Do you believe in "soulmates"?

[ToeInTheWater]

I’ve noticed in some evangelical circles, the idea that God ordains certain people to pair up romantically and eventually in marriage. The idea that “God brought us together” and that one’s romantic partner is a “soulmate”.

I’ve seen the idea in secular circles as well, but without the idea of “God’s Will”.

Unfortunately, in secular circles, the “soulmate” idea is often used to excuse serial monogamy, serial divorce and re-marriages, even outright adultery, with the excuse being “Well I thought X was my soulmate, but then I met Y, and I realized no, Y is my REAL soulmate, I’m meant to be with Y, I have no obligation to stay with X”.

But I’ve noticed in evangelical circles, the “soulmate” idea can be used to browbeat people into staying in relationships because it is “God’s Will” they do so, even if the “soulmate” is abusive, adulterous, etc. Some even claim it is “God’s Will” for the abused spouse to remain because her job is to somehow convert the abuser, and to refuse that “mission” makes the abused spouse as bad as Jonah, who initially refused the mission to Nineveh.

I’ve even noticed on CAF, posts about very unhealthy, even abusive relationships, where the posters agonize over whether it is “God’s Will” for them to remain in the relationship.

All of these somewhat twisted to me, but does anyone here believe the concept? Am I missing something?

 

[Della]

Nowhere in Scripture or in Church teaching is there any such concept as a “soulmate.” It’s a romantic fancy coming from the European Romantic period in which the idea was indeed used for all sorts sexual excesses.

Catholics who stay in abusive marriages do so because they feel obligations towards their spouse, their children, and even to their faith, although the faith does not demand they live with an abuser. Oftentimes people are simply too embarrassed to admit they’re in an abusive relationship more than they are worried about offending God, as if he would be offended at separating from a spouse who might kill them.

As for Evangelicals that think it’s the duty of the abused spouse to “straighten out” the abuser–that comes from old wives tales that a “good woman” can make a bad man turn from his abusive ways–which is a load of hooey. They may use the Bible to try to take that position, but it’s simply not there. They also forget that marriage in biblical times was very different from today. Husbands and wives often had separate quarters, especially among affluent people. A husband wasn’t someone you felt romantic about, he was someone who provided a living with the wife seeing to it that his children and household ran smoothly. That was a cultural expectation not a command from God–something that literalists seem to have missed.

I certainly don’t think of my dh as a soulmate, although I can’t imagine life without him. The cold truth is, if I had found someone else suitable to marry he might not have been my spouse. I do think God does bring people together, but not because they were “meant for each other” in some romantic notion, but because they were suited to each other and would be helpful to each other. But to use that as a stick to punish spouses who are abused–to keep them in that situation, is just plain evil.

Each of us is responsible before God for our own salvation. We are to help each other to salvation, but that doesn’t mean taking daily beatings or verbal abuse. Sometimes the best thing for spouses to do is to separate so the abuser wil stop hurting the other spouse and perhaps get the help needed to correct it. But the onus is on the abuser to do that not on the abused spouse to make the other change.

 

[EasterJoy]

Look at this portion of the definition of marriage, from canon law: The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses…

It is in the nature of marriage for the covenant between the man and woman for the spouses to advance in goodness because of their partnership. Marriage is intended to bring true good to both the husband and the wife. For that reason, yes, you and your spouse are meant to be each other’s soul mates. Marriage is supposed to be very good for your soul.

This is not a magical or automatic relationship, however! Rather, it is in our choice to fulfill our duties as a spouse that we position ourselves to receive the graces of marriage. If you marry the person God intends you to marry, and yet shirk from the duties of marriage, you will not receive the fruits intended for you and neither will your spouse. If, on the other hand, you marry *validly *but for reasons that are otherwise selfish or misguided, God can still use the combination of your marriage and your fidelity to your marriage vows to make a saint out of you. You cannot pursue grace by means of disobedience, but when you turn from disobedience to obedience you can be given grace in spite of those trials you brought on yourself.

Certainly there are some choices which will make the work of marriage easier for us for natural reasons. Marriage is hard enough; we should not think we don’t need all the help we can get! Having said that, we should not imagine that choosing an immoral course or giving someone else an occasion to choose an immoral course is ever the way to achieve God’s plan for our lives.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Ah yes…

1. The Melancholic yearns for a Soulmate
2. The Choleric desires a Helpmate
3. The Sanguine expects a Playmate
4. The Plegmatic wishes for a Mindmate

 

[EasterJoy]

Nowhere in Scripture or in Church teaching is there any such concept as a “soulmate.” It’s a romantic fancy coming from the European Romantic period in which the idea was indeed used for all sorts sexual excesses.

Catholics who stay in abusive marriages do so because they feel obligations towards their spouse, their children, and even to their faith, although the faith does not demand they live with an abuser. Oftentimes people are simply too embarrassed to admit they’re in an abusive relationship more than they are worried about offending God, as if he would be offended at separating from a spouse who might kill them.

As for Evangelicals that think it’s the duty of the abused spouse to “straighten out” the abuser–that comes from old wives tales that a “good woman” can make a bad man turn from his abusive ways–which is a load of hooey. They may use the Bible to try to take that position, but it’s simply not there. They also forget that marriage in biblical times was very different from today. Husbands and wives often had separate quarters, especially among affluent people. A husband wasn’t someone you felt romantic about, he was someone who provided a living with the wife seeing to it that his children and household ran smoothly. That was a cultural expectation not a command from God–something that literalists seem to have missed.

I do not know about that. The Song of Songs implies that the marital relationship is meant to mirror the love between God and humankind. We should not imagine that the ancients did not know what eros was, nor that it has never been a part of God’s plan for a holy marriage relationship! From the time that Adam set eyes on Eve, God has meant marriage to be the means by which the two truly become one. Our Lord reiterated this truth when he condemned the practice of granting divorce to a lawfully married couple.

Most marriages in Biblical times, especially in the early Church, were not anything like “affluent.” St. Paul notes that marriage is meant to mirror the mystery of the love between Christ and his Church. That is very intimate, and not at all a “business arrangement”! Again–the husband and the wife *become one!! *More directly to the point, St. Paul notes how an unbeliever might come to salvation through the positive example of the spouse that became a believer first, and for this reason he advised the believer not to separate if the unbelieving spouse was willing to live together in peace.

Having said that, he also cautioned against choosing to marry someone who could not reasonably be a good mate in the yoke of marriage, because of the difficulties that would pose to the believer.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Why do so many “soulmates” divorce?

It just romantic bunk.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

They also forget that marriage in biblical times was very different from today. Husbands and wives often had separate quarters, especially among affluent people. A husband wasn’t someone you felt romantic about, he was someone who provided a living with the wife seeing to it that his children and household ran smoothly. That was a cultural expectation not a command from God–something that literalists seem to have missed.

So do you believe the “Biblical marriage has nothing to do with romance” position? You’re certainly not the only one who believes this. I’ve even read posts on CAF that claim the whole idea of romantic love is an illusion, that romantic “love” is at best mere infatuation bound to wear off, or even just a way to excuse lust.

However, wouldn’t the idea of marriage as a “business arrangement” in which the husband provides a living and the wife runs the domestic household, also be used to trap people into abusive marriages. “So what if he beats you once in a while, so what if he goes to the local whorehouse when you’re on the rag. As long as he’s a good provider, what’s the problem?”

Each of us is responsible before God for our own salvation. We are to help each other to salvation, but that doesn’t mean taking daily beatings or verbal abuse. Sometimes the best thing for spouses to do is to separate so the abuser wil stop hurting the other spouse and perhaps get the help needed to correct it. But the onus is on the abuser to do that not on the abused spouse to make the other change.

I certainly agree with this, and I realize that you do NOT yourself advocate abuse in marriages.

 

[Trident_H]

I think soulmates and talk of soulmates is one of the worst things Hollywood did to us. I mean think about how often everyone is talking about wanting a soulmate. I don’t even think it makes sense.

I mean think about it. How often can two people be that in sync? Sure, in college. Or yeah, at a job where the two of them do the same type of thing. Or ok, maybe in some kind of extra-carricular group or something. But all the time? No way. So then what happens? You are no longer soulmates? Really?

For once I wish movies would comment about real life and show a couple of people with courage and convictions and strength of character.

I guess what I’m saying is show someone who is just the opposite of me.

 

[jmjZelie]

Of course, I believe in soul mates. I don’t agree with the way that Hollywood has portrayed this ancient idea of God bringing two people together. They have attempted to destroy the true meaning of soul mates just as they have attempted to destroy the true meaning of marriage. But yes, I believe in soul mates, and my husband is my soul mate. I met him as a child, I knew at first meeting that when we grew up, we would marry, so did our families after witnessing our growing friendship and dating relationship as we got older. We were high school sweethearts. And with God’s grace, our love has grown each passing year, despite the incredible challenges we have faced.

 

[Della]

I do not know about that. The Song of Songs implies that the marital relationship is meant to mirror the love between God and humankind. We should not imagine that the ancients did not know what eros was, nor that it has never been a part of God’s plan for a holy marriage relationship! From the time that Adam set eyes on Eve, God has meant marriage to be the means by which the two truly become one. Our Lord reiterated this truth when he condemned the practice of granting divorce to a lawfully married couple.

Huh? Snarf! I don’t follow you here. Where did I say otherwise? Of course we are meant to mirror the love between Christ and his Church, but what does that have to do with the idea that we can have only one “true soulmate” as if marrying another person, equally good for us and us for them, would be outside of God’s plan for us? I don’t see that concept anywhere in Scripture.

Most marriages in Biblical times, especially in the early Church, were not anything like “affluent.” St. Paul notes that marriage is meant to mirror the mystery of the love between Christ and his Church. That is very intimate, and not at all a “business arrangement”! Again–the husband and the wife *become one!! *More directly to the point, St. Paul notes how an unbeliever might come to salvation through the positive example of the spouse that became a believer first, and for this reason he advised the believer not to separate if the unbelieving spouse was willing to live together in peace.

Again, I don’t see where you are getting this in anything I wrote. I never wrote anything about marriage being a “business relationship.” I only noted that marriage in ancient times wasn’t romanticized like it is now. Most marriages were arranged by parents–spouses didn’t meet, fall in love, and then get married. No doubt couples most developed love and affection for each other as they became one, but it wasn’t a matter of searching for a soulmate or anythng of the kind, which is the model we use today.

Having said that, he also cautioned against choosing to marry someone who could not reasonably be a good mate in the yoke of marriage, because of the difficulties that would pose to the believer.

Of course. And I wrote that too. We should choose people who are suitable for marriage and in a Christian marriage that means choosing someone who will help us grow in our faith. Being one in marriage doesn’t entail soft music and candlelight. It means loving them through everything, even when you want to slap them up the side of their head or think someone else might have “understood” better or you feel bored. It’s more than mere momentary feelings–it’s a commitment so we’d better be sure we’re committing to a person who will, as far as we’re able to determine, will be a faithful and helpful spouse, but that doesn’t mean that s/he alone, out of all the world’s inhabitants could possibly have been that “one.” To think so is romantic nonsense and leads to all sorts of evils, such as searching for that “right one” simply because one’s spouse isn’t satisfying our wants, and that sort of thing.

 

[jmjZelie]

Why do so many “soulmates” divorce?
.

Because people sin and choose their own way and harden their hearts.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Huh? Snarf! I don’t follow you here. Where did I say otherwise? Of course we are meant to mirror the love between Christ and his Church, but what does that have to do with the idea that we can have only one “true soulmate” as if marrying another person, equally good for us and us for them, would be outside of God’s plan for us? I don’t see that concept anywhere in Scripture.

Again, I don’t see where you are getting this in anything I wrote. I never wrote anything about marriage being a “business relationship.” I only noted that marriage in ancient times wasn’t romanticized like it is now. Most marriages were arranged by parents–spouses didn’t meet, fall in love, and then get married. No doubt couples most developed love and affection for each other as they became one, but it wasn’t a matter of searching for a soulmate or anythng of the kind, which is the model we use today.

And yet, the couple in Song of Songs were not married, though it’s strongly implied they were betrothed. But the SoS certainly is FULL of erotic imagery and the Woman keeps referring to her “beloved”. I certainly don’t get the idea that the couple are strangers brought together in an arranged marriage, slowly developing love and affection for each other. Instead, I get the idea they indeed met, fell in love, and are soon to be married.

Now, I know the SoS is not just a love song, it’s meant to be an allegory of the love between Christ and his Church. But assuming Scripture is Divinely inspired, why would God inspire anyone to write a long drawn-out allegory that is based on a scenario that was a rare exception? Doesn’t it suggest that the love between spouses SHOULD ideally have an erotic component?

I also noticed you didn’t answer my point that excessive de-romanticizing of marriage could also be used to excuse abuse, and has been. I can easily imagine some one counseling an abuse victim to stay with words like, “What, did you expect a perfect marriage to a Prince Charming who never loses his temper? You obviously have ridiculous fantasies about marriage fed into by Hollywood.”

 

[pensmama87]

So do you believe the “Biblical marriage has nothing to do with romance” position? You’re certainly not the only one who believes this. I’ve even read posts on CAF that claim the whole idea of romantic love is an illusion, that romantic “love” is at best mere infatuation bound to wear off, or even just a way to excuse lust.

I think the important thing for me was to realize that even romantic love is a result of an act of the will. The same cannot necessarily be said for attraction or desire, which is automatic, but we have to consent to it to develop into love. And then as spouses, our job is to continue doing the (sometimes not so fun) work to keep that love going. I think the mistake that secular culture makes is to say it’s all about feelings that we somehow have no control over (so if they fade it’s nobody’s fault and we must have made a mistake because the feelings are supposed to never magically fade - and I don’t know how that’s possible when you wake up to someone’s morning breath for years on end, and they’re waking up to yours. )

Now, I DO think that I was meant to marry my husband. But I also think I freely chose him and he freely chose me, and we did do the work of determining whether we were compatible. We definitely weren’t perfect at that and we made some mistakes regarding chastity that probably clouded our perspectives at times. But Catholics believe in free will, too.

I think it’s a mistake to undervalue or overvalue feelings of any kind. They are important, but we also have more control over them than we realize (and they don’t necessarily reflect reality - a person can be drawn to and repulsed by a person at the exact same time, for example.)

 

[Della]

So do you believe the “Biblical marriage has nothing to do with romance” position? You’re certainly not the only one who believes this. I’ve even read posts on CAF that claim the whole idea of romantic love is an illusion, that romantic “love” is at best mere infatuation bound to wear off, or even just a way to excuse lust.

I do believe this. The very fact that people are free to marry if they are widowed tells us quite plainly and unromantically, that there is more than one person who would be suitable for marriage for anyone of us. Ancedotal experience isn’t enough to tell us what God plans for any of us. Some of us know as soon as we meet our future spouse that that’s who we will marry. I don’t discount that, but when one is already married one is not to go on searching for one’s “perfect soulmate” as if the person one has married can be discarded like an old shoe if s/he doesn’t meet that expectation. We take vows precisely because we can’t go by feelings alone, not because feelings have no value.

However, wouldn’t the idea of marriage as a “business arrangement” in which the husband provides a living and the wife runs the domestic household, also be used to trap people into abusive marriages. “So what if he beats you once in a while, so what if he goes to the local whorehouse when you’re on the rag. As long as he’s a good provider, what’s the problem?”

How is that a “business arrangement.” It was an unspoken cultural arrangement that worked fairly well for centuries before the modern era. However, I wrote nothing about us employing that same arrangement. I try to be precise in what I write. I really wish people wouldn’t read into it what I havent written. It only leads to confusion.

I certainly agree with this, and I realize that you do NOT yourself advocate abuse in marriages.

I thought I made this abundantly clear in all that I wrote. Merely advocating that marriages be based on mutual vows of commitment doesn’t at all excuse abusive behavior. Indeed, it ought to be a guard against it. We are all fallen creatures who sin daily (most of us in little ways). Love is the cure–on both sides. And that love has to be sacrificial love, not some romantic longing for the “perfect soulmate” who will always understand, never be tiresome, always see things our way, etc. Such a person is a mere fantasy, so persuing such a person cannot satisfy because no human being in the world can live up to such expectations. Only God will never fail us and even he doesn’t give us everything we think we need/want, does he.

 

[Della]

And yet, the couple in Song of Songs were not married, though it’s strongly implied they were betrothed. But the SoS certainly is FULL of erotic imagery and the Woman keeps referring to her “beloved”. I certainly don’t get the idea that the couple are strangers brought together in an arranged marriage, slowly developing love and affection for each other. Instead, I get the idea they indeed met, fell in love, and are soon to be married.

Betrothed doesn’t mean they “met, fell in love, and then were married.” Indeed, it was an arranged marriage, which was all the more reason the bridegroom went out of his way to woo the bride–to assure her that he would love her and care for her as he would for his own body.

Now, I know the SoS is not just a love song, it’s meant to be an allegory of the love between Christ and his Church. But assuming Scripture is Divinely inspired, why would God inspire anyone to write a long drawn-out allegory that is based on a scenario that was a rare exception? Doesn’t it suggest that the love between spouses SHOULD ideally have an erotic component?

Again, where did I write anything negative about eroticism? Romanticism is not eroticism. Romanticism is making an ideal of/imposing an ideal upon another person. Nowhere in the SoS is this done. All the erotic images are true ones of the person being described, not a image imposed on her. She is all the things the bridegroom says she is. He isn’t merely flattering her, he’s wooing her, telling her how she delights him. But it was an arranged marriage. She was sent to him to be his bride by her father. And Christ was sent to us by the Father to woo his Bride the Church. She is made perfect because of his love, not because she was the perfect love for him.

I also noticed you didn’t answer my point that excessive de-romanticizing of marriage could also be used to excuse abuse, and has been. I can easily imagine some one counseling an abuse victim to stay with words like, “What, did you expect a perfect marriage to a Prince Charming who never loses his temper? You obviously have ridiculous fantasies about marriage fed into by Hollywood.”

I NEVER implied anything like this at all. I wrote exactly the opposite. Hollywood is fully of baloney–which is just what I said when I wrote that we moderns have silly ideas about romance that have little to do with God’s intentions or reality.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Soulmates is what happens when two flesh become one. And even then it is separate. People who speak of soulmates have no concept of what marriage and love is. For my wife is what one might call a soul mate. This was accomplished through a sacrament, and years of raising children, helping each other become more Holy, watching illnesses etc. To equate that with two people meeting online, skipping through a meadow with rainbows and unicorns is kind of insulting to marriage.

 

[jmjZelie]

Arranged marriages does not preclude the possibility of soul mates. Adam and Eve and Isaac and Rebecca are two delightful examples. Look at the love expressed in the words and actions of the husbands as their brides are brought to them!

 

[pianistclare]

I believe in marriages where each party is in 100-100.
Not 50-50, not 90-10.

Sometimes you give everything, sometimes the other person does. It’s called life.

 

[Della]

I agree with wholeheartedly with what the last three posters wrote.

 

[Lucretius]

The first novelty of biblical faith consists, as we have seen, in its image of God. The second, essentially connected to this, is found in the image of man. The biblical account of creation speaks of the solitude of Adam, the first man, and God’s decision to give him a helper. Of all other creatures, not one is capable of being the helper that man needs, even though he has assigned a name to all the wild beasts and birds and thus made them fully a part of his life. So God forms woman from the rib of man. Now Adam finds the helper that he needed: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). Here one might detect hints of ideas that are also found, for example, in the myth mentioned by Plato, according to which man was originally spherical, because he was complete in himself and self-sufficient. But as a punishment for pride, he was split in two by Zeus, so that now he longs for his other half, striving with all his being to possess it and thus regain his integrity.[8] While the biblical narrative does not speak of punishment, the idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, driven by nature to seek in another the part that can make him whole, the idea that only in communion with the opposite sex can he become “complete”. The biblical account thus concludes with a prophecy about Adam: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Two aspects of this are important. First, eros is somehow rooted in man’s very nature; Adam is a seeker, who “abandons his mother and father” in order to find woman; only together do the two represent complete humanity and become “one flesh”. The second aspect is equally important. From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose. Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage. Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the relationship between God and his people and vice versa. God’s way of loving becomes the measure of human love. This close connection between eros and marriage in the Bible has practically no equivalent in extra-biblical literature.

Source: Pope Benedict XVI’s Deus Caritas est: w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html

Christi pax,

Lucretius