Do you believe in "soulmates"?

[LongingSoul]

It may or may not happen very often, but I’ve always believed in the concept.

I do too. My parents who’ve been married for 55 years have always had an enviable relationship as testified to by many of their contemporaries. They weren’t sickly romantic or anything… but their relationship was and still is special and though often hard to articulate, it is a common observation. They’ve always seemed to have a natural intimacy that made them a manifestly unbeatable team through the years, greater than the sum of the parts.

My brothers and sister who are all in long and happy marriages through commitment and hard work, easily can identify that natural thing that some people have that the majority of us have to always work at. It shines like an ideal should shine and they illuminate the way for the rest of us.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I like how you put it here… “Rather, I responded, in those words, to a general idea I’ve seen in some posts that indicate that such feelings do consitute the definition of “soulmates”–a concept I have been trying to refute without denying that feelings have their place…”

Again yes, some people have the mistaken idea that there ought to be fireworks the minute you lay eyes on a potential spouse, which simply isn’t true. Sure some people seem to know right away that a certain person is right for them, and that does happen, but to think that gaining a “soulmate” is based primarily on feelings is dangerous and the reason so many marriages fail due to unfulfilled and unreasonable expectations.

Della, I’m really sorry, because I myself misinterpreted your earlier posts as completely denying the importance of feelings in marriage. I think it’s also the case that when it comes to romance and dating, many people act as if there is one set of universal rules that covers all romantic relationships and all marriages, and I don’t think that’s quite true.

After reading various opinions, I think I myself occupy somewhat of a middle ground between the extreme romantics and the extreme pragmatics when it comes to marriage. Maybe because I’ve been burned more than once by the “extreme romantic” approach to relationships.

On the other hand, I’ve seen that just settling for a pragmatic “business partner” or “friends with benefits” approach to marriage (which seems to be the dynamic many spouses in arranged or semi-arranged marriages have), doesn’t guarantee smooth sailing either, despite the tendency I’ve seen among more conservative Christians (and by this I include Catholics) to idealize this kind of marriage, I suppose as a reaction against the Hollywood version.

Also, I think many people who idealize arrange marriages and assume they are more “successful” than “love marriages” merely because they’re less likely to end in divorce, overlook the fact that most cultures with ingrained arranged marriage traditions also practice either outright polygamy or accept adultery, especially by men, as a matter of course – hardly something compatible with a Christian approach to marriage.

However, unlike some posters, I don’t find the Heathcliff/Cathy romance to be anything to dream about, considering all the collateral damage their “love” caused to those around them, or even to themselves. Romance used as an excuse for abusive behavior, I don’t buy into at all – and as I posted earlier, unfortunately, the “soulmate” idea, often with a twist of “God meant these two to be together”, HAS been used at times as a rationale to push people to stay in abusive marriages.

Though interestingly, not even Heathcliff and Cathy actually had fireworks from the instant they met – part of that was because they were both children, but AFAIK, Cathy at first was just as snobbish and cruel to Heathcliff as her brother Hindley, and it really wasn’t until Hindley (and his wife) began abusing both of them that they really bonded.

And I recall reading that Emily Bronte herself doesn’t see Heathcliff’s love for Cathy as anything redemptive; it’s actually his bonding with his step-nephew, Hindley’s son Hareton, in spite of his initial motive to take the boy and raise him as a savage as a way to revenge himself on Hindley, that shows any sign of that.

And as long as we’re discussing literary romances, I should point out that Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy certainly did NOT fall in love at first sight, either. Lizzy was completely repulsed by him, and Mr. Darcy found Lizzy “tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me”.

ETA: Not even Bella and Edward did in Twilight, even though IMHO that “romance” has unfortunately contributed to the idea that “true love” with your “soulmate” overcomes all, including widely differing backgrounds, worldviews, and even actual abuse. Of course I don’t want to blame a book TOO much but certainly there are young women who believe that “true love” equals “staying with him even if he’s dangerous”.

 

[LongingSoul]

Makes me wonder why the Austen and Bronte classics including P and P and Wuthering Heights, are republished by Ignatius Press who publish much conservative religious literature. If they go against Catholic ideals of relationship surely they would forsake any connection to that sort of literature?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Makes me wonder why the Austen and Bronte classics including P and P and Wuthering Heights, are republished by Ignatius Press who publish much conservative religious literature. If they go against Catholic ideals of relationship surely they would forsake any connection to that sort of literature?

Um, I’m not sure what your question is. When did I state that Pride and Prejudice or Wuthering Heights “go against Catholic ideals of relationship”?

My take on WH (which posters are free to disagree with) was that, I personally don’t think Emily Bronte meant for the work to be a “love story” in that she meant for readers to think “gee I want a love like Cathy and Heathcliff had”, certainly that wasn’t the message I got from it. I got the message that Cathy and Heathcliff were really pitiful people who were victims of abuse, but wound up becoming abusers themselves – especially Heathcliff. The Hollywood versions of WH are very romanticized, and most cut out the really sick stuff Heathcliff did (such as hang Isabella Linton’s dog in front of her). Sure, Isabella is portrayed as rather silly and foolish, but I did not get the sense that any of Heathcliff’s actions toward her could be excused by, well, anything.

As for Pride and Prejudice, my whole point in bringing that up is, that while it is considered a classic romance, it doesn’t follow the “love at first sight” trope either. Now, I know “dislike at first sight turning into love” is also a trope, but that wasn’t what Della was referring to when she mentioned “some people have the mistaken idea that there ought to be fireworks the minute you lay eyes on a potential spouse”.

It takes a long time for Darcy’s attraction to Elizabeth to grow enough that he is willing to make what his social circle considers an imprudent marriage, and it takes even longer for her to appreciate his actual character. Sure there is an element of the Cinderella trope in there too, but the story is much more nuanced than that.

 

[agapewolf]

I’ve been thinking and praying a lot about this whole subject for quite awhile, especially lately…

I think it also depends on what is meant by the term “soulmate”.

Just like religious vocations and charisms are so varied, why does God have to work the same way for everyone with a married vocation? And if he did work one specific way (such as designing to specific people for each other, and that’s it), the fact that marriage is so important (and where the enemy attacks the most), this would be clear in Catholic teaching. It isn’t.

I have a lot of problems with the idea that God destines 2 people to be together, and that’s it. With how many abortions that have occurred, that means there are almost as many people without their destined person out there.

That doesn’t mean he doesn’t do that for some, or even for many. Even putting in some miracles to guide people down that path.

Bottom line is, vocation is supposed to be a free choice. That’s what makes it all the more beautiful. Which makes the single life all the more difficult when most singles who desire to be married don’t get to have any choice in the matter.

 

[LongingSoul]

The thread has deviated into different concepts like “love at first sight” and ‘destiny’ but those are unrelated to what was first proposed here. I don’t think either of those concepts are supported by a natural or divine law because ‘love at first sight’ implies the lack of a personal discernment and to be pre ‘destined’ to be together implies an absence of free will.

‘Soul’ mate implies some form of transcendent union which pre-dates the sacrament of marriage. Human beings come together and stay together in the interests of procreation but the idea of lifelong commitment past any practical role in the raising and education of children has roots somewhere in a couple. If there were no natural basis for lifelong union it wouldn’t be the subject of a Sacrament. Some people for whatever reason experience that commitment from within their souls and the rest of us rely on cultural expectation or the grace of the sacrament to be obedient to that ideal.