Sometimes I Wish Marriage Discernment

[Aloysius]

sometimes I wish marriage discernment was more like religious discernment... imagine if you could visit your future life and see how you would live with someone in your future house amongst your future kids... for like 2 weeks like on wife-swap (a favorite show of mine) or something... the way discerners visit communities and seminaries to see what it'd be like to enter. just a random thought, haha... I think it'd be cool. I suppose it would also involve bending the laws of space-time... but it'd be cool.

I suppose that's what the old ideal of family-dating was sort of supposed to do, in the sense that people tend to recreate the family atmosphere they grew up in to some extent. but that simply won't do, because it'd be nice to see it how it was actually going to be, how each individual's personal ideas about how they'd do things differently from their parents would work out to form their family-community.

I mean, courtship and the like are ways of getting to know the relationship between yourself and the other person... but it doesn't have the splash-in-your-face that visiting and living in a community would have... you see how the two of you have fun together and talk and share and open up, but not exactly how you'd live together. obviously cohabitation before marriage is a bad idea... which is what brings me back to my time-machine idea.

[/random thoughts, my second invasion of the vocation station]

[AccountDeleted]

That's such an interesting idea. Maybe the potential "wife" should move in with the family of the "husband" under very chaperoned conditions (definitely separate bedrooms) and just be part of the family for awhile. Then reverse the situation so the "husband" lives with the "wife's" family for awhile, and see how things go? The problem is that not all families are the "ideal" environment to do this, so one might just be seeing all manner of dysfunctional behavior instead of being able to validly assess the potential of marriage together. This is a toughy.

I guess I am very fortunate that I don't want to get married . But let's face it, some religious communities don't allow live-ins either (especially some cloistered ones). Dating just has to take the place of this I guess, and a really long engagement, and perhaps even pre-marriage education courses or counselling? This is a good reason why people shouldn't rush into marriage.

[CatherineM]

Discerning for a religious vocation is between you, yourself and God. Discerning for marriage includes you, God, but also another person. That other person includes their family and every person they have ever been in a relationship with. In a religious vocation there is less stress about your future profession being good enough to support a family. When taking vows with God, you know your mind, and you know that God will be completely committed to you. When taking marriage vows, you truthfully can't know the commitment level that your future spouse has. You hope they will be as committed to the marriage as you are, but you can't truly read their minds.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='nunsense' date='19 September 2009 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1253331698' post='1968999']
That's such an interesting idea. Maybe the potential "wife" should move in with the family of the "husband" under very chaperoned conditions (definitely separate bedrooms) and just be part of the family for awhile. Then reverse the situation so the "husband" lives with the "wife's" family for awhile, and see how things go? The problem is that not all families are the "ideal" environment to do this, so one might just be seeing all manner of dysfunctional behavior instead of being able to validly assess the potential of marriage together. This is a toughy.

I guess I am very fortunate that I don't want to get married . But let's face it, some religious communities don't allow live-ins either (especially some cloistered ones). Dating just has to take the place of this I guess, and a really long engagement, and perhaps even pre-marriage education courses or counselling? This is a good reason why people shouldn't rush into marriage.
[/quote]
I've heard many places and tend to agree that long engagements are actually a bad idea. I have many ideas why, but nothing concrete... now, long courtships are not necessarily bad, but long engagements tend to counter-intuitively bear bad fruit from what I've heard/read.

I am also not so sure that "rushing into marriage" entirely earns the "bad rap" it tends to get... when it comes to two people of the same faith and same convictions about the sacrament, I think it's not so much that there's some set time period that would be "too soon" to get married, necessarily... all depending, of course.

I think too long dating or too long being engaged fails mostly because it then loses the umph of the true marriage vow, the structure of the institution... as Chesterton describes:

[quote]The principle is this: that in everything worth having, even in every pleasure, there is a point of pain or tedium that must be survived, so that the pleasure may revive and endure. The joy of battle comes after the first fear of death; the joy of reading Virgil comes after the bore of learning him; the glow of the sea-bather comes after the icy shock of the sea bath; and the success of the marriage comes after the failure of the honeymoon. All human vows, laws, and contracts are so many ways of surviving with success this breaking point, this instant of potential surrender.

In everything on this earth that is worth doing, there is a stage when no one would do it, except for necessity or honor. It is then that the Institution upholds a man and helps him on to the firmer ground ahead. Whether this solid fact of human nature is sufficient to justify the sublime dedication of Christian marriage is quite an other matter, it is amply sufficient to justify the general human feeling of marriage as a fixed thing, dissolution of which is a fault or, at least, an ignominy. The essential element is not so much duration as security. Two people must be tied together in order to do themselves justice; for twenty minutes at a dance, or for twenty years in a marriage In both cases the point is, that if a man is bored in the first five minutes he must go on and force himself to be happy. Coercion is a kind of encouragement; and anarchy (or what some call liberty) is essentially oppressive, because it is essentially discouraging. If we all floated in the air like bubbles, free to drift anywhere at any instant, the practical result would be that no one would have the courage to begin a conversation. It would be so embarrassing to start a sentence in a friendly whisper, and then have to shout the last half of it because the other party was floating away into the free and formless ether. The two must hold each other to do justice to each other. If Americans can be divorced for "incompatibility of temper" I cannot conceive why they are not all divorced. I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible. [/quote]

It seems to me that
1) a relationship must always be progressing
2) it will inevitably reach a point like what Chesterton describes
3) in order to survive that point, it must already have the institution to uphold it, and both partners must firmly believe in the institution

for this reason, dating for "too long" can be dangerous... there is of course such a thing as rushing in "too soon", but dating or being engaged for "too long" will frustrate point #1 by freezing it and keeping it from progressing where it ought to go sometimes and may bring up the breaking point without the sacramental grace to sustain the relationship.

[AccountDeleted]

You have obviously given this a lot of thought and discernment already. You will do fine.

[Aloysius]

it is of note that we must remember marriage is a sacrament and thus conveys grace. it is often noted that it is good to baptize infants because they need the grace, or in arguments I've seen it said that the West ought to return to the practice of confirmation/baptism at the same time as baptism because the earlier the grace is given, the better... why should it not be somewhat so in relationships? the sacramental graces are necessary for a certain level of progression in a relationship... when one progresses too far in a relationship outside of marriage, the relationship is at great risk because of the lack of sacramental grace at a point where it is necessary (which then, of course, is another reason against cohabitation, progressing in a relationship to the level of cohabitation before it has sacramental grace is bad because you need sacramental grace to really live with a partner)

which is why my idea only works in a time machine... because as I've said before, it is important not to go too far in a relationship outside of marriage; yes, it is one big thing that we ought to reserve sex only for marriage, but there's a whole bunch of other little things we ought to reserve for marriage too... because marriage is like Christmas; sex is your one big present but there are a million other smaller ones, and even if each individual small present isn't as great, it's still important that you have a whole pile to open on Christmas morning, or it ruins Christmas morning.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='nunsense' date='19 September 2009 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1253333153' post='1969013']
You have obviously given this a lot of thought and discernment already. You will do fine.
[/quote]
haha well, I'd do fine if I had a woman who had not all of the sudden decided to discern a religious vocation.

actually, I think what I'm describing here in terms of a bump that bumps the train off the track if it's progressed to before marriage is in large part why my last relationship failed. we dated for about four years and I think progressed to where we needed sacramental grace but totally didn't have it; to a point where we needed to move forward but because of circumstances were unable to take that step of marriage and thus left our relationship stagnate...

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='19 September 2009 - 04:11 PM' timestamp='1253333491' post='1969018']
haha well, I'd do fine if I had a woman who had not all of the sudden decided to discern a religious vocation.

actually, I think what I'm describing here in terms of a bump that bumps the train off the track if it's progressed to before marriage is in large part why my last relationship failed. we dated for about four years and I think progressed to where we needed sacramental grace but totally didn't have it; to a point where we needed to move forward but because of circumstances were unable to take that step of marriage and thus left our relationship stagnate...
[/quote]

We can't second guess the past. God has His own plans, which we can't always understand at the time, if ever. Even in religious vows, although sacramental and not sacraments, one must wait until a certain point in time before taking them. So it is with marriage, waiting is sometimes part of the process of purification (of motivation, of self, of many things).

Many people enter convents, only to find that things don't work out as planned. Fortunately, this usually happens before they take their vows. If your relationship ended before vow taking, then don't berate yourself for what happened. Yes, maybe there were things to be learned from it, but there is no time machine for a very good reason, God has His own plans for our souls. The question "why" is always very disempowering, so let it go, learn whatever you can from it, and move on. Just becasue you think you delayed too long in that relationship, doesn't mean that the next one needs to move faster - it will be a totally new and different relationship, with its own needs and requirements. Let it unfold and try to be open to the workings of the Holy Spirit in that new situation.

And in every situation that happens, we always have the potential to learn more humility and dependence on God's mercy. If God truly called your friend to religious life, then you were blessed to be able to share many years together before she had to move on. Let's face it though, I mean, not trying to be glib here, but who can compete with God as spouse? Your actions did not drive her into religious life, or, if they did, then maybe God used this means to get her to admit her vocation? If she finds that she doesn't truly have a vocation, then at least she tried to answer His call. In everything that happens, we need to look for the mercy and the love that God is always showering on us.

One thing that has grown tremendously in me since my last failed attempt at religious life is TRUST. Maybe your experience is also aimed at teaching you that same thing - TRUST Him. The love He has for each one of us is simply beyond our comprehension, but it doesn't always appear as such to us because His arena is the soul. He loves our souls - and wants always and in every way, that which is best for our souls. Trust Him, trust Him, trust Him.

[Aloysius]

I suppose one thing I have neglected to mention is that I know her very well, and I very much do not believe God has called her to the religious life, but that this is simply a part of a pattern she has in making future plans. I suppose my judgment in the matter could be clouded by bias, and certainly only she can really decide if she's called; but I know her very well and know her dreams and aspirations and who she is as a person and I simply do not believe she's called to a religious vocation.

anyway, my reference to the "time machine" was in terms of the previous post regarding going to the future to see how a life might pan out in a type of live-in discernment. but that is certainly good advice about the past nonetheless, though I think what I was saying was that my insights into such issues were formed partially by my experiences with my last relationship.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='19 September 2009 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1253334995' post='1969036']
I suppose one thing I have neglected to mention is that I know her very well, and I very much do not believe God has called her to the religious life, but that this is simply a part of a pattern she has in making future plans. I suppose my judgment in the matter could be clouded by bias, and certainly only she can really decide if she's called; but I know her very well and know her dreams and aspirations and who she is as a person and I simply do not believe she's called to a religious vocation.

anyway, my reference to the "time machine" was in terms of the previous post regarding going to the future to see how a life might pan out in a type of live-in discernment. but that is certainly good advice about the past nonetheless, though I think what I was saying was that my insights into such issues were formed partially by my experiences with my last relationship.
[/quote]


Well then you have a perfect opportunity to learn something else in this situation - Patience! Ah, God must love you very very much to be spending so much time on you!

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='19 September 2009 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1253331845' post='1969002']
Discerning for a religious vocation is between you, yourself and God. Discerning for marriage includes you, God, but also another person. That other person includes their family and every person they have ever been in a relationship with. In a religious vocation there is less stress about your future profession being good enough to support a family. When taking vows with God, you know your mind, and you know that God will be completely committed to you. When taking marriage vows, you truthfully can't know the commitment level that your future spouse has. You hope they will be as committed to the marriage as you are, but you can't truly read their minds.
[/quote]

Actually discerning a religious vocation does involve a community ... it involves multiple people -- for the confirmation of a person's religious vocation is when the person finally commits to vows. So hence if the person is called to religious life it does involve at least a superior or a whole council who makes the decision whether or not the candidate is acceptable. Its three way (including God).

Until the time you take vows you really don't know the level of commitment of the community. When you take final vows the community has no real choice. But until that time the community can say that you are not a match.

And if its hard reading one person's mind ... imagine when you have your formator, novice director, mother superior etc. etc. etc. in the mix. It can me quite difficult.

******

Back to topic of Marriage Discernment ... yesterday I was at a class for Deacons (I was scheduled that night to close the church so I welcomed them to the parish). That topic came up -- why is it that there is no true discernment in today's world to marriage. I think it is a key thing -- not everyone is called to marriage, just as not everyone is called to religious life.

Aloysis -- I applaud you for letting your loved one go ... that is giving the woman who to you has a vocation to religious life the liberty to choose. That is real love; and I am convinced that God will reward your fidelity to Him, and will eventually lead you to the woman you are to marry (and I'm sure she will be as faithful to God as you are to Him). Be patient ... and stay faithful to our Lord. :-) I'll be praying for you.

Edited September 19, 2009 by cmariadiaz

[rkwright]

Al, I'd have to say its something more than just the institution of marriage that keeps it together. There is this thing called love

I love my wife and when we fight it actually makes me sad. I'm quick to apologize or work things out because I don't like fighting with her (don't get me wrong, I'm a lawyer and will argue a point to death, but with her my love is worth more than being right).

[perfectunion33]

[quote name='nunsense' date='18 September 2009 - 09:41 PM' timestamp='1253331698' post='1968999']
That's such an interesting idea. Maybe the potential "wife" should move in with the family of the "husband" under very chaperoned conditions (definitely separate bedrooms) and just be part of the family for awhile. Then reverse the situation so the "husband" lives with the "wife's" family for awhile, and see how things go? The problem is that not all families are the "ideal" environment to do this, so one might just be seeing all manner of dysfunctional behavior instead of being able to validly assess the potential of marriage together. This is a toughy.

I guess I am very fortunate that I don't want to get married [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]. But let's face it, some religious communities don't allow live-ins either (especially some cloistered ones). Dating just has to take the place of this I guess, and a really long engagement, and perhaps even pre-marriage education courses or counselling? This is a good reason why people shouldn't rush into marriage.
[/quote]


That sounds like a beautiful idea, too often do people come together without knowing one another well enough to be married or to start a serious relationship, and end up either divoced or unhappy.

[Thomist-in-Training]

[quote name='nunsense' date='18 September 2009 - 11:41 PM' timestamp='1253331698' post='1968999']
That's such an interesting idea. Maybe the potential "wife" should move in with the family of the "husband" under very chaperoned conditions (definitely separate bedrooms) and just be part of the family for awhile. Then reverse the situation so the "husband" lives with the "wife's" family for awhile, and see how things go? The problem is that not all families are the "ideal" environment to do this, so one might just be seeing all manner of dysfunctional behavior instead of being able to validly assess the potential of marriage together. This is a toughy.
[/quote]

Well, in some former time, I'm thinking of P.G. Wodehouse era England here, people did visit other people's houses for a really long time, like a month, so you could almost do that. I think that was only the class of people who didn't have to work, though. P.G. Wodehouse wrote from the 30s or 40s on thru the 60s, but all the novels are set in some peaceful country-house era where the servants did the work and the World Wars never happened.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='rkwright' date='19 September 2009 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1253385139' post='1969259']
Al, I'd have to say its something more than just the institution of marriage that keeps it together. There is this thing called love

I love my wife and when we fight it actually makes me sad. I'm quick to apologize or work things out because I don't like fighting with her (don't get me wrong, I'm a lawyer and will argue a point to death, but with her my love is worth more than being right).
[/quote]
sacramental graces help your love

and the institution helps your love as well, I would say.

It's not a bad thing to say that the institution can hold it up, the word "institution" often gets a bad rap but the institution of marriage is important, and I suspect in all marriages there are times when it is a strong pillar of support, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that in most marriages there have been points at which it was the principal or only thing holding it together, for a short period of time of course. you might chalk up all your reasoning for always working things out to "love", but your love is materialized in something--the institution of marriage. that's the concrete manifestation of your love, and it's intricately connected to the reason she can never make you so mad that you'd storm off into the sunset and never look back.