Attachments to another

[Bruised_Reed]

I think we see with different eyes. I don’t think it seems bleak; to me it’s reason we are alive. I don’t see it as toil and labor (thought that might enter into it) but as an adventure, kind of.

ETA your use of the word “only” is what makes that** not** Catholic teaching. I hope you are not getting frustrated

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Not wanting to or not being able to imagine ever being without that person?

I’ve felt this and I don’t believe I was sinning. I feel this about the people I’m closest to in my life. I have lost people very dear to me, including romantically. I don’t have to imagine my life without them. And it is still painful after many years, though less so. Was I too attached? Is the pain my punishment for being attached? My own answers: No and No. I felt loss. It was natural. It spoke to how much I loved the person.

 

[gardenswithkids]

it seems like Catholics believe there are two types of love : 1.the selfish kind where one person feels affection for another, likes/admires them personally 2. or the pure kind where one person decides to show love based on a command to love.

Selfishness reflects back on the self, not on the other. “I like you for what you give me, for how you make me feel.” What you define as “selfish love” isn’t. Liking or admiring another person isn’t innately selfish. How sad to marry someone you neither like nor admire. That seems an injustice to the spouse who deserves to be liked and admired rather than merely used for reproductive purposes.

In truth, most enter marriage with at least some selfish motives. Just because we enter there, doesn’t mean that’s where we should stay. Marital love matures over time, and it helps us mature. Marriage helps us learn to love as we should love. The command to love encourages us to keep our committment even when it gets tough. Contrary to what you may think, few are remarkably saintly Catholics without making some effort. Selfishness comes very natural to our fallen human nature, and in living out our marriages we have an opportunity to work on overcoming our selfish tendencies. Selfishness is ultimately incompatible with love and happiness.

My question was how good is it to be personally attached to someone if the foundation of marriage is (or should be) something entirely impersonal?

The Song of Songs in the Bible shows a very intimate–even erotic-- love that reflects the love of God for His people. There is nothing impersonal about God’s love for us, nor should there be anything impersonal about the foundation of marriage. The Church describes marriage as a giving of self from one to the other. Marital love is extremely personal.

On this forum I enjoy discussing marriage and family in general terms, but the specific details of my own marriage is far too personal to post on the internet. Out of respect for my husband, our marriage and our family, I rarely post any personal details. When people do post intimate details, it’s often connected to specific problems they are having and they seek a Catholic perspectives. Perhaps that’s why you sense emotional detachment in the discussion on marriage on these boards.

 

[cynic]

It could be argued that “I want to be with you” is a selfish motive.

What I get from christian philosophy on marriage is that ultimately ALL we are supposed to want is God. We aren’t supposed to want another person, marriage is a means to PRACTICE love (in a good will kind of way), to mimic how God loves us, but an attachment to another gets in the way this relationship.

 

[gardenswithkids]

It could be argued that “I want to be with you” is a selfish motive.

Yes it could be argued like that because we usually have mixed motives. Do you want to be with the other so the other person will makes you feel good about yourself? Do you want to be with the other person for the sake of the other? Is it a bit of both? In most relationships it’s a little of both, but it can mature past the selfishness over time.

Monsignor Cormac Burke writes on pg 214 of his book Covenant Happiness
…the romantic process that usually procedes and inspires the decision to marry has its own peculiar characteristics. It is filled with feeling, tends to idealize the other person, exaggerates virtues, and plays down (or fails completely see) his or her faults—for as is often said, “love is blind.” What is most peculiar about this process is that it would seem to be a very deliberate design of nature: that “romance,” strong in feeling and weak in perception, should easily lead people to want to bind themselves together for life. In this, nature is not playing an unfair trick, but rather marking the prelude to a deeper plan: that later on, perhaps just a few years into marriage, as romance tends to fade and personal defects come more into the foreground, spontaneous love has to mature into something more deeply understood and willed. That is when the spouses should understand that they have not yet truly learned to love; and that if they don’t learn, they will not stand together. It is then that marriage becomes, for the spouses first of all, a place of learning, a school of love. It is then that love has come to a turning point toward—or away from—maturity.

What I get from christian philosophy on marriage is that ultimately ALL we are supposed to want is God.

Not just marriage; everything reflects back to God, but that doesn’t mean we just sit around wanting God and doing nothing. You write “Christian philosophy” but there are various philosophies within Christianity. Remember we’re Catholic Christians–the ones Protestant Christians often accuse of trying to earn salvation.

Our love for God motivate us to love others, and our love for others helps us love God. It’s circular: when one grows, that causes the other to grow too. St. Teresa of Avila wrote something to the effect of: How can we think we love God Whom we can not see, if we don’t show love to those we can see?

Additionally, the more we experience unselfish love from others, the easier it is to know and accept God’s love. Spouses share a special role with each other in this regard. Polaris expressed that beautifully earlier in this thread when he wrote: “The love of my wife brought me closer to God”

We aren’t supposed to want another person, marriage is a means to PRACTICE love (in a good will kind of way), to mimic how God loves us, but an attachment to another gets in the way this relationship.

Okay, I think I may see where the misunderstanding is. There exist different vocations, and God doesn’t call everyone to marriage.

God calls some to consecrated celibacy, (i.e. priests, monks, nuns, etc.) Many write about detachment to others for the sake of loving God. If someone reads about the detachment appropriate for consecrated celibates and applies it to marriage, they misunderstand the different vocations. Such detachment allows priests, nuns and monks to serve God and the community better. When a bishop or superior orders them to change parishes, etc. they do so more willingly if their attachment is primarily to God. That is a different vocation from marriage.

In marriage, attachment to one’s spouse should not get in the way of our love of God. Such attachment helps us love God and each other better. A husband and wife should want to be with each other (and their children.) They should love each other with their whole hearts. Such earthly attachment to each other only gets in the way of loving God if we forget who we are in relation to God. Sometimes people commit moral wrongs at the encouragement of a spouse. After the death of a spouse or child, people sometimes despair, thinking God must be unkind to take their beloved away from them. The problem in such cases wasn’t the attachment to the spouse, but the improper attitude to God. As long as we remember who we are–and Who God is–attachment in marriage helps us love both each other and God more.