Eros and the Seventh Sacrament - relationships before marriage

Today many temporary trial couplings precede the emergence of stable and married couples from the world of singleness. It is in the nature of these temporary trial couplings that the majority will come to an end. They are usually brought to an end by one of the two partners rather than by spontaneous mutual agreement: it is the process known by the other partner as being ditched or dumped, or otherwise smoothed over by many euphemisms, but nevertheless painful, certainly for one partner and often for both. How painful the separation will be is dependent upon how far the relationship has progressed. Breaking up after two or three evenings out is very different from breaking up six months or a year into a relationship, and different again from breaking up after moving in together, or becoming engaged, or marrying.

Some have sought to deny that the hurt exists, but the reality is that it does exist, somewhere on the scale between disappointment and bereavement.³²⁰ The degree of hurt is dependent not so much on the length of time the two people have known each other as on how much each has invested in the relationship. That investment will have encompassed ‘body and instinct, powerful emotion, and aspiration of both the spirit and the will’.³²¹ All of these are hurt when the relationship comes to an end.

Avoiding hurt is right at the heart of our ethical system, so avoiding or limiting the hurt of breaking up becomes a moral imperative. Historically some highly structured societies have attempted to achieve this by banning this phase of trial couplings, but such a draconian curtailment of personal freedom is unlikely to add to human wellbeing overall. A sequence of trial couplings allows people to look for a compatible partner, which sounds brutal, but the reality is that for the level of intimacy that eros seeks, within a diverse human race, some potential partners are more readily compatible with each other than others.³²² Ultimately this can only be discerned by the individuals themselves, hence the practical necessity of temporary trial couplings on the way towards the emergence of permanent committed pairs. Some hope to find a relationship with someone so compatible that the relationship can be totally fulfilling in return for zero effort, but of course no such relationship exists. Nevertheless, in any appropriate coupling, the returns for both parties are far greater than either’s investment. Such is the simple logic of the companionable sharing of two lives, and the ultimate goal of eros.

Still there remains the problem of the hurt of breaking up in the necessary trial phase. It cannot be avoided. Perhaps at least it can be limited. This means limiting, or at least being aware of, the level of investment – the investment each party is making in the relationship, which will be lost if the relationship ends. The simple advice is not to invest too much too soon. Unfortunately if eros is ever to progress, if couples are ever to emerge at all, something has to be invested, risks have to be taken, there has to be self-giving, but it is wise to be aware just how much, and just how soon. The ritual of marriage, whatever it may mean today, was originally intended to mark the point at which a couple finally agree together to invest everything.

320 It may even be worse than bereavement, as it can be even harder to let go.

321 The investment encompasses ‘body and instinct, powerful emotion, and aspiration of both the spirit and the will’ on the general principle that eros encompasses both body and soul. The list is quoted again from Catechism item 1643. It resembles the list of the three centres that make up the human individual in the author’s Head versus Heart (O Books, 2005), where ‘head’ stands for logic and reason (here, more profoundly, ‘aspiration of both the spirit and the will’), heart stands for emotions and dreams (here ‘powerful emotion’ and possibly ‘aspiration of the spirit’), and the so-called gut zone represents the body, and gut instinct, and gut reaction (here ‘body and instinct’); each zone has its own intelligence, its own strengths and weaknesses, its own virtues and temptations, and its own contribution to the fullness of what it is to be human.

322 A suggestion from the UK organisation Relate is that there are three key factors for compatibility. None is essential, but if any of the three is missing it is best to have both of the others. The first of the three is shared culture, which encompasses everything from nation of origin and ethnicity to social class and age. The second is verbal compatibility: that you like to talk about the same things, and tend to agree on them. The third is non-verbal compatibility, otherwise described as the magic connection that transcends all explanation, the love at first sight, the bells ringing in heaven, the sheer delight at each other’s presence. Any two of the three will do. This model is compatible with the suggested modes for couple compatibility in the author’s Head versus Heart (O Books, 2005, pages 154-157), where verbal compatibility is compatibility in the head zone (the home of language), non-verbal compatibility is compatibility in the gut zone (gut instinct, gut reaction, always present tense), and the matter of shared culture is about the assumptions each partner brings to the relationship about how relationships operate or ought to operate, assumptions acquired from the surrounding culture using the intelligence of the heart zone. Closeness in any two of the three will do, with the one potentially disagreeing zone of the three relegated to lesser significance, hence the most common pattern for couples described in Head versus Heart, that of so-called neighbouring pairs.

Relationships before marriage