Explaining the process of Courting

[LaMusicaSenior]

So, I really want to thank everyone for their thoughts on this again!

This thread has given me a lot of answers to the orignal question that I started the thread for, and it as also given me a lot to think about.

I have been sitting back and thinking about a lot of these posts as the thread plays out, just to explain my absence. Wanted to be able to think about them from a distance, not be in the thick of

But, thanks for this all again, and I will definatly take the advice to heart.

May God guide you all on your vocational and life journies - keep me in your prayers, as I’d really appreciate and value it, and I’ll do the same!

God bless each of you,
Chloe M.

 

[Baelor]

These are my standards, and I wish to be pursued, not to do the pursuing. So this is one of the requirements for me.

Whatever. I hope that you find someone who likes arbitrary requirements, because that most certainly is one, unless you can justify it at an individual level without any reference to circumstances outside your own.

When one in typical modern dating, spends time only with one person and does’t observe them in their enviroment and how they treat others, they have a false impression of the person.

Your disagreement has no basis whatsoever, and you are wrong at a factual level. Modern dating does not involve two people in isolation communicating with only each other. Dates occur in restaurants, on walks, in movie theaters, paintball fields, beaches, airplanes, anything. All of these involve communication with other people.

Honestly, I do not even understand why you think your statement makes any sense. Could you help me understand what you are actually saying? Because right now, you are stating that a couple is capable of ordering their food telepathically when they go out to dinner.

Furthermore, the notion that courting (familial presence) involves “genuine” behavior makes me want to laugh but also feel like I am dying a bit inside. Why would people in those circumstances be any less prone to alter their behavior to give a good impression?

I don’t question the approprietness of my parents helping me with boundries in a relationship. They are my parents, and I trust their advice. They would be the first ones I seek out in a problem.

At what point does your significant other and his opinions take precedence over those of your parents?

Mothers and sisters are women in his life who he interacts with on a daily basis, as he would be interacting with me on a daily basis. His interactions with his family is an importan indication to how he would treat me.

Those statement do not justify what you seem to suggest they do. I asked something specific: why is his behavior toward other females specifically the only relevant (or primary) consideration?

I really have to question this. Can you give me evidence? I’m not sure I’m comprehending what your saying.

Yes. Read all of the marriage documents that exist in the Catholic Church and point out anything that suggests there is a soul mate. Also consider whether the documents suggest anything about God leading you to one individual that you ought to marry.

I believe that God will guide me to the young man that I am to marry if this is His will for me. Are you saying God cannot do this? Becuase this is very contradictory to God Himself and His abilty to accomplish anything.

The fact that God is omnipotent does not mean he is omnificent. Catholic teaching does not include the belief that God will guide you to the young man that you are to marry. You are more than welcome to believe that, but it is heterodox.

 

[bstorm]

chevalier:

Just to clarify, it was not the Opening Poster who made that statement, it was a different person.

For the record, I too think that the OP should pursue her dreams with the courting, so to say. If you believe that’s right, and if your family supports you in it and if you’re ready to accept the consequences, then by all means. But I’d like to warn you about the dangers of falling victim of formulaic thinking, casuistry, oversimplifications, prejudice against other people or even against yourself. You need a type of courting that will be liberating and elevating, not a type that will make you small and controlled, and keep you low. Understand what precautions are for and why they are there, don’t fall in love with the precautions themselves. Don’t fall in love with the strictness of the discipline, it’s not a goal to itself, it’s only a method, even a precaution, simply. At the same time, it will not relieve you of the need to be prudent and keep thinking for yourself and fighting for your purity (no set of rules will do that for you on its own). Don’t fall in love with the tough talk of fundamentalist preachers, either. Don’t let the courting you want be stiffening, it must be something to help you grow.

Thank you for pointing that out. I agree with the above, not much else to add. OP : I am sorry for the confusion. I hope you will find what you are looking for.

 

[underacloud]

I think you need to read this.

Thanks for the link; it presents another perspective and the OP should give it a read. I agree with much of what it says.

I think there is some equivocation on the word love, which obviously has many meanings, and I don’t think it at all contradicts my point; but I should clarify. At the start of a dating/courting process, the two people can choose to love one another in the sense that we are called to love all people; they treat each other with respect, etc. But the romantic love will not have developed yet, which is what I was referring to. Without this romantic love being established yet, a man may lack the motivation to enter a strict courting process that he disagrees.

In fact, the article makes the point about how many potentially suitable spouses there are for each of us, so a young man has many options and may see a strict courting process as an unnecessary hurdle. Equally, a young woman may consider that she has many options and so will use a strict dating process to eliminate some up front. I just think there may be many great potential spouses that would see dating (in a good, Catholic, marriage oriented sense) as the way to go about it. So some consideration of the subtle differences between dating and courting may be helpful in avoiding ruling out good suitors on a fairly unimportant (and somewhat semantic as the OP has noted earlier) distinction.

 

[chevalier]

Thanks for the link; it presents another perspective and the OP should give it a read. I agree with much of what it says.

I think there is some equivocation on the word love, which obviously has many meanings, and I don’t think it at all contradicts my point; but I should clarify. At the start of a dating/courting process, the two people can choose to love one another in the sense that we are called to love all people; they treat each other with respect, etc. But the romantic love will not have developed yet, which is what I was referring to. Without this romantic love being established yet, a man may lack the motivation to enter a strict courting process that he disagrees.

In fact, the article makes the point about how many potentially suitable spouses there are for each of us, so a young man has many options and may see a strict courting process as an unnecessary hurdle. Equally, a young woman may consider that she has many options and so will use a strict dating process to eliminate some up front. I just think there may be many great potential spouses that would see dating (in a good, Catholic, marriage oriented sense) as the way to go about it. So some consideration of the subtle differences between dating and courting may be helpful in avoiding ruling out good suitors on a fairly unimportant (and somewhat semantic as the OP has noted earlier) distinction.

Yes, there is a difference between love of one’s neighbour, which is basically charity, and spousal love (or romantic love). It is possible to will oneself into loving someone as long as the definition doesn’t include something actually independent from will. It would be more difficult, even though theoretically possible, to love just about anyone spousally. (Which, in fairness, the Author does say, i.e. “in all probability you will not,” or something to that effect.) But, as I believe, love, and especially spousal love, is not something we should see as devoid of emotion, independent from “the heart”, as if feelings weren’t there or as if we weren’t moved by emotion. Even though love is indeed something deeper than that.

 

[EasterJoy]

True but we’re also a species with free will and a high degree of advancement. In fact, we can’t be said to be simply the highest form of animals, the difference is more qualitative than that. Both sexes face temptations of promiscuity, cheating, bigamy. I’ve just been Googling for some marriage betrayal statistics (in a loose connection with “harem”). Last ones I saw were around 15% for both sexes, with some number of men bringing up children of other men (which I’d suspect to be harder on the family than the knowledge that the father has a child on the side). I realise that adultery is a separate subject but I want to argue that immorality is a problem shared between the sexes and while we have some differences, it can’t really be said that either sex is morally superior in its behaviour. We don’t seem to have a disagreement on this, which I’m glad to see.

I’m not sure to what extent that remains true in a world where women are more emancipated, birth control is available, social stigma on premarital relations is less etc. Also, from an evolutionary point of view, you could argue, in theory, that a female being only needs to keep the male being around (or even a male being, not necessarily the same one all the time – you must be familiar with at least some of those articles that deal with the difference between the man to have children with and the man to bring children up with), doesn’t necessarily need to limit relations to that one specific male being other than the male being refusing to cooperate if he doesn’t receive exlusivity or if he questions the paternity of the offspring etc.

It could be in the selfish interest of either sex to tolerate promiscuity in that sex while outlawing it in the other but overall, it’s in the shared interest of both sexes to stamp out promiscuity completely: so that the females are not abandoned and so that the males are sure of the paternity of the offspring. On the other hand there is always a temptation, regardless of the sex, to cheat the system and assure some additional benefits for oneself.

I used to think that way but experience (subjective as it is) has taught me otherwise. Nowadays I tend to think that both sexes desire sex equally and all the more so where the most traditional roles of the sexes are no longer the case (e.g. where everybody has a degree, works for a corporation, is part of the rat race) and for obvious reasons where birth control is available and believed to be acceptable. I especially definitely don’t think that men have more temper, more appetite, than women do. I think there are various myths and when people encounter behaviour that can be seen to confirm a myth, they will see it that way. As a result, we end up having stereotypes and thinking they’re all confirmed in real life.

I really don’t want to get into some kind of ping-pong but in old moral theology there’s the pattern of the woman as the temptress of man. Or even of men as more capable of controlling their desires presumably on account of supposedly more willpower.

Please note that there are at least as many threads at the CAF about uninterested husbands as there are about frigid wives.

I’m concerned that such controlling behaviour by parents is pretty much written into the system, at least the way the system seems to be with most people. Or at least most of the people who talk about it. See the pattern? 19th century English. Phrasing from a telepreacher. Language that makes you feel like you’re a guilty child in the process of being justly admonished by its protectors and care-takers (yes, I am emulating that language right now on purpose, to illustrate the point), who in their wisdom see through through all of the child’s excuses and juvenile errors (and if your parents say you did, you did it). That’s something I see as a sick atmosphere, as sick as tropical fever. And it’s contagious. If it rubs off too much on the youngsters, there’s doom coming. I can easily see a host of canon 1095 claims in the perspective of a couple of years.

Exactly. And that’s not a standard acceptable in polite society.

Just to clarify, it was not the Opening Poster who made that statement, it was a different person.

For the record, I too think that the OP should pursue her dreams with the courting, so to say. If you believe that’s right, and if your family supports you in it and if you’re ready to accept the consequences, then by all means. But I’d like to warn you about the dangers of falling victim of formulaic thinking, casuistry, oversimplifications, prejudice against other people or even against yourself. You need a type of courting that will be liberating and elevating, not a type that will make you small and controlled, and keep you low. Understand what precautions are for and why they are there, don’t fall in love with the precautions themselves. Don’t fall in love with the strictness of the discipline, it’s not a goal to itself, it’s only a method, even a precaution, simply. At the same time, it will not relieve you of the need to be prudent and keep thinking for yourself and fighting for your purity (no set of rules will do that for you on its own). Don’t fall in love with the tough talk of fundamentalist preachers, either. Don’t let the courting you want be stiffening, it must be something to help you grow.

The point that societal pressures to make oneself into an object for sexual gratification are pervasive, so toxic, and so out of proportion even with biological urges is well-made. Both genders have that to deal with.

 

[Greg_N]

Thanks for the link; it presents another perspective and the OP should give it a read. I agree with much of what it says.

I think there is some equivocation on the word love, which obviously has many meanings, and I don’t think it at all contradicts my point; but I should clarify. At the start of a dating/courting process, the two people can choose to love one another in the sense that we are called to love all people; they treat each other with respect, etc. But the romantic love will not have developed yet, which is what I was referring to. Without this romantic love being established yet, a man may lack the motivation to enter a strict courting process that he disagrees.

To some extent I agree with you… But see, I believe that the “romantic love” you speak of will manifest itself if they both remain mutually open to the idea through (love) or what you would call “mutual respect”. I think if a male does lack motivation, it is in a very trivial and rash sense… (I will explain this further toward the end of this post).
And sorry if I initially came across as brash, I was just playing devil’s advocate. Lol

I think ‘thewanderer’ summed up the dating/courting conundrum quite simply, (in response to someone who was against the idea of courting):

She implied that dating was always problematic, you are implying that courting is always problematic, neither of which are true. They can both be problematic and they can both be wonderful and healthy.

After you weigh up the pros and cons, it really just comes down to personal preference. I’ve seen quite an unenthusiastic response to the young girls idea of ‘courting’ within this thread, which to me is a little baffling. In all honesty, if I came across a girl who endorsed the idea as she had; I would find it extremely refreshing and even attractive, especially in the context of contemporary society – and I’m no prude.

But the romantic love will not have developed yet, which is what I was referring to. Without this romantic love being established yet, a man may lack the motivation to enter a strict courting process that he disagrees.

I will answer this along with chevaliers response >

Yes, there is a difference between love of one’s neighbour, which is basically charity, and spousal love (or romantic love). It is possible to will oneself into loving someone as long as the definition doesn’t include something actually independent from will. It would be more difficult, even though theoretically possible, to love just about anyone spousally. (Which, in fairness, the Author does say, i.e. “in all probability you will not,” or something to that effect.) But, as I believe, love, and especially spousal love, is not something we should see as devoid of emotion, independent from “the heart”, as if feelings weren’t there or as if we weren’t moved by emotion. Even though love is indeed something deeper than that.

The idea of love is what I believe this entire thread boils down to.

You touch on this idea of “spousal love” and “romantic love”, but I don’t believe such a thing is separate from the most quintessential form of love - that which is God. You cannot separate the two without inconsistency.

My argument is thus; that you don’t only see ‘true love’ in the sacrament of matrimony, but you can see it through a great number of things, and that the ‘love’ that Christ spoke of, was indeed ‘true love’; it was not a separate form of ‘love’ as you have categorized it.

For instance, I believe that one can perceive true love through the willful actions of a holy priest, who willfully sacrifices worldly passions and desires to become a shepherd of the people in union with God; a God who is pure love.

You can see it in a great many of the saints… (one who strikes me as the most profound in this sense would be St Francis of Assisi); a man who ‘loved women but vowed himself to chastity (as does a priest); he was an artist who loved the pleasures of the natural world as few have loved them, but yet vowed himself to the most austere poverty, stripping himself naked in the public square so all could see that he had renounced his worldly goods; a once wealthy man who chose to live with lepers.

And you can see it personified through the inexhaustible love of the son of God; Jesus Christ, who laid down his life for all humanity and suffered unwarranted and indescribable agony for our sins.

The catechism explains that: “1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.90”

In no way does this belittle your idea of “spousal love” but it elevates it to a level of precision by revealing that what the true romantic seeks, can only be consummated within a Christian worldview and structure.

peace

 

[chevalier]

You touch on this idea of “spousal love” and “romantic love”, but I don’t believe such a thing is separate from the most quintessential form of love - that which is God. You cannot separate the two without inconsistency.

Nice try but nobody here is proposing the idea of separating God from love. You can defeat every argument — seemingly — if you make it look like it excludes God, doesn’t put God first etc. But that doesn’t rely on solid logic, it has more to do with writing to captivate the audience (this is the same type of point we’ve been dealing with before in this thread). Eros exists, not only agape. There is place for eros, eros is not damned, condemnable. While eros should be placed under agape, you cannot argue that marriage is an entirely “agapic” affair.

My argument is thus; that you don’t only see ‘true love’ in the sacrament of matrimony, but you can see it through a great number of things, and that the ‘love’ that Christ spoke of, was indeed ‘true love’; it was not a separate form of ‘love’ as you have categorized it.

I did? Well, open Love and Responsibility by Karol Wojtyla, future John Paul II. That’s directly where I got the categorisation from. He actually does much more categorisation than I do.

But the point is simple anyway. Charity, agape, doesn’t involve sexuality (other than in a broad sense relating to our identity, as we’re either male or female and we do things differently, think differently etc.). The spousal love does. The sacrament of matrimony is a whole different type of union with your neighbour than the normal, typical exercise of charity/agape.

For instance, I believe that one can perceive true love through the willful actions of a holy priest, who willfully sacrifices worldly passions and desires to become a shepherd of the people in union with God; a God who is pure love.

Of course that is true love but you’re missing two things:

1. I never said it was not. Contrary, I have said the opposite, although not directly. I’ve expressly affirmed that there are other types of love than spousal love… and I never said that only spousal love was true love (please note “true” love is a category that you’ve introduced to help illustrate the point you’re making, it’s not a category I was using in illustrating mine).
2. There is difference between the type of love you mention and spousal love. Spousal love does involve sexual desire, sexual attraction, matching. And there’s nothing wrong with the fact it does.

You can see it in a great many of the saints… (one who strikes me as the most profound in this sense would be St Francis of Assisi); a man who ‘loved women but vowed himself to chastity (as does a priest); he was an artist who loved the pleasures of the natural world as few have loved them, but yet vowed himself to the most austere poverty, stripping himself naked in the public square so all could see that he had renounced his worldly goods; a once wealthy man who chose to live with lepers.

Yes but there’s a couple of things you must notice:

1. Extolling St. Francis doesn’t elevate your point or discredit mine.
2. While there is a link between the two vocations and each of them actually illustrates the value of the other, you can’t really give celibacy as an example of spousal love and married life. We aren’t really aiming at Josephite marriages.

And you can see it personified through the inexhaustible love of the son of God; Jesus Christ, who laid down his life for all humanity and suffered unwarranted and indescribable agony for our sins.

Again, calling on truths does not make my points false. You need to demonstrate how what you’re now saying actually discredits my position. To disprove a point through proving another you need to show contradiction between what you’re proving and what you’re disproving.

In no way does this belittle your idea of “spousal love” but it elevates it to a level of precision by revealing that what the true romantic seeks, can only be consummated within a Christian worldview and structure.

1. It’s not mine, it’s God’s. In fact, theologians tend to cast celibacy in the perspective of spousal love with God as its target.
2. There’s a bit of a non-sequitur there. You could quote a lot of good and valid points from the Catechism but that doesn’t make my position wrong or false. You’d need to show how I contradicted the Catechism for the quotations to have that effect. And there’d need to be link: basically, the quotations would need to stay on topic with what they’re supposed to discredit.

 

[chevalier]

The point that societal pressures to make oneself into an object for sexual gratification are pervasive, so toxic, and so out of proportion even with biological urges is well-made. Both genders have that to deal with.

It’s worth nothing that sexual pleasure is not wrong in itself, in fact it’s good and spouses do nothing wrong in seeking it, unless it’s sought in an abstract from the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage. There is nothing wrong with attraction being a factor and even a guide (one of), let alone a prerequisite (again, one of) in one’s choice of a partner. Marriage is not about mortifying your passions to grow in holiness by choosing a person you’re not attracted to or better yet, you’re repelled by. That’d be absurd. And yet some posts in some threads here give me the idea that the thought is not alien to many.

 

[chevalier]

But the reason I got up at 3 a.m. to post instead of catching some sleep is different actually. And it’s actually going to be at least technically off-topic. But we’ve broached it, and it actually is relevant:

Communication.

Communication is an important aspect of both finding and maintaining relationships. According to an article I read a while ago this sleepless night brought up a certain psychologist’s claim that our identity wasn’t really sharply defined, it was more of a dialogue matter. As in, we had several dialoguing identities that we chose among. Flirting (but in reality that’d be basically any type of conversation that helps us find if we’re compatible or get the other party interested in the idea of a relationship with us) involved those identities in such a way that, in short, if the other party didn’t have in his or her repertoire the identity we were proposing (e.g. an independent woman who doesn’t want to be passive), then it wouldn’t work (in fact, that other person would not realise we were trying to flirt). The various types of messages sent between the man and woman aren’t really important (or which of them are more successful than others), I think, what’s important is to actually communicate and pick up the other person’s signals, listen to what he’s saying, his expectations, what he’s offering etc. The other article dealt with a more serious subject. Actually, it was divorce prevention, counselling. Unsurprisingly, that involved a lot of marriage prep. And this is basically the reason I’m posting this right now: to suggest that people take a communication course when able. Talking about problems, sizing them up in a non-destructive way. Coping with the stress associated with conflict. Learning to solve conflicts and differences rather than escaping (with the pinnacle of escape being divorce due to “irreconcilable differences”), discussing the problem without putting the other person down, taking it calmly when the other person is reacting emotionally, trying to see things from the other person’s perspective, expressing our own perspective better, getting out of the compromise mindset (50/50 or even 60/40) and trying to develop win-win situations instead (e.g. 60/60 out of what only seems to be a 100 total). These are all things that can be learnt and there are people who teach them. These skills are not much different from the skills of lawyers, politicians, sales reps, in fact it’s the same skills, only application differs. Training such skills to some extent would be beneficial in many aspects of life. I believe such training should be strongly encouraged for all young people at university anyway, at least as long as their field of study involves dealing with people. It helps. It helps with relationships (of all kinds), it helps with jobs.

Before marrying, it’s particularly important to communicate about our expectations. As Karl Keating wrote in that letter, marriage is what you make of it under grace. But people have various individual visions of marriage. Obviously various different goals in life. It’s important to find someone whose aspirations are actually compatible with ours. Goals in life, where he or she wants to live. Degree of openness to new experience, change. Readiness to accommodate, adapt. Degree of autonomy needed. Level of attention needed (or how much time together vs alone). Children: when, how many (obviously “if” may be a problem too with someone who doesn’t have a Catholic understanding of marriage), what schools, how to bring them up (especially in mixed religion marriages, mixed cultures, languages, political views, social backgrounds etc.), perhaps who does what in the household (not a contract but a conversation to find out where we stand with our expectations). These and many other things need to be sorted out but often are not. (For the record, yeah, “courting” purports to cover some of these things. And observation may be more reliable than verbal answers we get when asking. But talking about it may still be necessary.)

(And once again, there’s nothing wrong with seeking to marry someone compatible in these regards rather than “sacrificing” it from the get go. People who think it’s holier to rise above such a superficial thing as compatibility in mate selection get it wrong.)

 

[Greg_N]

Nice try but nobody here is proposing the idea of separating God from love. You can defeat every argument — seemingly — if you make it look like it excludes God, doesn’t put God first etc. But that doesn’t rely on solid logic, it has more to do with writing to captivate the audience (this is the same type of point we’ve been dealing with before in this thread)… …While eros should be placed under agape, you cannot argue that marriage is an entirely “agapic” affair.

What “captivates” me is solid logic, from which, I thought a simple deconstruction of ‘eros’ would leave it (in my mind) as nothing but a mere extension of what you are referring to as ‘agape’. I have back-peddled on my own stance though, as you have opened my mind somewhat to the importance of eros.

The sacrament of matrimony is a whole different type of union with your neighbour than the normal, typical exercise of charity/agape.

I think we would both agree with C.S. Lewis in that agape is “a selfless love, a love that was passionately committed to the well-being of the other”. In this sense though, the Sacrament of matrimony could indeed be purely an “agapic affair”; (a morbid example would be; that after a marriage, [possibly through health issues or an accident] either a husband or wife were unable to indulge in eros as the desire may no longer present itself as it once did, let alone be physically acted upon).

My questions from this revelation of the couple were:
-]

• What does eros become under such circumstances?
• Regardless of said accident/health issue, what if eros dissipated over the years as they grew old?
• And, if it did indeed dissipate, would that not negate your idea of spousal love?

/-]
Anyhow, I now find these issues somewhat irrelevant as I have just skimmed over the ‘Deus Caritas Est’ (‘God is Love’) encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI; wherein he argues that eros and agape are not distinct kinds of love, but are separate halves of complete love, unified as both a giving and receiving. - I agree with this. (even though his definition of eros may be a little different to yours?)

But - I’ve also drawn the conclusion, that after the sacrament of matrimony (in which we have sanctified an oath with God), that regardless of whether or not eros between a couple dissipates; agape should still be present through the power of will, (not factoring in that even a mutual break-up between the pair would still negate the initial oath with God). Such a circumstance is quite disheartening - but we all have our crosses in life.

There is place for eros, eros is not damned, condemnable…

…There is difference between the type of love you mention and spousal love. Spousal love does involve sexual desire, sexual attraction, matching. And there’s nothing wrong with the fact it does…

Although you were correct in that “there is place for eros”; the fact that spousal love (eros) within a marriage can be demonstrated to be reduced to nothing but agape did (i think) discredit your point somewhat. I also never said that there was anything inherently wrong with sexuality… but I now realize if that was indeed the case, then there may also be nothing inherently wrong with eros.

Honestly, I was fraternizing with the idea that eros may be nothing more than the teleological necessity to procreate; as food sustains the immune system, eros sustains the population. Although I have always understood the physicality of man and woman intertwined as one flesh in sexual union/procreation as a personified and marvelous beauty - but placing all significance on the act alone is obviously detrimental… no one argues that. I guess the importance which is placed on sexuality within contemporary society has hindered my outward acceptance of it wholeheartedly, but as I have already stated, I’m definitely no prude or at least, I never thought I was… haha

In my prior post, my opinion was that agape outshines eros as a love that is passionately committed to the well-being of the other, and was the ‘true love’ which I referred to; I was thinking along the lines that sacrificing personal emotion and infatuation was a reflection of the purest form of love - something which stands beyond eros. But I see now, that eros is the other (although often unstable) side of the same coin.

cheers for the enlightening discourse chevalier

 

[chevalier]

I guess from what B16 wrote you could also argue that there’s eros in agape in that every love hopes for reciprocation.

But what I want to stress — and I’d like to do it on a common sense level, without getting lost in a discussion of semantics, precise delineations etc. — is that the way spouses love is not the same way siblings love. Spousal love is not friendship + sex or agape + sex, there is a difference there. Whatever wrongs or evils we can attribute to concepts of romance, romantic love, I think they have some merit in pointing this out.

Karol Wojtyla in Love and Responsibility provided a rather exhaustive analysis of what happens where (so to say), in no way neglecting how much love can be found in relationships that are not spousal love, and in no way suggesting that simple sexual desire deserves that noble name, either. Worth noting is that Love and Responsibility, albeit a private theologian’s work, refers specifically to relationships between a man and a woman, whereas Deus Caritas Est doesn’t really. We would need to listen to B16 talk specifically about the subject. It would be interesting to hear what he had to say.

But - I’ve also drawn the conclusion, that after the sacrament of matrimony (in which we have sanctified an oath with God), that regardless of whether or not eros between a couple dissipates; agape should still be present through the power of will, (not factoring in that even a mutual break-up between the pair would still negate the initial oath with God). Such a circumstance is quite disheartening - but we all have our crosses in life.

What I always want to underline in such situations is that we in no way need to accept the sad reality that desire is gone, “being in love” is gone etc. I guess people who are inclined so may conclude that now they are free to engage exclusively in agape/charity, which would basically be similar to pursuing celibacy together. On the other hand, “romantic love” is not totally independent from will, it can be rekindled, it can be found when lost, it can be started anew when previously gone, I guess. I’m inclined to think that at the end of the day it only requires openness to the idea. (Being open to it could be construed as already having at least a grain of it; without openness, in turn, it just won’t happen unless perhaps among young people with hot tempers and somewhat self-contradictory personalities. )

I am inclined to connect the above with the “heretical” idea that it’s not wrong to pursue earthly happiness and make what we can of life (which is again something JP2 said, he actually claimed it was a duty).

 

[chevalier]

Honestly, I was fraternizing with the idea that eros may be nothing more than the teleological necessity to procreate; as food sustains the immune system, eros sustains the population.

No wonder in the light of mediaeval theology but I don’t think it sits well with more biblical imaginations. Perhaps sexual intercourse itself has a simpler and more teleological role than a modern person would be inclined to believe, but there’s being created “man and woman”, there’s the Song of Songs, and the wedding at Kana. (Even though there are also the eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom, which is a better way in Our Lord’s own words, and the characteristic advice of St. Paul later.) I don’t want to say it’s not about agape. Well, it is primarily about agape anyway (and what often seems to be missing from romantic relationships is not romantic love but the love of one’s neighbour, even if that neighbour is one’s romantic partner (supposed to be a flawless prince(ss) charming)). But there’s an entire dimension of love there that’s not proper outside marriage, it’s not just sex.

Although I have always understood the physicality of man and woman intertwined as one flesh in sexual union/procreation as a personified and marvelous beauty - but placing all significance on the act alone is obviously detrimental… no one argues that.

Yes, of course.

I guess the importance which is placed on sexuality within contemporary society has hindered my outward acceptance of it wholeheartedly, but as I have already stated, I’m definitely no prude or at least, I never thought I was… haha

Can’t say things are easy for me either.

In my prior post, my opinion was that agape outshines eros as a love that is passionately committed to the well-being of the other, and was the ‘true love’ which I referred to; I was thinking along the lines that sacrificing personal emotion and infatuation was a reflection of the purest form of love - something which stands beyond eros. But I see now, that eros is the other (although often unstable) side of the same coin.

Sacrificing personal emotion and infatuation for the sake of God and His will is something some saints have done indeed. St. Jadwiga (link) supposedly married a neighbouring pagan ruler to convert himself, his family and his subjects, despite being passionately in love and actually engaged with another prince at the time. It was such a horrible experience that even reading a poetic (and therefore imaginary, of course) account of her internal struggle is traumatising.

…But she had a clear purpose. She didn’t do it for personal perfection or because of thinking that it’s superior to pick a man you don’t love over a man you love.

At work, we first go to school, we pick an occupation that we like and think we could enjoy and do well, we pick a company that offers good benefits (better than other companies), we accept and even ask for raises, promotions and so on. (Which is a temporal thing, of course, but we aren’t quite monastics.) We don’t report to a horrible company for a meh job in forever the same low position, do we? (Notwithstanding the merit that is found in humbly accepting one’s adverse circumstances and getting over one’s pride.)

But obviously, we can’t pick on attraction alone or even predominately (as in picking a pretty femme fatale that’ll turn our life into an emotional roller-coaster or a dark and handsome guy that has a propensity to violence against women). With time and effort (and prayer), our attraction will reflect our consciously chosen beliefs, we will also be able to tell between fleeting attraction based on superficial grounds and admiration or appreciation based on a person’s objectively good qualities that actually matter. JP2 put a lot of emphasis on such reality checks but he did it very delicately, respectfully (unlike what a mediaeval theologian can sound like to a modern reader).

Also, picking someone who’s a good companion because we need it (and, sure, are attracted to people who exhibit the associated traits) is not the same as picking someone on a sexual fetish (physical “genital” sensation triggered by whatever we’re after).

 

[Crescentinus]

From my experience, I grew up learning about courtship but I never found an application for it. O:

 

[chevalier]

From my experience, I grew up learning about courtship but I never found an application for it. O:

I’ve heard some beta software will be released soon!

 

[Crescentinus]

I’ve heard some beta software will be released soon!

By that, I meant that I was never able to do any courting by the time I was in my teen years!

 

[EasterJoy]

True but we’re also a species with free will and a high degree of advancement. In fact, we can’t be said to be simply the highest form of animals, the difference is more qualitative than that. Both sexes face temptations of promiscuity, cheating, bigamy. I’ve just been Googling for some marriage betrayal statistics (in a loose connection with “harem”). Last ones I saw were around 15% for both sexes, with some number of men bringing up children of other men (which I’d suspect to be harder on the family than the knowledge that the father has a child on the side). I realise that adultery is a separate subject but I want to argue that immorality is a problem shared between the sexes and while we have some differences, it can’t really be said that either sex is morally superior in its behaviour. We don’t seem to have a disagreement on this, which I’m glad to see.

I’m not sure to what extent that remains true in a world where women are more emancipated, birth control is available, social stigma on premarital relations is less etc. Also, from an evolutionary point of view, you could argue, in theory, that a female being only needs to keep the male being around (or even a male being, not necessarily the same one all the time – you must be familiar with at least some of those articles that deal with the difference between the man to have children with and the man to bring children up with), doesn’t necessarily need to limit relations to that one specific male being other than the male being refusing to cooperate if he doesn’t receive exlusivity or if he questions the paternity of the offspring etc.

It could be in the selfish interest of either sex to tolerate promiscuity in that sex while outlawing it in the other but overall, it’s in the shared interest of both sexes to stamp out promiscuity completely: so that the females are not abandoned and so that the males are sure of the paternity of the offspring. On the other hand there is always a temptation, regardless of the sex, to cheat the system and assure some additional benefits for oneself.

I used to think that way but experience (subjective as it is) has taught me otherwise. Nowadays I tend to think that both sexes desire sex equally and all the more so where the most traditional roles of the sexes are no longer the case (e.g. where everybody has a degree, works for a corporation, is part of the rat race) and for obvious reasons where birth control is available and believed to be acceptable. I especially definitely don’t think that men have more temper, more appetite, than women do. I think there are various myths and when people encounter behaviour that can be seen to confirm a myth, they will see it that way. As a result, we end up having stereotypes and thinking they’re all confirmed in real life.

I really don’t want to get into some kind of ping-pong but in old moral theology there’s the pattern of the woman as the temptress of man. Or even of men as more capable of controlling their desires presumably on account of supposedly more willpower.

Please note that there are at least as many threads at the CAF about uninterested husbands as there are about frigid wives.

I’m concerned that such controlling behaviour by parents is pretty much written into the system, at least the way the system seems to be with most people. Or at least most of the people who talk about it. See the pattern? 19th century English. Phrasing from a telepreacher. Language that makes you feel like you’re a guilty child in the process of being justly admonished by its protectors and care-takers (yes, I am emulating that language right now on purpose, to illustrate the point), who in their wisdom see through through all of the child’s excuses and juvenile errors (and if your parents say you did, you did it). That’s something I see as a sick atmosphere, as sick as tropical fever. And it’s contagious. If it rubs off too much on the youngsters, there’s doom coming. I can easily see a host of canon 1095 claims in the perspective of a couple of years.

Exactly. And that’s not a standard acceptable in polite society.

Just to clarify, it was not the Opening Poster who made that statement, it was a different person.

For the record, I too think that the OP should pursue her dreams with the courting, so to say. If you believe that’s right, and if your family supports you in it and if you’re ready to accept the consequences, then by all means. But I’d like to warn you about the dangers of falling victim of formulaic thinking, casuistry, oversimplifications, prejudice against other people or even against yourself. You need a type of courting that will be liberating and elevating, not a type that will make you small and controlled, and keep you low. Understand what precautions are for and why they are there, don’t fall in love with the precautions themselves. Don’t fall in love with the strictness of the discipline, it’s not a goal to itself, it’s only a method, even a precaution, simply. At the same time, it will not relieve you of the need to be prudent and keep thinking for yourself and fighting for your purity (no set of rules will do that for you on its own). Don’t fall in love with the tough talk of fundamentalist preachers, either. Don’t let the courting you want be stiffening, it must be something to help you grow.

Your thoughts raise another thought with me: There is something the old moral theology and the biologists do not take into their calculations, and that is the pervasive use of sex to sell things in Western society. It is not only the desire to indulge personal lusts that merchants inflame in order to sell things. They also resort constantly to instilling and inflamming irrational fears that one might not be found “worthy” of the exterior validation of being an object of lust for others, including total strangers, and that this exterior validation is to be sought above all other things. Heaven forbid, say those who sell things, that you fail to buy what I’m peddling and as a result fail to be found “sexy”. When they occasionally stray from using sex to sell, it is still some form of self-gratification or pride or fear that is usually used to drive the buyers. Actual need or even proportional desires for aesthetic value too rarely sell enough, or compete well enough.

That foils all the math. It has distorted the view both men and women have of themselves and each other, far beyond even the natural level of distortion that we suffer due to original sin. Honestly, while I am in favor of free speech, I see it as one of the great evils of our time. Yet it has been so tightly associated with freedom of thought in the public mind that it is almost impossible to object to the the predation of the buying public without objecting to true freedom .

IOW, our morals have been ruined as a side effect of the operation of greed. How sad is that? Why would people not see each other as lechers, if the merchants constantly say that? Why would they not feel pressured to dress themselves up and act like a piece of meat in a case, trying to sell itself out of a fear that it will rot and be thrown out if not purchased? It is these things, taken with the economic advantage of continuing an all-consuming education throught the mid-20s, and not biology or default-level concupiscence, nor a false sense of “Victorian shame”, that are what are driving the unfortunate need for boundaries in courtship. Which sex has more or less will power? Who knows, anymore?

Like it or not, and 18 year old looking for opposite-sex companionship probably needs to be more careful now than in 1930, not less.

 

[Greg_N]

I guess from what B16 wrote you could also argue that there’s eros in agape in that every love hopes for reciprocation.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing… it’s like you can’t have one without (at least) a portion of the other.

Karol Wojtyla in Love and Responsibility provided a rather exhaustive analysis of what happens where (so to say), in no way neglecting how much love can be found in relationships that are not spousal love, and in no way suggesting that simple sexual desire deserves that noble name, either. Worth noting is that Love and Responsibility, albeit a private theologian’s work, refers specifically to relationships between a man and a woman, whereas Deus Caritas Est doesn’t really. We would need to listen to B16 talk specifically about the subject. It would be interesting to hear what he had to say.

True, I’ll def need to check out 'Love and Responsibility’; I haven’t read through it yet.

…in no way need to accept the sad reality that desire is gone, “being in love” is gone etc. I guess people who are inclined so may conclude that now they are free to engage exclusively in agape/charity, which would basically be similar to pursuing celibacy together.

I do know of cases where, for one partner the desire is gone, but not yet for the other. The idea to pursue agape together seems appealing (but that’s not going to be the case for many)… for them it’s more so a matter of persevering, (of course the pursuit of agape by just one party alone may eventually lead once more to a sense of eros); in which case agape is not only the correct moral decision but (you could say) also paves the way for hope (in the context of the relationship).

A quick role-play analogy would be:

“Hey, I don’t essentially like(eros) this person anymore, but I’m going to love(agape) them with all my will” >

rather than

“*Hey, I don’t essentially like(eros) this person anymore, which makes it impossible for me to love(agape) them”. *

(Although I’m throwing the definition of eros around quite crudely); from this you can clearly see the importance of agape and how it demonstrates my point that it has the ability to revive eros.

On the other hand, “romantic love” is not totally independent from will, it can be rekindled, it can be found when lost…

I’m inclined to think that at the end of the day it only requires openness to the idea.

As I’ve shown, I think agape is needed to rekindle eros, (agape provides that “openness” to the idea) and without eros, there is nothing for agape to rekindle –they are most definitely two sides of the one coin… and like you said at the beginning about B16; “we can argue that there’s eros in agape in that every love hopes for reciprocation.”
They are intertwined.

Anyhow, you consistently seem to have this ability to look at the glass as half full (which is brushing off on me) but my retort would be that you are focusing too much on the context of our material nature, rather than our spiritual nature. But, what’s interesting here for me though, is that similar to agape and eros; the “material and spiritual” are both intertwined. It’s quite peculiar because I’ve known this, but only now is it kind of “clicking”. The parallels (which by no means are exact) are quite uncanny in the sense that ‘agape’ could be akin to ‘the spiritual’ while ‘eros’ ‘the material’. In a hierarchical sense, the ‘spiritual and agape’ would be above the ‘material and eros’, (but yet both are mutually one [or part of the same hierarchy]). The danger is having too much of one over the other, or (in the hierarchical sense) maybe the material/eros should always be held beneath/guided by the spiritual/agape? I’m having flashbacks to Plato’s hierarchy of the forms lol An interesting perspective though would you agree?

I am inclined to connect the above with the “heretical” idea that it’s not wrong to pursue earthly happiness and make what we can of life (which is again something JP2 said, he actually claimed it was a duty).

See, I agree that this is definitely true (there is no argument here my friend) as it is within our God given nature that we seek what we believe to be true and to be content in our decision making… but once we have made a choice, a final decision, an oath with God; then there is no turning back… and the struggle (for many), is going to present itself regardless; specifically through (as I have seen) the disappearance of eros within relationships, and without agape, they will never find it (be it in this life or the next).
That’s kinda the crux of my argument. Not that we should not seek eros, but that we should be prudent of emotional suffering. If anything, the decision making process to find a compatible partner (to ensure we avoid this suffering) is more important because of this.

If we fail to ever “rekindle” the flame which once was, it would most definitely be disheartening (and it does happen), so we must not fail to realize that our faith —in the omnipotent mystery of God— clearly outweighs any earthy pursuits (which [as through the hierarchy I mentioned before] I would somewhat categorize ‘eros’ as within our lives). The reference of St. Jadwiga is quite inspirational (and is definitely relevant), in fact, I think the story of St. Jadwiga could even act as an allegory for the hierarchical idea of the spiritual/agape over the material/eros.

I know you would agree that after the sacrament of matrimony, there really should be no turning back; the decision is final, and quite often more than not, the decision made (especially within contemporary society) is indeed erroneous —eros dissipates— and families are broken and torn apart purely because the majority has taken eros without the agape. They are placing the material above the spiritual (the oath with God).

This actually brings us back on topic to the courting/dating conundrum as I now realize the argument has in fact boiled down to not just ‘love’ but our pre-conceptions/expectations of what we truly wish to achieve through marriage… and, as I think we both (chevalier and I) have concluded somewhat; marriage should embody a strong unity of both agape and eros, but to always ensure that we keep God (upholding the spiritual contract of matrimony) and agape above that of eros and the material without disregarding them entirely.

What do you rekon?

 

[chevalier]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing… it’s like you can’t have one without (at least) a portion of the other.

Yes, though that stretches eros so far that it includes those forms of love which don’t involve sexuality. I wonder where this places the love of spouses.

True, I’ll def need to check out 'Love and Responsibility’; I haven’t read through it yet.

A very good read. One of few academic works that are actually nice to read.

I do know of cases where, for one partner the desire is gone, but not yet for the other.

I suppose that’s the most typical scenario.

The idea to pursue agape together seems appealing (but that’s not going to be the case for many)

But I’d say that “white marriage” (and I know one) is still marriage, it’s not the same type of relationship as between siblings or parent and child.

… for them it’s more so a matter of persevering, (of course the pursuit of agape by just one party alone may eventually lead once more to a sense of eros); in which case agape is not only the correct moral decision but (you could say) also paves the way for hope (in the context of the relationship).

I’m not sure I follow you there.

A quick role-play analogy would be:

“Hey, I don’t essentially like(eros) this person anymore, but I’m going to love(agape) them with all my will” >

I disagree with that attribution of like/love. And the love here would not exactly be like between siblings.

“*Hey, I don’t essentially like(eros) this person anymore, which makes it impossible for me to love(agape) them”. *

Sounds like the wrong type of thinking, yup.

As I’ve shown, I think agape is needed to rekindle eros,

Depends how you define eros but yeah, shutting off is what kills the romance, to overcome that shutting off one needs to be rather selfless, put that marriage above the urge to find a second chance with a different person or forget it altogether.

(agape provides that “openness” to the idea) and without eros, there is nothing for agape to rekindle –they are most definitely two sides of the one coin… and like you said at the beginning about B16; “we can argue that there’s eros in agape in that every love hopes for reciprocation.”
They are intertwined.

Well, “we can argue,” is a long way from, “we declare and define.” I’d argue that our beloved Panzer Pope is still dissecting the idea.

Anyhow, you consistently seem to have this ability to look at the glass as half full (which is brushing off on me)

Actually, I lose the optimism when I try to reconcile the position I’m inclined to hold with whatever follows from Matt 19:12, where it would seem that the best thing spouses could do would be to switch to white marriage and forget desire of each other. But I’d argue that kindergarten children can already “fall in love” with one another before puberty hits, and that the difference between the sexes alone can’t make it so inferior, the effect would need to result from concupiscence rather. So it still wouldn’t necessarily follow that the best thing to do is to think of one’s spouse just like a sibling or friend.

but my retort would be that you are focusing too much on the context of our material nature,

Marriage is not celibacy, you know. I suppose at the end of the day you could probably prove that the best thing to do in marriage is to switch to white marriage but at the very least the other spouse must be fully on board with that. In reality, that other spouse is IMHO likely to be pretending and playing along for the sake of the one that came up with the idea. Which probably brings a lot of merit. Which probably means I should shut up. Which might be a good idea because I’m nowhere near a qualified theologian. I can only really talk about canon law to an ex etent with any credit.

rather than our spiritual nature. But, what’s interesting here for me though, is that similar to agape and eros; the “material and spiritual” are both intertwined.

Spousal love can’t be reduced to eros anyway. Mutual fascination with each other and all the good wishes and impulses towards greater things that result from it can’t really be reduced to a very carnal side of sexuality.

It’s quite peculiar because I’ve known this, but only now is it kind of “clicking”. The parallels (which by no means are exact) are quite uncanny in the sense that ‘agape’ could be akin to ‘the spiritual’ while ‘eros’ ‘the material’. In a hierarchical sense, the ‘spiritual and agape’ would be above the ‘material and eros’, (but yet both are mutually one [or part of the same hierarchy]). The danger is having too much of one over the other, or (in the hierarchical sense) maybe the material/eros should always be held beneath/guided by the spiritual/agape?

Yeah, true. But there’s not much agape in hypothetically announcing, “honey, we’re doing agape only from now on.” In fact, there might be self-directed eros there (as in egoism, putting the desire to please ourselves above the rights of the other person).

but once we have made a choice, a final decision, an oath with God; then there is no turning back… and the struggle (for many), is going to present itself regardless; specifically through (as I have seen) the disappearance of eros within relationships, and without agape, they will never find it (be it in this life or the next).

Of course there’s no going back, I’ve never implied there is. It also needs to be said there’s no going back in the sense that having chosen marriage means we’ve essentially chosen married life over monastic, celibate life. In the extreme case, spouses can mutually give each other permission to join a monastic order once the children are grown, but that needs to be mutual.

That’s kinda the crux of my argument. Not that we should not seek eros, but that we should be prudent of emotional suffering. If anything, the decision making process to find a compatible partner (to ensure we avoid this suffering) is more important because of this.

I’d be careful with overplaying the supposed duty to avoid suffering in ourselves, especially emotional, especially in matters like these. Also, we can’t ensure we’ll avoid it. It matters how you try to avoid it. But I’m not sure I can dissect this. I’ve already gone way above my paygrade here. As a minimum, I can say it intuitively feels rather silly to e.g. marry a person who doesn’t appeal to us just to avoid the suffering that would come if that person left us: in other words marry someone we wouldn’t mind losing. Self-preservation instinct is a bad advisor sometimes.

If we fail to ever “rekindle” the flame which once was, it would most definitely be disheartening (and it does happen), so we must not fail to realize that our faith —in the omnipotent mystery of God— clearly outweighs any earthy pursuits (which [as through the hierarchy I mentioned before] I would somewhat categorize ‘eros’ as within our lives).

You won’t find any advocacy of divorce in me, no worries.

The reference of St. Jadwiga is quite inspirational (and is definitely relevant), in fact, I think the story of St. Jadwiga could even act as an allegory for the hierarchical idea of the spiritual/agape over the material/eros.

No, I think it’s an example of the triumph of love of God and love of neighbour (or rather several million neighbours along with millions of their offspring) over the love of a man, which in a way is what you’re saying, but it had nothing to do with looking at one’s marriage in a specific way. It relied on sacrificing love (and actually a childhood “marriage”, which was then regarded as more than simply betrothal but still required confirmation after reaching the age of maturity and that confirmation actually almost happened but the rebellious courtiers seized the queen’s groom) in order to marry someone who promised to convert himself and his subjects if given her hand in marriage, the additional huge problem being the security of her own kingdom. And she understood what she was doing.

I know you would agree that after the sacrament of matrimony, there really should be no turning back;

You probably somehow associated my words with the possibility of allowance of divorce but that’s absolutely not there. Just because a lesser good can distract one from the greater good doesn’t mean we should eradicate the lesser good. Love of one’s family can prompt one to betray the love of his country. Or even God in some situations. Doesn’t mean we should stop having families. Just an example.

the decision is final, and quite often more than not, the decision made (especially within contemporary society) is indeed erroneous —eros dissipates— and families are broken and torn apart purely because the majority has taken eros without the agape. They are placing the material above the spiritual (the oath with God).

My worry is that marrying too often has a bait and switch aspect to it. Wooing and preening, and then poof it goes after the oath is made and the other party has given up freedom; forget any more romance and you were delusional to begin with. Welcome to real life.

 

[chevalier]

Just don’t think I’d in any way support divorce just because one’s not getting what he hoped for. And of course, you should build on something more than fleeting attraction to, let’s say, external beauty. My point is that it’d be silly to go against one’s own preferences, needs etc. on purpose (just as if that guaranteed that we’re pursuing the love of God in doing so). We should actually meet those as long as we can.

Good thinking: Pretty girl but shallow. What example is she going to set to our children? Pass. (Choice made by millions of Catholic men every single day, often without much conscious thought.)
Bad thinking: Pretty girl. Oh no, I must find an ugly one because agape > eros! I hope I’m ugly too!

Bait & switch: [Smart “slacks” and button-down or even a nice jacket have yielded to a smelly jumpsuit with holes and a beer belly.] “Honey, what flowers? What opera? What shower? You should be above such earthly concerns.” [Presses another button on the TV remote.]

Bait & switch: [Preens before a mirror.] “Oh, let me use these fleeting earthly good looks one last time to find a husband. Once he says the vows, I no longer need to care.”

Basically, if I use something to bait someone and then I withdraw that thing, I look silly when I complain that the someone is not unaffected by the bait going away.