Divorce and Romanticism
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
On
analyzing many of the works that have been written against divorce, we can
conclude that overall they deserve praise for their seriousness, clarity, and
balanced reasoning.
However,
nearly all use arguments that are somewhat academic. The arguments they proffer
are fine for persuading well-intentioned intellectuals, but as a general rule
they are entirely ineffective for the vast majority who make up public opinion,
which, ranging between indissolubility and divorce,
strongly leans towards the latter.
So one
who is pro-divorce may be reduced to an embarrassed and bored silence by
listening to conclusive arguments proven by facts and figures (which
superficial souls always like) on how divorce is harmful to the family and the
country.
He
might even remain silent for a while, muttering something under his breath. But
soon he starts all over again with the same point: “So, the unhappy spouse
cannot begin his or her life again? Is it just to deprive spouses of the right
to rebuild their happiness?”
All of
us who have fought against divorce know how frequent this attitude is. The
clearest arguments, the most penetrating arguments, simply roll off this
attitude like water off a duck’s back! For, the divorce advocates merely
retreat into themselves when exposed to the hammer of logic. And when the
firing stops they re-emerge unchanged from their lairs. Therefore, an effective
anti-divorce campaign must take this fact into consideration if it wants to
gain ground. We must realize that we have not yet fully explored the way to
approach or penetrate mentalities like this. It is essential to identify the
cause of this state of mind so we may find the argumentation that will meet it.
That is
why I want to speak about romanticism.
History
books tell us this school of thought has died, which is true if we are talking
about the Romantic Movement in literature and art. But is it equally true if we
are talking about life in general? Do the ways of thinking and feeling that
romanticism created really have no bearing on the mental and emotional habits
of our contemporaries? Regarding marriage in particular, is it true that the
people’s attitudes today are free from romantic influence? And what
relationship exists between this influence and the problem of divorce?
First,
let us recall some of the kinds of “heroes” and “heroines” of romanticism.
There
is the “sensitive” type of hero. He can be imagined as a youth (there is
nothing less romantic than fifty years of age) with fine, clean features. His
large melancholic eyes are lost in the empty horizon. His hair and clothes are
disheveled. His chest heaves with burning aspirations, undefined, torturing, seeking the complete happiness of true love.
But
no-one understands him. In the deep recesses of his soul are awesome horizons.
There are indescribable desires that need, seek, and beg to be understood by a
“sister soul.” There must exist in the vastness of this world a being created
to understand him. He is searching for her, for only in finding her will he
have happiness... And so he wanders sadly through life until he meets her.
Then
there is the romantic hero of the “terrible” type. He is morally identical to
the previous type, though somewhat different in appearance. He exudes manliness,
has an athletic physique, and a rather dark attractiveness, like a character
from one of Wagner’s operas. He commands a great fortune, high social status, immense influence, everything, in short, that life can
offer... But (and here is the “romance” of the scenario) there is a deep wound
in his heart: a burning love, a tremendous disappointment, a weight as heavy
and as cold as a tombstone, that will never find on the face of the earth a
love that matches his heart’s desires.
Symmetrical
to this is the figure of the “heroine.” It would not be difficult to find a
couple of typical examples.
The
first is the “delicate” type. She is charming, delicate of soul and body. Any
pain and she begins to cry, any abrasion of her soul makes her suffer. Simple as
a child, she carries in her heart an immense desire to dedicate herself to
someone and to be wanted by someone. She needs to be protected because of her
complete fragility, a fragility that is reflected in the meekness of her gaze,
in the sweet inflections of her voice, in the refinement of her features, in
the delicacy of her complexion.
The
other example would be the heroine of the “grandiose” type. A
dazzling beauty with the stature and bearing of a queen. She is the
natural center of attention, esteem, and dedication. A dominating and fatal
presence! But of course, deep in her heart is a hidden trembling, a profound
sorrow, a great and hidden pain. It is the bitterness
of a past disillusionment, the anxious and hopeless search for someone who
truly understands her.
At her
feet, poets, dukes, millionaires uselessly groan and plead. She is
uninterested. With a gaze that is haughty, yet profound and very sad, she
searches far and wide throughout her life for that which she will never find.
And what is it that she seeks? It is the happiness of a great love, as she
understands love, according to her most “noble” and tormenting aspirations. She
carries all this in her heart like a secret and unending flow of blood.
The
reader will perhaps smile. Doesn’t all this seem outdated? Could anyone who
sees a young man or a young woman passing by in a cheerfully colored car, in
this age of levity, recreation, and fitness, doubt that we are light-years away
from romanticism? The young man is practical, strong, joyful,
seems well set in life, and is full of the desire to succeed.
The
young woman is also practical, independent, enterprising, and often avid for
action. She is happy with life and wants to live it to the full. So what has
she in common with the romantic heroine that moved our grandmothers to tears?
We
agree that modern utilitarianism has created a climate of tolerance for
marriages that are inspired by cynically financial motives. Nor do we deny that
calculations based on careers and social standing influence marriages nowadays
much more than before. But if the numerous examples of such marriages today
lead us to conclude that this is the general rule, we would be greatly
mistaken.
“Sentiment”
remains very influential despite all the utilitarianism. And if we analyze this
sentiment we will see that it is simply a very superficial up-dating of the old
romantic themes.
In our
democratic age, distinguished and exceptional characters are no longer
acceptable. Today’s “hero” is the popular guy, and the damsel is the “glamour
girl.” These popular guys and glamour girls are all exactly the same as so many
others. The mechanization of modern life forces them to be less outstanding
than the “heroes” of yesteryear, and with fewer of those endless wanderings of
the mind.
All
this somewhat restricts the effusions of imagination and sentimentality. But
these restrictions notwithstanding, when it comes to matters of love it is
always the same sugary sentimentalism, the same vague desires. It is the same
misunderstandings, the same search for affinities, the same crises, the same
desires for affectionate and unending happiness, and the same and chronic
precariousness of all these “happinesses.”
To
prove this we don’t need a psychological study of second-rate literary and film
fare that abounds today and that truly forms the spirit of the masses. I think
it sufficient that the reader have just a little bit of common sense to see how
just our observations are. In fact, the great majority of marriages today that
result from “falling in love” are based on ideas thoroughly imbued with
romantic sentimentalism.
And
this is the problem. We have some marriages based on mercenary self-interest
and others on affection. And those that are based on affection are generally
influenced by romanticism. This being so, the stability of a marriage will
depend in large measure on how long self-interest or romanticism will enable
the spouses to endure one another.
There
is no reason to dwell on self-interest; I think it is clear enough. Let us
concentrate instead on the influence of romanticism.
Above
all, we need to emphasize that romanticism is essentially frivolous. It eagerly
presupposes the greatest virtues in the “heroine” or the “hero.” But in the
final analysis these virtues count for very little in the survival of mutual
affection. Sentimentalism is generally very forgiving of real moral defects, ingratitudes, injustices, and even outright betrayals. But
it does not forgive trivialities!
So for
example (and let’s take our examples from the flesh and blood of real life), it
will be a ridiculous way of snoring at night, it will be bad breath, or it will
be any other small human misery that can kill romantic sentiments without any
right of appeal. Romantic sentiments which, it must be remembered, have turned
a blind eye to the most grave reasons for complaint.
Now,
daily life is a fabric woven of trifles. And there is no one who does not have
some that are rather difficult to bear. Because of this it has already become
commonplace to talk about the disillusionments that come after the honeymoon.
“After this period,” someone once told me, “my wife didn’t deceive me, but
filled me with disillusionment.”
Romanticism
by its very essence and its very definition is made of illusions, of whims, of
uncontrolled passions, and hypothetical affections for people who could exist
only in dream worlds. Consequently, in a short time the feelings that were the
only psychological basis of marital stability begin to dissolve. Naturally,
persons in this state do not go to the bottom of things. They do not understand
how totally unattainable their desires were, and purely and simply assume that
they made a mistake. They thus conclude that they can yet find in someone the
happiness that this marriage did not give. Accustomed to living only and
exclusively for their own happiness, accustomed to seeing happiness exclusively
as the gratification of sentimental diversions, such persons will judge their
life incurably ruined -- unless, of course, they are able to satisfy these illusions
in another way.
Moreover,
they will judge equally ruined the lives of all the many other people who fell
into the same “mistake.” So divorce will become as absolutely necessary as the
air we breath.
What
impression will a serious argumentation against divorce, reinforced by the cold
language of statistics, possibly have on a person in this state of mind?
Accustomed
to mental wanderings, but not to thinking, this person detests any form of
argumentation, above all when it is serious. The mere language of numbers seems
ridiculous to such a person. And to talk to this person of the sociology of
marriage and love will seem to him about as shocking as speaking of the most
technical aspects of botany to a poet who is entertaining himself by admiring
the beauty of a flower.
Thus
one can see that those who uphold the Church’s traditional teachings concerning
the indissolubility of marriage would strike the wrong target by trying to use
argumentation based on morality or on the common good with people who are only
interested in their own individual happiness in a world of dreams and fantasy.
And
here we approach the end.
In the
final analysis, romanticism is sheer egoism.
The
romantic does not seek anything but his own happiness. He can only think of
love in the sense that the other is an instrument for his happiness. He desires
this emotional happiness so much that if free rein is given to his sentiments,
they will jump all barriers of morality, will ignore all considerations of the
common good, and he will brutally satisfy his instincts. And nothing is built
on egoism... especially the family.
It is
necessary, therefore, to begin a tremendous anti-romantic offensive. It is
necessary to explain the fundamental difference between Christian love
(charity) and the romantic sentimentalism still in fashion. It is necessary to
explain that Christian love is something imbued with the supernatural, full of
common sense and balance; profoundly pious, authentic and generous. It triumphs
over all wild wanderings of the imagination and the rebellious senses, and over
the sensual, egotistical love of unrestrained passions.
It is
false to imagine that true Christian spouses are the heroes of a romance who by
a happy coincidence build an authentic marriage, according to Canon Law, as a
preliminary step to the mere satisfaction of their passions.
As long
as sentimentalist-romantic concepts influence the outlook of engaged couples,
every marriage will be precarious, because it will be built on the soft,
shifting, volcanic ground of human egoism.
It is
commonly said that the family is the basis of society. But, as
Marriages
based on romantic sentiments and egoism are not the
foundations of the City of
(Published in Crusade, July-August, 1997
First
published in Catolicismo,
October 1951).