"Affection" and "Emotion" possibly downplayed in marriage?

[cynic]

I used to live on the same street as some fundamentalist type baptists as a child. They would definately have fallen into the “emotion is irrelevant” category. Never a smile for anybody, never a laugh, even for their own kids.

 

[cynic]

Basically you’re only going to get one response from people here. Those who think that emotions/attachments are indulgent, at best a means to much greater end. For them there is only one meaning to marriage : procreation and a way to heaven. Everything else is subsidary to this.

In a way your husband or wife could be anyone, you love (or more accurately have charity) out of obligation. The other benefit of marital affection is simply the icing on the cake, nice, but ultimately unimportant. Behind that lies the idea the that a kind of detachment is actually good since we should only be loving God, and idealy have no attachments to the created (other people) at all.

 

[Karen10]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses so far.

Just one thing - when I was talking about how I was using arranged marriages wherein there is no affection at the foundation as a way to illustrate my point, I can see that others also inadvertently illustrated *my same point *when they defended arranged marriages that do *work out.

*When people say arranged marriages can work out, it’s because they DO develop this affection I am talking about which I tend to strongly suspect is necessary.

This is what I’ve been trying to get at whereas some people got distracted by other things. Sorry, it’s just a complicated thing for me to write about.

Yes, deb1, some successful couples do come to “love” each other, but also in another sense of love–that of familial affection, besides that of “caritas”.

This emotional bonding is so necessary that I also think it’s unwise to contract a marriage in the first place when you don’t know whether affection will develop or not. The cases in which it does not develop range from very sad indeed, to potentially *invalid.
*

 

[Karen10]

cynic:

Basically you’re only going to get one response from people here. Those who think that emotions/attachments are indulgent, at best a means to much greater end. For them there is only one meaning to marriage : procreation and a way to heaven. Everything else is subsidary to this.

In a way your husband or wife could be anyone, you love (or more accurately have charity) out of obligation. The other benefit of marital affection is simply the icing on the cake, nice, but ultimately unimportant. Behind that lies the idea the that a kind of detachment is actually good since we should only be loving God, and idealy have no attachments to the created (other people) at all.

Hi cynic,
Are you agreeing with these things or trying to explain a Catholic point of view?

If it *is *the Catholic view, then this is something I’ve also been trying to work out for a while. Are we sure that emotion is merely an ends to a greater means, and that it is not lasting? What reason is there to believe that caritas and emotion are mutually exclusive? Did Jesus not weep? Did he not take pity, have compassion, experience joy? Does God not “smile” down upon us at times, or have anger?

It would seem to me that caritas must encompass a bit more than simply “willing the best for someone”. We’re asked to have at least that for our enemies, and in responding to this request, sure, we would have a stronger moral character than those who will not. I don’t see how the ideal of caritas is mutually exclusive to other emotions in all circumstances, however.

Without emotion, how can you make a choice? What tells you, what is right? A combination of caritas and emotion. What tells you what’s best for someone? What makes what’s right, appealing to you in the first place?

Try telling a robot that it should want the best for someone. The robot will say, “‘Want’? What’s that? ‘Best’? What’s that?”

I know that emotions can sometimes interfere with caritas but that is in specific cases when they are not being subjugated to caritas. But I don’t see how caritas can even exist without emotional ideals.

I’m very eager for an explanation to this! Thanks.

 

[Karen10]

cynic:

idealy have no attachments to the created (other people) at all.

Oh, and about this. My understanding is that we’re warned not to have UNHEALTHY attachment to creatures. Not just any attachment, but UNHEALTHY attachment. St. Francis of Assissi and G.K. Chesterton certainly found the glory of God in His creatures, and were fascinated by creation insofar as creation does glorify God, after all.

** The unhealthiness of an attachment would involve having emotions that are not subjugated to caritas.
**
But I take this to definitely mean that emotions can be good when subjugated to caritas, and that you also need some of these healthy emotions to be able to develop and have caritas in the first place.

It is not my understanding that we would go to purgatory to extinguish that one last little bit of affection we had for people in our lives which would be normal, healthy emotions. Just the unhealthy attachments that were not in line with *caritas.

*I really do not see how I could be mistaken here, but there it is, for scrutiny and my learning purposes. Do we have a rampant problem in Catholicism with people believing that emotions are always unhealthy and contrary to caritas, and that the two are mutually exclusive? :bigyikes:

 

[steveandersen]

Karen10:

They’re actually both quite serious matter. It’s more like, “do this or die” and “do this or neglect your marital duty, which is serious matter”.

you’ve lost me
how does a threat of being nagged or put on a guilt trip compare to a threat of death?

sure people may do things they wouldn’t usually do under either pressure but the circumstances are anorder of magnitude
(or three)

Karen10:

Made all the more complicated when the marriage is a farce and nobody’s aware of it!

A marriage is a farce and no one knows about it?

 

[Karen10]

steveandersen:

you’ve lost me
how does a threat of being nagged or put on a guilt trip compare to a threat of death?

sure people may do things they wouldn’t usually do under either pressure but the circumstances are anorder of magnitude
(or three)

A marriage is a farce and no one knows about it?

It’s besides the central point; concentrating too much on a particular like that, as people have done, has caused them to distract themselves.

An ideal conscience is just as put off by of sin as of dying, if not more. I’m talking about murder and sin both being seriously off-putting matter.

Yes, marriages can be a farce without the couple being aware of it till later. Many people get annulments when they figure out their marriage never existed, later in the game.

BUT don’t concentrate too much on the wrong things, or as many have done, you’ll miss the big picture and the point, addressed in the subject line.

 

[JimG]

For all the happiest married couples I’ve known, their marriage included both the unshakeable commitment and the emotional and affectionate component. It’s not an either/or proposition.

One doesn’t say, OK, I’ve committed to this person, so I have to keep the commitment, but I don’t have to like him! The commitment, rather, forms the groundwork for a lifetime of growth in mutual affection. But without the commitment, the emotions can be fickle.

 

[Karen10]

I was just watching our Vatican vacation videos again. I notice how the Pope tells us,

“With great affection I invoke upon you and your families God’s blessings of joy and peace”.

He didn’t say,

“With a great sense of pure caritas [and nothing more–and emotions are only secondary and ultimately are mutually exclusive to caritas!], I invoke upon you God’s blessings of joy and peace.”

Interesting.