-255x255.jpg)
“Soul mate” is the term that those who study American marriage trends use to describe contemporary expectations about potential spouses on the part of Americans of marrying age. A “soul mate” is someone with whom one shares deep and profound emotional bonds. Soul mates are one’s alter ego, supplying what’s lacking in one’s own personality while simultaneously being pretty similar in likes, preferences and interests.
As the National Marriage Project (NMP) reported back in 2001, “88% [of single men and women] agree ‘there is a special person, a soul mate, waiting for you somewhere out there.’” “Marriage is gaining popularity as a super relationship.”
At the same time Kate Bolick, in her semi-autobiographical piece in the November 2011
issue of The Atlantic, admits that back in 2001 she broke up with her boyfriend of three years although “there was no good reason to end things. To account for my behavior, all I had were two intangible yet undeniable convictions: something was missing; I wasn’t ready to settle down.”
Today, at age 39, although she still hasn’t discovered — or defined — what she thought was missing, she is sure she doesn’t want to settle down. Not now. Maybe not ever.
On the one hand, you can’t argue with that: If you’re not ready to marry, don’t. There’s no need for two miserable people. Nor should a companion view of marriage be a problem. No less a thinker than Blessed John Paul II repeatedly spoke about marriage as a communio personarum.
Still, it doesn’t take an expert to recognize that something’s wrong with marriage in the state of Denmark … or at least in the United States. If marriage is the consummate “super relationship,” why does one in two American marriages arrive in divorce court? There’s little comfort to be had in Mark Twain’s old saw about “lies, damn lies and statistics.” Even if 50% of American marriages don’t end in divorce, there’s no denying that America is suffering a “marriage gap.” The institution is under considerable stress among the working poor and the less-than-college-educated middle class. It is gone in many respects among the poor and in many African-American families.
Thinking of marriage in soul-mate terms seems, at first blush, a solution to rescue marriage. The notion can foster a sense of personal dignity and value among spouses. If that’s true — and if 88% of marriage-age Americans think that — there seems to be a disconnect between what people think marriage should be and how they are living it. What’s the problem?
The problem is what else secular soul-mate marriage expects and what it rejects.
One thing it rejects is children. For more than a decade, the NMP has tracked the disconnect between marriage and procreation. Americans today marry ever later, defer parenthood ever longer and spend ever more of their lives — before, during and after marriage — without children in those lives.
In one sense, it’s all the logical outcome of a contraceptive culture. If children are seen as threats to adult freedom and independence, they obviously will be avoided. Contraception has also fostered the procreative-unitive split: Sex is the glue of the super relationship. Whether it has anything to do with children is purely one’s arbitrary choice. (Same-sex “marriage” carries this mentality to its logical extreme by completely separating sex, marriage and children.)
Soul-mate expectations, paradoxically, also often are enemies of parenthood. As the NMP notes, making a soul-mate marriage work is really emotionally demanding. So, too, are children. Their advent in a relationship puts real stress on soul mates. A Catholic soul-mate vision sees children as the natural fruit, the natural outcome, of the spouses’ oneness. But if marriage stands more on shared emotions than shared lives, the potential for conflict is far greater, the capacity for emotional involvement far more taxed.
Another interesting dimension of the soul-mate relationship is the expectation that partners come to it independent in every way, but especially financially. Once upon a time, marriage often represented an economic step up for women. Today, women hold their own economically and, in some ways, have been doing better than men during this three-year-long recession. In one way, that’s good: Men and women are standing on more equal footings, entering marriage more as partners.
On the other hand, though, there are problems. In a high-divorce culture, the fragility of marriage stability inhibits today’s soul-mate newlyweds from merging resources and lives. Somewhat like cohabitating couples, assets often remain “mine” and “yours,” rarely “ours.” Soul mates might have great relationships, but they have problems building things together.
Another paradox that students of soul-mate marriage report is the ongoing tendency of men not to commit. When increasing numbers of women are economically successful and better educated, the search for similar men leads to a shrinking pool, especially as women’s age at marriage increases. Unfortunately, morality seems to shrink to the lowest male common denominator: If there are fewer available guys, why should those few close off their options by tying the knot rather than playing the field?
Soul-mate marriage has potential — if we can explain to people how the secular version sells it short. In contrast to that secular vision, one that the NMP calls “emotionally deep but socially shallow,” a real communio personarum — one that is a total, indissoluble and fruitful unity — does not put spouses at odds with children. It does not estrange partners from each other or from building a common life. It fosters the confidence and trust that is the foundation of married and family life.
On this Valentine’s Day, it’s time to say boldly that the Catholic vision of marriage and family life offers a real soul-mate relationship that has greater depth and resilience than its secular counterpart.
It has only been two months since Christmas. Think about the holiday classic It’s a Wonderful Life. Were George and Mary Bailey soul mates? The modern world would say No. George is forever denying himself. Mary lost out on her honeymoon. They both pooled their money to rescue a savings and loan. “And why do we have to have so many kids?”
But once we get beyond emotions — in George’s case, fear — it becomes pretty evident that George and Mary Bailey really epitomize what it means to be soul mates. Prince Charming is only a character in a fairy tale. Maybe that’s where the discussion should begin.
John M. Grondelski, a moral theologian, writes from Perth Amboy, New Jersey.
Matthew Warner: Why the world doesn't take Catholicism seriously
Benjamin Wiker: Benedict XVI: Doctor of the Church
Comments
Post a Comment
All the “soul mate” myth in our culture does is make it easier for people to end their marriages. If the marriage isn’t working, it isn’t because you aren’t working on it or choosing to love, it is because your spouse turned out not to be your “soul mate.” Love is ultimately a choice. And, FWIW, I have always thought It’s a Wonderful Life to be one of the best love stories ever told; and if someone asked me what movie character my husband is most like, I’d say George Bailey. Which is probably why we have all these children. :)
This post made me think of Sheldon Vanauken’s very good book, “A Severe Mercy”. It is the true story of the author’s marriage with his ‘soul-mate’ and beautifully shows both the great strengths and weaknesses of the concept as carried out in his marriage, which was a unique and astonishing one in many ways.
I agree, and I’d also add that many people who get married now confuse “soulmate” (which they may indeed have found) with “perfect person”, who does not, in fact, exist. Whenever something goes wrong - like a disagreement even - they shrug the other person off as a mistake and obviously they “married the wrong person”. Once you’re married, the time to make that determination has passed. That person may have done something “unforgivable” but remember that we ALL do unforgiveable things, again and again, and yet God never gives up on us. We can’t even seem to extend a fraction of that forgivness to each other. We simply expect the impossible…that love means never having to forgive or “say you’re sorry” when really it’s the opposite. Love means having to say I’m sorry (and mean it) over and over again. If you ask anyone whose been married a lot of years if they or their spouse ever did anything “unforgiveable” or shocking, I can guarantee you they will say yes. You go through times where you consider divorce, but then you decide against it, and eventually things get better. There are some people of course who should never have married to begin with, who really aren’t marriage material, but for the most part I think that group’s numbers are being severely exaggerated. Also, if you’re looking for a Godly woman, I think it’s tougher for men. We tend to marry young!!
Wisdom here. Excellent insights.
Missing, however, is any concrete mention of who is (or should be) the first Soul Mate of both spouses: Jesus Christ. Why isn’t the “Catholic vision of marriage and family” summarily explained in this article? The choir may have seen the words “communio personarum” already, but even many of them can’t explain what it means.
The Baileys are a good example of your point, Mr. Grondelski, as well as of the beautiful, fruitful difference between male and female. However… As long as men and women are conditioned by popular culture to believe that a future spouse is the be-all-end-all of their existence - their “soul mate” in the “super relationship” - and is “the one” on whom to place those superhuman demands - “soul-mate expectations” - that only *the Lord* can fulfill, marriages self-inflict even more suffering. This point can’t be made strongly enough, and I would have liked to see your article make this point to its conclusion - or rather its beginning - in Christ.
The radical secularism sweeping through our culture desperately needs the witness of “superhero” marriages and families, and let’s pray that more and more future spouses understand from whom their ability to love comes in the first place and from where their wellspring of strength arises.
Recommended reading: “The Ache in Our Hearts” by Melanie Pritchard, posted October 19, 2011 -
http://www.melaniepritchard.org/
Recommended listening: “Marriage in the Lord” by Deacon James Keating -
http://www.adoremusbooks.com/marriageinthelordaudiocdbooklet-ipfdeaconkeating.aspx
I have to respectfully disagree with the statement “Love is ultimately a choice”. I hope that falling in love is still just that; on the edge of a precipice and willing take that leap because the person you are with is worth it. When they are away all you want to do is be with them and when you are with them you can handle anything that comes your way. When you see them your heart stops, skips a beat or just plain starts racing out of control. I hope this because I had it once and I want it again. I found, married and ultimately lost my soul mate. I hope we are not limited to one.
Amelie: I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I have to note two things: (1) articles have word limits; and (2) sometimes starting with the explicitly religious, rather than leading people to Christ, can turn them off. My purpose here was not the latter, but it was constrained by space. You can’t say everything everywhere. Good points.
Catholic author J.R.R. Tolkien stated things beautifully in a letter to his son Michael:
“Nearly all marriages, even happy ones, are mistakes: in the sense that almost certainly (in a more perfect world, or even with a little more care in this very imperfect one) both partners might be found more suitable mates. But the real soul-mate is the one you are actually married to.”
Once married, we must remain fully committed to each other, forgiving each other’s faults and carrying each other’s burdens - those actins are truly worthy of being “soul-ties”.
I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to disagree with a lot of what was written here. While I’m sure the author’s intentions were good, the article conflates “soul mate marriages” with secular ones - deeming both to be lesser than sacred marriages by design. As an educated, successful woman, I am also deeply offended by the misogynistic stance this article takes. “Somewhat like cohabitating couples, assets often remain “mine” and “yours,” rarely “ours.” Soul mates might have great relationships, but they have problems building things together.” Wrong. My husband and I both have careers and contribute equally to our mortgage, shared living expenses, and savings. This is something we started doing as soon as we moved in together (3 years before we were married) and have continued to do so. We are partners in life and do not speak in terms of ‘mine’ - you, author, have conflated selfishness with secular marriage and cohabitation. Lastly, I think it is terrible that you also feel the need to blame educated women on the decline in marriage. In your own words, you cite the problem as being one in which women have invested in themselves and are no longer satisfied with scraping the bottom of the barrel in search of a husband. You world views are disgusting, but not surprising, coming from a man of the cloth.
TO JAK: Love involves emotional attraction and physical attraction, but it ultimately rests on a choice - “I do,” not “I feel.” The other elements are not less vital, but without the choice, love lacks a backbone. See John Paul II, Love and Responsibility, generally Part I.
To ATHENIAN: I am sorry if you think I am misogynistic. I am not. I am trying to report what is out there in the literature. So: (1) I’m not a priest. I am married and have three children. (2) I am not saying that married people MUST have joint bank accounts. But most do. And, in contrast to most cohabiting couples, married people tend to build a life in common (including financially in common), something that people who are “living together” generally do not do. See NATIONAL MARRIAGE PROJECT at University of Virginia re characteristics of married people v. cohabitators. (3) Re scraping the bottom of the barrel: I am happy that women are in higher education and, in fact, exceed men today in terms of enrollment. The report on educated women actually comes from the NOV 2011 edition of THE ATLANTIC, where K. Bolick’s “All the Single Men” makes that point. She flags a problem there about the fact that (a) there are fewer men with better educations and (b) therefore those with better educations recognize themselves as a more scarce “commodity” which, as I wrote (c) often leads to attitudes exploitive of women (why get married if I can play the field?). Most reports today recognize that in fact America faces a marriage gap: marriage is alive and well among college educated men and women (regardless of how socially liberal/bohemian their ideas may be about what society should do about marriage/family policy) but it is on the wane among the middle and especially lower middle classes. In the 1960s, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was scored for pointing out that marriage was in decline among black families; the problem today is not that the situation among black families has changed, but that the social corruption that flows from the denigration of marriage has metastiszed into a larger, trans-racial phenomenon. Again, see U of VA, NATIONAL MARRIAGE PROJECT.
P.S. Take a look at this weeks CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, which has an excellent article on dating practices among Gen Y. It’s (a) enlightening but (b) shocking. The unfortunate thing is : I don’t make this stuff up :)
P.P.S.: Listening to the TV this evening (2/14/12), I noticed in a number of places (especially Nick Jr., the Nickelodeon Preschool cable channel—obligatory viewing according to my three year old)—St. Valentine’s Day has now become “Love Day.” A new culture war, like the war on Christmas? Like Christmas, can “Valentine” now not speak his name? First “Saint” got lopped off. Then, from an innocent day when kids gave paper hearts to parents and their secret admirees, the day turned into an adult license for buying skimpy clothing and having an excuse for an orgy. Now we have “Love?” Day. Does the modern world even understand what that is?
@John - 1.) My mistake 2.) I never said you said married people have to have joint bank accounts, maybe you should re-read what I said and comment on that, rather than putting words in my mouth, 3.) Despite your intentions, your phrasing wraps the entire problem up in educated women. You start that part of your argument with the statement “When increasing numbers of women are economically successful and better educated…” if the problem is with educated men and not educated women, why phrase the problem that way? I don’t “think” you are misogynistic - yours is a familiar discourse in which women are to blame for any sort of societal decline. In this case, in your opinion, it’s marriage.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.