we may continue to have access to it, but saying anything else is evil seems to be without foundation. And I with you pray for the Triumph of Our Lady.
It's very hard to take this seriously. The Novus Ordo IS a Protestant liturgy because its architects designed it to be exactly that. Also, the implication that the TLM was created in the 1500s is blatantly false. The Eucharistic miracles, if they are valid, demonstrate that the Mass is (or at least could be) valid, but this says nothing about the licitness of the Mass. You can find something to be valid, but also altogether illicit, and therefore evil.
@Chris Muniee If the TLM was not from the Council of Trent in 1545, when was it created? And again were all Masses before it "evil"?
@Chris Muniee It also seems to me that individuals taking it upon themselves to determine what is valid or invalid, who is a Pope and who is an antipope, pressuring clergy ect, seems very protestant.
It came from the Last Supper and was codified as the primary Mass among several other variations by the 16th century.
@Chris Muniee All Catholic Masses came originally from the Last Supper. The TLM as you say was codified in the 16th century (1500's) so my original statement was not "blatently false". You also state "among other variations" so we are not talking about one Mass being valid and anything else "evil"
Well, it seems to me, if, to marry, men should not be fat or short, then women should not be fat or ugly.
Niether should be ugly, men who are short should re-think their chances with marriage, and women can be somewhat more fat than man (for reproductive reasons).
Reproductive reasons? A woman with minimal body fat can quite healthily conceive and bear, and a man with an "overabundance" of body fat can impregnate, and support a family. I'm not suggesting being fat is a good thing, I just don't see the discrimination by sex.
Similarly, if a woman might be inhibited from a good marriage by a man being short, then a man might just as easily be inhibited by a woman who is fat, mightn't he?
Yes, there is a such thing as being too fat (I tentatively set the figure at about 35% body fat for women, but it's subjective). There is also a chance of women being far too lean if they go below 15%, whereas the same isn't true of men until they go below about 3%. All of this is to say that there is a sensible continuum for healthy (and attractive) body weight, which is somewhat different for men and women.
Concerning the last point - this view is eerily similar to Francis who opined "most marriages are invalid." See: Updated: Most marriages today are invalid, Pope …
Yes, but Antipope Bergoglio has no idea why they would be invalid. I, however, explained precisely why that may be the case in several instances (i.e., evil and dishonest intentions while making the marriage vows).