Do you believe in "soulmates"?

[Della]

I was taking exception to your contention that in ancient times “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.” I took that to imply that the ancients didn’t have an expectation of eros between a husband and wife and that a positive view of eros is not to be found in the Bible. I don’t think that is true at all.

Eros comes with time, not necessarily on the wedding day, that was my point. People didn’t have sex before marriage and no one “dated” a potential spouse. Marriages were arranged by parents. Eros came into play on the wedding night, not before. Sure certain people may have been attracted to a particular person and so urged his/her parents to arrange a marriage but again, that wasn’t the romantic notion of having a soulmate that arose in Europe in the 19th century.

The concept of marriage being a relationship that is very much soul-to-soul definitely is in the Holy Scriptures. The idea that how much you are being seized with sexual desire for someone you are forbidden to marry by moral law is some gauge of whether you were “made for each other”? Oh, yes, you are right! That is a total bag of hooey!! That is copy straight from the devil’s textbook! My point is that the devil did not make something up out of whole cloth. The devil took the truth and twisted it beyond recognition, and did it long before Hollywood was invented. (Not that Hollywood isn’t a bicycle for sins that used to have to go on foot…)

Marriage, yes, dating no. Looking for a soulmate is the wrong way to go about choosing a spouse. Rather, we need to choose someone who is faithful to God and would be to a potential spouse–who is compatible in nature. Couples become soulmates as they mature in marriage–indeed that it one of the primary purposes of marriage. The romantic notion that we must seek out and then marry a soulmate has been the ruin of many good marriages, so no, I don’t subscribe to it for dating couples. It’s putting the cart before the horse.

 

[jmjZelie]

I guess my notion of soul mate was formed mostly from reading the Old Testament. As a girl, I was expected to read my Bible every morning, and I loved the stories of the marriages of the patriarchs (always felt sad and protective of Leah, and identified strongly with Ruth and Rebecca). So, having heard the term “soul mate” but not knowing the cultural definition of it, I must have overlaid a biblical understanding unconsciously and have continued to use my own understanding all this time. The way that many of you here are describing your understanding of the term is totally foreign to me. I must admit, it is hard for me to imagine giving up that phrase which seems to so accurately describe my experience and is so strongly tied to my understanding of love and faithfulness, even though I see that is NOT how most people understand the term.

I think my idea of soul mates is a combination of anticipation of the unity within marriage, and a reliance upon God’s help to bring a good potential spouse into one’s life, and natural attraction and affection, and a romantic understanding of the couple being United and facing the trials of this life together. THAT is what I mean when I speak of soul mates. But it appears that is NOT what others understand that term to mean in a larger cultural context.

 

[jmjZelie]

So I just checked with my husband, and he thinks about this idea the same way I do. So if I am understanding it differently from others, it doesn’t really matter, because he and I are in accord. But then, my idea of romance is being 70years old, and still holding hands when we walk together. The way the world defines romance bears little resemblance to my own understanding of it.

 

[Della]

I guess my notion of soul mate was formed mostly from reading the Old Testament. As a girl, I was expected to read my Bible every morning, and I loved the stories of the marriages of the patriarchs (always felt sad and protective of Leah, and identified strongly with Ruth and Rebecca). So, having heard the term “soul mate” but not knowing the cultural definition of it, I must have overlaid a biblical understanding unconsciously and have continued to use my own understanding all this time. The way that many of you here are describing your understanding of the term is totally foreign to me. I must admit, it is hard for me to imagine giving up that phrase which seems to so accurately describe my experience and is so strongly tied to my understanding of love and faithfulness, even though I see that is NOT how most people understand the term.

I think my idea of soul mates is a combination of anticipation of the unity within marriage, and a reliance upon God’s help to bring a good potential spouse into one’s life, and natural attraction and affection, and a romantic understanding of the couple being United and facing the trials of this life together. THAT is what I mean when I speak of soul mates. But it appears that is NOT what others understand that term to mean in a larger cultural context.

I don’t think we are saying anything different from your understanding. Anticipation of marriage is a part of becoming one in mind, heart, and soul as the flesh waits for the final consummation. After that consummation the unity grows even deeper as the years go by. My dh and I still hold hands when we walk together, and at Mass. We made a conscious decision that we weren’t going to be living separate lives as a married couple but that we would, as far as it lay within our abilities, to keep us close in all things. What we’re saying is that people expecting a soulmate, then not “finding” him/her after marriage is no reason to go on searching for someone else who will fit what we think a soulmate ought be. Instead, couples should endeavor to become one with each other through availing themselves of the graces the sacrament of marriage gives them, making that an act of their wills so that when bad times come they won’t think they “made a mistake” and seek divorce at the first sign of problems.

 

[3DOCTORS]

I don’t believe in soulmates for reasons others have cited; it’s romantic mumbo-jumbo, etc.

Praying to discern vocation should come first.

Praying for one’s future spouse afterward if one discerns a call towards married life - with the caveat that one must be open to the possibility of one’s previous discernment being mistaken.

I think people these days are captivated by the “soulmate” concept partly because meeting marriageable people is so fraught with difficulty, so seemingly governed by random chance where the odds are not in one’s favor.

I only ever had two serious dating relationships and what wasn’t wrong about one guy was the fatal flaw of the other guy, for the most part. And I had my own flaws - some of which I’ve outgrown - yet I still find dating extremely difficult. I’ll probably always be “that awkward girl,” that’s a lot of it, so it’d take some miracle to get past that and connect with a man. But I never rule out miracles! The point is, I don’t have a lot of personal “case studies” to draw on - perhaps friends’ experiences a little, but then I’m not those people so there are hidden factors I’ll never be privy to.

To me, how any couple beats the odds at all is a great mystery, one that only God probably knows how to unravel! I do believe that it’s more difficult in large urban anonymous culture than it used to be in a slower-paced, more small-community based culture, to meet people to marry.

 

[His_helpmeet]

I believe in “soulmates” in terms of the idea that God has a plan for each one of us, and if that plan includes marriage, He has a person in mind. THAT SAID, it is up to each of us if we choose to follow that plan or not. If we choose not to, we can still do well in life and even receive eternal life, but following His plan is the surest and most direct route to heaven. I say this because I married my “soulmate” and we are still together almost four and a half years later - and we are STILL falling in love with each other.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Eros comes with time, not necessarily on the wedding day, that was my point. People didn’t have sex before marriage and no one “dated” a potential spouse. Marriages were arranged by parents. Eros came into play on the wedding night, not before. Sure certain people may have been attracted to a particular person and so urged his/her parents to arrange a marriage but again, that wasn’t the romantic notion of having a soulmate that arose in Europe in the 19th century

I agree that people back in Biblical times did not “date” in the way we “moderns” do. But, I do NOT agree that “eros came into play on the wedding night, not before”. Unless you are defining “eros” only as sexual intercourse, in that case we are misunderstanding each other, as I certainly do not see erotic love as merely “love between two people who already have had sex”.

For in the Song of Solomon, while the marriage is not consummated until the very end of chapter 4 when the bride invites her groom into her “garden”, that is NOT when the erotic imagery first begins, it begins way before. Yes, the Song is full of admonitions not to stir up love before it’s time, BUT that doesn’t seem to be the same as a couple having a completely dispassionate relationship right up to the wedding night.

I also am quite leery of the idea of “eros” (again, not intercourse, but sexual attraction itself) being relegated to marriage only. It seems quite close to the extreme courtship rules followed by the Duggars and other fundamentalist Protestants, in which couples aren’t even allowed to hold hands until engagement, and only kiss at the time of the wedding; but then, in a complete 180, the couple is supposed to go at it whenever, wherever.

I’ve even heard rumors the married Duggar daughters both consummated their marriages literally right after marriage, in the church. Which actually IS part of traditional Jewish wedding custom, though I doubt most modern Jewish couples actually use their “private time” between wedding and reception to actually consummate the marriage.

However, I just don’t see how this is healthy, especially for women, to go from “No sexual thoughts at all” to “Sex! Sex! Sex! Sex whenever hubby wants!” Which is the Duggar approach.

But as you seem to, if not encourage, not disapprove of arranged marriages between total strangers using the “it worked for our ancestors” logic, then I guess this wouldn’t disturb you.

Marriage, yes, dating no. Looking for a soulmate is the wrong way to go about choosing a spouse. Rather, we need to choose someone who is faithful to God and would be to a potential spouse–who is compatible in nature. Couples become soulmates as they mature in marriage–indeed that it one of the primary purposes of marriage. The romantic notion that we must seek out and then marry a soulmate has been the ruin of many good marriages, so no, I don’t subscribe to it for dating couples. It’s putting the cart before the horse.

Again, I have a feeling I am misunderstanding you, but I get the feeling that you think that (1) Sexual attraction should have nothing to do with the choice of a marriage partner, but that (2) If both spouses make an effort, then they are bound to be rewarded with mutual sexual attraction eventually.

To me this seems to be just as unrealistic as the idea of Hollywood romance in which love is an external force that no one can control, much like the idea of Cupid’s arrows. Maybe it worked for you, but I don’t think it would work for me.

See, I actually know many people who come from cultures in which arranged marriage is common – from India and other parts of Asia. I’ve heard the “love comes AFTER, not BEFORE marriage” concept from such people, too.

And certainly, many such couples are very happy. But NOT all. I even know of a young woman who her parents forced to go to India for an arranged marriage as a teenager. She fled that marriage, and returned to her boyfriend in the States. Maybe you’d label this woman as a sinful adulteress who was misled by Hollywood notions of romance. But I just don’t think I can blame this woman for what she did. Indeed, AFAIK, the marriage wouldn’t even be valid under Catholic theology, because she was forced into it.

 

[Della]

ToeInTheWater, I’ve written more posts since that one. Reading them might clarify my thoughts on these issues.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

ToeInTheWater, I’ve written more posts since that one. Reading them might clarify my thoughts on these issues.

Are you’re referring to this post?

Anticipation of marriage is a part of becoming one in mind, heart, and soul as the flesh waits for the final consummation. After that consummation the unity grows even deeper as the years go by. My dh and I still hold hands when we walk together, and at Mass. We made a conscious decision that we weren’t going to be living separate lives as a married couple but that we would, as far as it lay within our abilities, to keep us close in all things.

Okay, that is much more nuanced and reasonable. Certainly this seems to be what is going on in the SoS.

What we’re saying is that people expecting a soulmate, then not “finding” him/her after marriage is no reason to go on searching for someone else who will fit what we think a soulmate ought be.

I agree with you on this as well. And certainly my example of a forced marriage is extreme. However, I do think the idea that “all you have do is try hard and your marriage is bound to be a success” is a little too, well, idealistic. And could be used as fodder to blame and shame people in unsuccessful marriages (and I don’t just mean “marriages that end in divorce”. Most of the people I know in unhappy arranged marriages would never dream of divorce, the stigma is too great, especially for women. But I wouldn’t say that means those marriages are “successful”).

Just to clarify, I do NOT think you would ever do this yourself! But I think that it is possible that, in a laudable attempt to refute Hollywood notions of romance, we can wind up going too far the other way.

 

[Della]

I agree with you on this as well. And certainly my example of a forced marriage is extreme. However, I do think the idea that “all you have do is try hard and your marriage is bound to be a success” is a little too, well, idealistic. And could be used as fodder to blame and shame people in unsuccessful marriages (and I don’t just mean “marriages that end in divorce”. Most of the people I know in unhappy arranged marriages would never dream of divorce, the stigma is too great, especially for women. But I wouldn’t say that means those marriages are “successful”).

Just to clarify, I do NOT think you would ever do this yourself! But I think that it is possible that, in a laudable attempt to refute Hollywood notions of romance, we can wind up going too far the other way.

Somewhere in this thread, I can’t find it now, I also wrote that it is the grace of the sacrament of marriage that allows us to consciously decide we will BOTH work at our marriage. I seems you think/fear the onus is all on the woman to make a marriage work. Maybe in your former Baptist community that was the expectation, but it’s not how it works in Catholic marriage. We draw on the graces of the sacraments, marriage being one of them. Those graces are always there for they are eternal. We cannot succeed in a Christian marriage when the entire world is working against us without God’s grace. There are Catholic marriages that fail, but they don’t have to if both people are drawing on God’s graces and practicing sacrificial love. It’s a joint effort. If both are not willing to enter into marriage with the intention of being faithful and helpful to each other, the marriage shouldn’t have taken place at all.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Somewhere in this thread, I can’t find it now, I also wrote that it is the grace of the sacrament of marriage that allows us to consciously decide we will BOTH work at our marriage. I seems you think/fear the onus is all on the woman to make a marriage work. Maybe in your former Baptist community that was the expectation, but it’s not how it works in Catholic marriage.

Well, I’m actually not quite a Baptist, but I do realize that the Catholic view of marriage is much different than the evangelical one.

We draw on the graces of the sacraments, marriage being one of them. Those graces are always there for they are eternal. We cannot succeed in a Christian marriage when the entire world is working against us without God’s grace. There are Catholic marriages that fail, but they don’t have to if both people are drawing on God’s graces and practicing sacrificial love.

So would you say that if a Catholic marriage does fail, that means it wasn’t really a valid “Catholic marriage” in the first place, and hence, will likely be declared null if taken to a tribunal?

Though I actually have come to agree with much Catholic theology regarding annulment, some of it does remind of the OSAS idea that if a “saved” person “falls away”, then that proves “s/he was never really saved in the first place”. OSAS never made any sense to me, and some of the talk about annulment does remind me of it.

It’s a joint effort. If both are not willing to enter into marriage with the intention of being faithful and helpful to each other, the marriage shouldn’t have taken place at all.

Now, I totally agree with that part.

 

[agapewolf]

I believe in “soulmates” in terms of the idea that God has a plan for each one of us, and if that plan includes marriage, He has a person in mind. THAT SAID, it is up to each of us if we choose to follow that plan or not. If we choose not to, we can still do well in life and even receive eternal life, but following His plan is the surest and most direct route to heaven. I say this because I married my “soulmate” and we are still together almost four and a half years later - and we are STILL falling in love with each other.

I’m not sure about “someone in mind” thing. Maybe for some… but then that means a heck of a lot of people won’t meet their “someone in mind” because they’ve been aborted, or other free will events.

 

[Trident_H]

So would you say that if a Catholic marriage does fail, that means it wasn’t really a valid “Catholic marriage” in the first place, and hence, will likely be declared null if taken to a tribunal?

No. A marriage can only be annulled under certain circumstances. Very specific ones. My marriage failed for a number of reasons. But it was annulled primarily because it was shown I had married under false pretences. Mainly I was not willing to have children (when I said I would originally). That made the contract null and void. I mean we might have been able to work out everything else, but that was the killer. I wouldn’t move on it.

I had my reasons though.

 

[GEddie]

Even if romantic love is valid, the modern pattern of finding it via flirting/dating/relationship games prolonged through years is a wrongheaded approach to it; it trusts the hormones and feelings far too much, and the will of God not at all.

And there is no issue of someone missing their “soulmate” due to abortion or accident or any of a trillion other negative outcomes. The human psyche is fluid and can meld into any number of possible life relationships.

IMNAAHO

ICXC NIKA

 

[Della]

Well, I’m actually not quite a Baptist, but I do realize that the Catholic view of marriage is much different than the evangelical one.

Indeed it is. I was a Pentecostalist at one time and knew quite a few Baptists. Some were closer to the idea that marriage is a shared responsibility between a couple and others put all the burden on the wife to make it work. So, it can be hard to pin down what any particular Baptist views this.

So would you say that if a Catholic marriage does fail, that means it wasn’t really a valid “Catholic marriage” in the first place, and hence, will likely be declared null if taken to a tribunal?

Not necessarily. That’s why tribunals exist–to judge each case that comes before them. Also, a couple must first have been divorced before a tribunal will even consider their case. Marriages, all marriages, Catholic or otherwise, are considered valid unless a divorced couple can show just cause why the marriage never existed. The benefit of the doubt is on the side of the validity of marriage, therefore, even if a couple is having difficulties, they are still considered married. Even divorced couples’ children are considered legitimate because they were attempting marriage when they had the children. Really, it would take a canon lawyer to go into all the details, but annulment is not guarantee merely because a divorced couple/person files for one.

Though I actually have come to agree with much Catholic theology regarding annulment, some of it does remind of the OSAS idea that if a “saved” person “falls away”, then that proves “s/he was never really saved in the first place”. OSAS never made any sense to me, and some of the talk about annulment does remind me of it.

I hope my limited explanation helps you see that that’s not the case. The Church always gives the benefit of the doubt to the marriage. The annulment process is quite involved and requires a good deal of soul-searching. It’s not given lightly, and most who think they may have just cause never even get to the point of having it investigated if their priest doesn’t believe they have a good cause for one. IOW, the Church doesn’t go just by the feelings or opinions of a divorced person/couple that their marriage was invalid. It must proved to have been invalid.

 

[LongingSoul]

I am a romantic and I love the idea of a man and a woman with a godly passion for each other and the heat that it generates all around it. Mr Darcy and Lizzie Benet make my heart sing and want to thank God for giving people the opportunity to taste heaven in their passionate feelings for each other. When Emily Bronte wrote '“He’s more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same.”… I marvel at the fact that a child and a family could grow from that garden of passion and bloom. When W H Auden wrote “Stop All the Clocks” I experience that heartwrenching vacuum that spouses who’ve grown over the years like an exquisite tree from a grafted sappling, have when death separates them in this fallen world. I think the ‘grafting’ of souls in a passionate marriage is the most beautiful thing on Gods green earth bar none.

 

[Trident_H]

I am a romantic and I love the idea of a man and a woman with a godly passion for each other and the heat that it generates all around it. Mr Darcy and Lizzie Benet make my heart sing and want to thank God for giving people the opportunity to taste heaven in their passionate feelings for each other. When Emily Bronte wrote '“He’s more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same.”… I marvel at the fact that a child and a family could grow from that garden of passion and bloom. When W H Auden wrote “Stop All the Clocks” I experience that heartwrenching vacuum that spouses who’ve grown over the years like an exquisite tree from a grafted sappling, have when death separates them in this fallen world. I think the ‘grafting’ of souls in a passionate marriage is the most beautiful thing on Gods green earth bar none.

Um, will you marry me?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I am a romantic and I love the idea of a man and a woman with a godly passion for each other and the heat that it generates all around it. Mr Darcy and Lizzie Benet make my heart sing and want to thank God for giving people the opportunity to taste heaven in their passionate feelings for each other. When Emily Bronte wrote '“He’s more myself than I am. Whatever our souls are made of, his and mine are the same.”… I marvel at the fact that a child and a family could grow from that garden of passion and bloom.

While I agree with you about Darcy and Elizabeth, I think the kind of romanticism spouted off by Cathy and Heathcliff, actually is NOT meant to be healthy, nor is Emily Bronte actually endorsing their actions. Yes, they do love each other, but both them sure trample over a lot of other people for the sake of their “love”. I always felt bad for the Lintons in that story. You know, the ones Cathy and Heathcliff actually married, then proceeded to cruelly abuse?

Sure, the Hollywood version romanticizes it all, but the two do not come off as well in the original book. Indeed, I can’t think of any of the Bronte sisters using romanticism as an excuse for adultery. (Though to be fair, there’s no real evidence Cathy and Heathcliff ever consummated their “romance”. But there are some suggestive passages, such as their often meeting up in the Fairy Cave at the base of Peni*tone Rock. Still can’t believe that got past the Victorian censors.)

Jane Eyre loves Mr. Rochester, but refuses to become his mistress. In the Tenant of Wildfell Hall, written by Anne Bronte, the narrator falls for a woman, not knowing she is married and in hiding from her abusive husband. But in both stories, the couples do not get involved until after the married love interest is widowed. Maybe you could argue it’s a little too convenient that the spouses both die to allow that to happen. But both Mr. Rochester and Helen Graham actually try to save their spouses from death. (Though come to think of it, both marriages likely would have been declared null if reviewed by a Catholic annulment tribunal.)

Though ironically, the Brontes’ wayward brother, Branwell, had an affair with a married woman and may have even fathered a child on her. But Branwell had a bad end, and I don’t think his sisters approved of his actions at all.

When W H Auden wrote “Stop All the Clocks” I experience that heartwrenching vacuum that spouses who’ve grown over the years like an exquisite tree from a grafted sappling, have when death separates them in this fallen world. I think the ‘grafting’ of souls in a passionate marriage is the most beautiful thing on Gods green earth bar none.

I agree, I have seen happy “old married couples” and envy their love.

 

[white_sheep]

No. The idea behind it is that if you are with the right person everything will always be easy. Ergo, if it ever gets hard you are with the wrong person and should go find your real soulmate. Marriage isn’t always easy. Neither is loving your spouse, nor honoring them, nor cherishing them, nor treating them as if they were your own flesh. Those things have to be done anyway, they are the vows you take. You make a vow to love. That’s an important understanding. Sometimes it takes effort on your part.

 

[TMO]

The truth is there is more than one suitable partner for everyone in this world. God guides us and shows us if the person we love is suitable for marriage, but it’s not the only one, because we get to choose, that’s where love truly takes form. Knowing that grass may be greener on the other side, but choosing that person, flaws and all to be our life companions in our journey towards heaven. So no, I don’t believe in “soulmates”. I believe God puts people in our lives and if both God’s and our desires align (wich happens rarely), then we’ve found a suitable partner for life.