Is a 'spark' always necessary?

[JB1]

You can’t force yourself. Let me say this - even though I am a little ashamed - I never had a spark for my husband. I thought he was a good guy and yes, I have love for him. But, I didn’t have that spark then - and neither did he really (sad, huh?). We truly would have been better off as friends - and even he’ll tell you that now - in fact, we are in such a bad place with our relationship, I think we may not be as bad off as we are today if we had that spark - I can’t explain it. I don’t want to say that the spark means you are in love because we know you can have a spark with the wrong person. But, the spark helps the love grow, or stay - if that makes sense. You can’t force yourself. If it’s not there, it’s not there.

 

[Lady_Bug]

You can’t force yourself. Let me say this - even though I am a little ashamed - I never had a spark for my husband. I thought he was a good guy and yes, I have love for him. But, I didn’t have that spark then - and neither did he really (sad, huh?). We truly would have been better off as friends - and even he’ll tell you that now - in fact, we are in such a bad place with our relationship, I think we may not be as bad off as we are today if we had that spark - I can’t explain it. I don’t want to say that the spark means you are in love because we know you can have a spark with the wrong person. But, the spark helps the love grow, or stay - if that makes sense. You can’t force yourself. If it’s not there, it’s not there.

that’s why I can’t understand how strictly arranged marriages can work…because you have sex with the person first before you develop a real relationship with them sigh

strictly arranged meaning you don’t see the spouse til the wedding day…

sorry but that idea really, really, really touches a nerve in me

 

[dianaballein]

It seems to be a form of prostitution almost. I know that’s a stretch, but it is what it is. Setting up two people to procreate. All that’s missing is $50 on the bedside table.

 

[John_AH]

I really don’t think a spark can happen after the initial meeting. A spark is in its definition at the beginning of something. Whether it is needed or not is very subjective. In my own life I’ve fallen in Love with women who I never had a spark with. For me it was just time and being open and being attentive to her. Allot of people have said they need the spark. What that comes down to is they need that extra push to open up, just like the emotion of Love takes over after you spend a certain amount of time with a person to get married.

Could you have a good marriage without either, YES.
Could you have a good marriage with only one, YES.
Could you have a good marriage with both YES.
So we have come to the same conclusion no matter how we look at it.

What it comes down to is the centeredness on God and what that really means is openness to love. If you don’t fall in Love with someone you are sharing allot with then you are not open to Love. Love is simply giving and receiving. You spend time with each other; that is simple love. You buy her dinner; that is simple love. You exchange thoughts, ideas, & dreams; that is Love.

Here is a simple test: Do you remember? Do you remember what she wore on the first date? Do you remember her smile or eyes? Do you remember what she has told you? If you say yes, then congrats you are slowly but surely falling in Love. If say no, sorry you are not open just yet. Proven scientific fact the emotional Love helps us greatly with our memory. But if we are not willing our attention on the person, then we are not open to Love with that person. We are not interested enough in them to be paying attention. Thus the spark is a simple emotional response to interest.

Could it real Love happen without emotions, YES. I hope to God that we are not choosing our spouses based on our emotions. The devil figured out that trick along time ago (I will get into it on another post if someone wants me to). We are not discerning just for us. We are also discerning for God’s children!

Marriage is for procreation and sanctification; it really never says anything about happiness but only for the “good” of the spouses and offspring.

I don’t have to married to know that sanctification is hard work, but there is joy in that work.

John Anthony

Just like my Lord, I was made to serve and not be served. Although if some should serve me, I am happy for that Love.

 

[John_AH]

Let me make a slight correction.

We cannot trust our emotions or minds in making this decision. Considering the weight of the decision I don’t think I would want to. If they are both centered on God then he will bring them together meaning they are not going to compromise their faith because God is number 1. If they find out that one is not Christian enough then they should go in their separate ways.

If it takes a mediator whose intentions are for the good of the two then that is a good start. The mediator can discern better than the individuals because of the objective view.

Why:
They second we start falling in Love we become bias. The emotional reaction is basically starting to cloud our minds.

It is why I think it is better to see if they can pass “go” before getting too attached. (Thus no spark or we can say prudence)

DL just talk to her. Express your concerns and if need be give her a commitment that you want to try to be open to her (if that is your mind set).

John Anthony

 

[dianaballein]

Could you have a good marriage without either, YES.*

*Marriage is for procreation and sanctification; it really never says anything about happiness but only for the “good” of the spouses and offspring. *

I would not define a good marriage as being unhappy. Are you serious? The best gift a man can give to his children is to happily be in love with their mother. This is what is “good” for the spouse and the offspring.

What woman would willingly give up the feeling of anticipation and excitement waiting for her husband to walk in the door? The way he smells when he steps out of the shower? The tingle she feels when he touches the small of her back as he guides her into church? THIS is the spark we are talking about. Not the lightning bolt that can hit us when infatuation flies around our heads.

If we are not going to feel emotions, then why bother? Without emotion, we are robots, non-humans…going through the day to day motions of our lives. Being in love is one of the wonderful things that God gave us, and it brings color to the burdens we carry here on Earth.

QUOTE]

 

[dianaballein]

I don’t have to married to know that sanctification is hard work, but there is joy in that work.

John Anthony

QUOTE]

So John, am I to understand that you are giving this advice yet you are not married yourself?

 

[agapewolf]

John AH;4077936:

I don’t have to married to know that sanctification is hard work, but there is joy in that work.

John Anthony

QUOTE]

So John, am I to understand that you are giving this advice yet you are not married yourself?

uh…so do priests. And the celibate Pope JPII the great wrote 4 years of Wednesday audiences and other multiple works regarding the marriage covenant. I’m sure he learned more about marriage trials from confessions than the couples know themselves.

 

[dianaballein]

dianaballein;4078462:

uh…so do priests. And the celibate Pope JPII the great wrote 4 years of Wednesday audiences and other multiple works regarding the marriage covenant. I’m sure he learned more about marriage trials from confessions than the couples know themselves.

We aren’t talking about that. We are talking about entering into marriage with someone you are not in love with.

 

[agapewolf]

agapewolf;4079331:

We aren’t talking about that. We are talking about entering into marriage with someone you are not in love with.

Oh, but you were talking about that. You were questioning someone’s ability to “give advice” without being married. I’m proving to you that has no bearing on the credibility.

and by the way “a spark” does not equal “in love with”.

LOVE is a decision. an act of the will. Love is wanting to get the other person to heaven, even if it kills you. (Which is what married couples are called to).
When JPII wrote TOB he clearly spelled out what a marriage actually is, what it means, and how it can play out in daily life.

 

[dianaballein]

Love is not a decision. Love happens. It comes to you. It’s not something you can fake…and I don’t know of a woman who would want to enter into a marriage with a man who has no desire for her.

Choosing to remain in a situation of commitment, that is a decision. Entering into a lifelong commitment without being in love is not what God asked of his people.

 

[John_AH]

I am not technically married. Although many people would say I am married to the church. Married means commitment, period.
A commitment in-front of God and the community that says it is you (spouse) and I no matter what the heck happens; you will love each other. No promise of emotions or those touchy feely moments, just to always be there for each other.

As we all know marriage is for better or worse. We can have all those tingly feelings for our spouses. We also know that the emotions can ware off from time to time. Is the marriage still a marriage if it does ware off? YES. Is it still good? YES. It is still good if the spouses are still committed to each other (not just emotionally attached). Once we lose that commitment things start falling apart. Is it better to have the emotions YES to the point where rational discernment is possible. If you are truly are committed and open then you will be flushed with emotions from everything good and bad. In a good marriage you pretty much mirror your spouse. You feel what they feel. You reflect what they show.

In theory we can stay in that heavenly state of emotional love but it takes allot of work to stay there. Make no prideful assumptions that this can be done alone or without commitment. That heavenly state takes allot of sacrifice and commitment levels so high most think they are unobtainable. But God through His spirit makes it possible. Like all things good we have to desire to overcome our greatest obstacle, ourselves (basically pride) to accept it. Having that commitment to be open, attached, & naked to our spouse (person or church) is to find out who we really are. People are so afraid to find out that the gospel is right, we are but children. We need help for everything and we need to trust our Father.

Emotions,
I am not saying emotions are bad. They are obviously good for God gave them to us for a reason. If you find the good partner than go with it, just be prudent and get help. If you are open you will fall in Love and Love will make you want the commitment. They call it “falling in Love” because you have to let go of the “safe place”. You have to be open to leaving it to a much better place.

The Lord made us to serve not be served,
John Anthony

 

[agapewolf]

Love is not a decision. Love happens. It comes to you. It’s not something you can fake…and I don’t know of a woman who would want to enter into a marriage with a man who has no desire for her.

Choosing to remain in a situation of commitment, that is a decision. Entering into a lifelong commitment without being in love is not what God asked of his people.

This is not church teaching. You’ve defined something that comes from a romance novel. I’d rather get my Bible and catechism and learn about love.
Love is ABSOLUTELY a decision. It isn’t somehting that “comes to you.” Read the catechism about love. Christ died on the cross. He is the author of Love.

You are defining infatuation as love. That is NOT love.

Where do you get your information to say "Entering into a lifelong commitment without being in love is not what God asked of his people"

Your definitions are incorrect. You have the worldly understanding of it.

I’m not arguing one way or the orther regarding marriage without a spark. I wouldn’t want it either, so stop trying to argue that with me. I have not even given an inkling to that idea. I’ve simply clarified definitions and church teaching on the issues.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Agapewolf,

I agree that love is an act of the will, and one chooses whether to have agape for another. Diana is talking about eros, which can start off as “mainly covetous and ascending”, and the lack of which is “admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life.” (His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est)

As such, eros can be a great benefit to a marriage as dianaballein suggests, although it needs to be perfected by agape for it to be true Christian love.

With regards to the original question, I would answer that many marriages and relationships contain an element of eros, but that the essential bond of love in a Catholic couple is agape: “descending”, “oblative”, “grounded in and shaped by faith” (Deus Caritas Est) – indeed, an act of the will.

 

[dianaballein]

This is not church teaching. You’ve defined something that comes from a romance novel. I’d rather get my Bible and catechism and learn about love.
Love is ABSOLUTELY a decision. It isn’t somehting that “comes to you.” Read the catechism about love. Christ died on the cross. He is the author of Love.

You are defining infatuation as love. That is NOT love.

Where do you get your information to say "Entering into a lifelong commitment without being in love is not what God asked of his people"

Your definitions are incorrect. You have the worldly understanding of it.

I’m not arguing one way or the orther regarding marriage without a spark. I wouldn’t want it either, so stop trying to argue that with me. I have not even given an inkling to that idea. I’ve simply clarified definitions and church teaching on the issues.

I am not arguing with anyone. I am stating my opinion, from my framework of reference. I am learning to become a Catholic, so it is not going to be in my nature at this time to quote church teachings. Besides, there are plenty of other forum members who are good at doing that. There is no need to get angry with me for stating my own opinion, which does come from my heart, not my head. I don’t appreciate the attempts at making my thoughts and feelings seem less important than yours, and if I have said anything to make you feel this way, I sincerely apologize. That is not what I am about.

 

[dianaballein]

Agapewolf,

I agree that love is an act of the will, and one chooses whether to have agape for another. Diana is talking about eros, which can start off as “mainly covetous and ascending”, and the lack of which is “admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life.” (His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est)

As such, eros can be a great benefit to a marriage as dianaballein suggests, although it needs to be perfected by agape for it to be true Christian love.

With regards to the original question, I would answer that many marriages and relationships contain an element of eros, but that the essential bond of love in a Catholic couple is agape: “descending”, “oblative”, “grounded in and shaped by faith” (Deus Caritas Est) – indeed, an act of the will.

I agree with this, absolutely.

 

[dianaballein]

My advice comes from a woman’s perspective, and from a woman who was not loved in a previous relationship. I know how it feels to have a man present himself as a man who loves me but once in the relationship, realizing he couldn’t have.

As a woman, I am worthy and deserve to be loved and desired by the man who wishes to spend his life on Earth with me. I deserve no less. Most of the ladies here have asked the OP to make sure he gives his lady friend the consideration and respect to let her know what it is he is feeling, and give her the chance to approve and move forward with him, or reject the notion of a marriage relationship with a man who is not in love with her.