As has been said here, marriage is not about romance. Marriage is something that has been ordained by God, was raised to a Sacrament by Christ, and is clearly outlined in the Bible (I know you don’t want to hear the Bible here, but, when you get a minute, give 1 Corinthians a read…).
When we say marriage is not about romance, I believe we should clarify. Yes, it is not about romance in the sense of the romantic genre of books. Marriage is older than those. Marriage is older than romance books and is older than courtly love as well. But to say that feelings are irrelevant, not intrinsic to marriage and so on, would be misleading. Erotic love is in place in marriage and we are entitled to it. Each spouse is entitled to be desired. This should not come down to sex alone. Excessive sentimentalism is wrong, but feelings are not. The Song of Songs is not quite a puritanistic vision of marriage as a necessary evil which is only justified by procreation and then still dirty. I remember a Vatican document defining marital love as a kind of friendship. I liked that and if you understand friendship properly, that is a very good thing. But to marry someone who is not a friend, nor could be, is dread.
People all over the world in all times have entered “arranged marriages”. They were not the end of the world, in fact, they are closer to the way God designed things.
Perhaps picks are better, perhaps not. Certainly each spouse’s own free and willing consent is superior to lack of it. No earthly authority can supply marital consent. I do not think the choice of spouse is an area for filial obedience, either.
Our western society now shuns arranged marriages. We must take great care when discerning whom to marry, and not base our decision on lust or roantic fireworks feelings.
That is true, but the arranging was more societal than it was theological. The choice was about economics and sometimes also physical help in running the household, the farm or the enterprise. Sometimes perhaps fitting personalities. But at any rate I oppose the idea of parents choosing spouses for children as an exercise of parental authority. Parental authority does not stretch that far. I do not stand by the criteria which were used in matchmaking in past ages.
I agree, however, that lust is a bad base for marriage. Lust as in the sin of lust is not a good base for anything. Romantic fireworks? Those are fine per se, but if I were to act on each instance I have a romantic crush, I’d have as many wives as King David. Of course, you could argue that I’ve never had a strong romantic feeling then. And that would be a gross simplification. What I can tell you is that it seems to me the romantic fireworks feelings are often short-lasted, they often have more to do with sexual attraction that we think, sometimes they have to do with a different superficial attraction, but at any rate our minds are clouded and we don’t do what’s good for us. That’s not what love is about.
Love builds, it doesn’t destroy. Good love is about building, not about destroying. If it destroys, it means it’s bad love, or rather not love at all. Our strong passions are not what makes love. Love is patient, love is kind, see 1 Corinthians 13 for the rest. That I kind of romance I wholeheartedly believe in and I want to experience it if I ever am to marry. That love is
never irrelevant in a marriage. Passions by contrast are often not patient, they seek their own, they don’t always drive us along the lines of truth, they often can’t take much and they don’t always last. They sometimes go away once we find a new object of our affections or they die as a result of an insult or some disappointment. It’s easy to kill a superficial romantic love.
We have to learn what real love is. Reading the Holy Father’s letter “God Is Love” may help you:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
C. S. Lewis wrote a good book called “The Four Loves”.
Once you learn what God’s love is, it will make more sense.
We get better romance than 18-19th century writers or Harlequin authors could invent.
In fact, many of them in some imperfect way tried to reach to this ideal which came from a Christian culture - we did know we should ideally love our spouses. The way to that, however, never led through adultery, fornication, giving in to passions, abandoning reason. On the other hand, we cannot love by being cold. I can’t avoid going back to 1 Corinthians 13 here.
But you don’t always feel romance for each other. While you should romance each other in your marriage, you won’t always feel like that. Just like you don’t always feel God’s presence but at the same time, you know He loves you.
Yes. Love is a choice. It’s not a choice like, “I want a pink wallpaper,” or, “I want blue.” It’s a choice on which one acts and which determines one’s attitude. In a sense, it’s an act of loyalty, although there is more to it. You respect the oath you’ve made and it doesn’t last only as long as you first start feeling like the fireworks are absent. In our love with God, we will also sometimes feel like the fireworks are gone. This doesn’t mean we should go and join a different religion. Love requires commitment. The point that romance authors miss is the perseverance guided by commitment - not perseverance guided by lust or the desire to acquire the person we are in love with. Love is not serotonin and love is not, “feels good.” While they sometimes get it and generally many romantics somehow still get it, the point is that we need to be consequent instead of making concessions for our flighty passions. Concessions are not a way to reach an ideal.
