The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
The Marrying Animal Print E-mail
By Ralph McInerny   
Tuesday, 02 June 2009

I have read War and Peace more times than it would be decent to say, most recently in the new translation by a husband and wife team that is distinctive largely because of its inclusion of French in the body of the text. It is marred by occasional infelicities such as using “mug” for face. No matter, any translation is a delight and on this recent reread I found myself taken particularly by the denouement when all the main characters are happily married and raising families.

The beautiful Helene, Pierre’s porcelain doll first wife, drifted to St. Petersburg after their definitive if informal separation and there she has affairs with two rivals simultaneously, further complicated by the fact that she remains married to Pierre. Tolstoy has her take instructions in Catholicism from a dubious Jesuit, with an eye to eligibility for a papal annulment. She plays one rival lover against the other by telling A that B has agreed to marry her, and vice versa. All this ends in the muted message that Helene has become pregnant and, with the help of an Italian physician, is seeking a remedy for what is winkingly referred to as her “angina pectoris.” She dies from the abortive medicine prescribed. This satisfying moral solution of her amorality does not sound strange in the novel.

That Helene represents all that Tolstoy loathes in what he rightly or wrongly considers the westernizing decline of Russian society, is underscored by the portrait of the marriages of the former Princess Maria – Prince André’s sister – and Count Nikolai, back from the wars and devoting himself to farming. This marriage is not devoid of edginess, the husband and wife do not really understand one another, but on one thing they are agreed. The purpose of marriage is children - the bonum prolis. And so it is with Natasha and Pierre. These two marriages were made possible by (1) the death of Helene and (2) the death of Prince André, whose ill-fated engagement to Natasha posed an impediment to the union of Nikolai and Maria. The couples are presented as surrounded by their progeny, with the wives anxious to get their husbands to focus on them. These chapters, sandwiched between Tolstoy’s endlessly self-indulgent excursions into the philosophy of history, are the most rewarding in the novel. They represent the return to normalcy after the depredations of war.

Aristotle’s remark that man is by nature a social animal is not often paired with another of his: man is even more naturally a marrying animal. The union of man and woman with the aim of reproduction creates the most fundamental society of all, the family. Any further society presupposes the family and is parasitic on it. The mark of any society is concern for the common good, and where better than in the family do I learn that I have goods that are not simply mine but ours? Parents and children, each with their private goods, must give precedence to the shared or common good of the family if it, and they, are to flourish.

To say that marrying and founding a family is natural to the human person, does not mean that it just comes about. The natural impulse must be humanized, consciously directed and ever preserved from the dangers that menace it. The greatest enemy of the family has arisen from the Enlightenment nonsense that freedom characterizes us, that we have no links or aims that are not freely chosen, that the natural instincts have no claim on the practical direction of our lives. For centuries there has been an assault on the fundamental unit of society with the result that political society is in chaos. It has become controversial to say that the family consists of a husband and wife and their children. The divorce of sexual activity from its manifest aim has created a chaos that is all around us. Replacement rates, in the touching phrase, are no longer met by western societies. Irregular unions, contraception, and abortion represent a vast suicidal movement toward extinction.

Hence the pleasure in finding simple moral truths recognized in what may be the greatest novel ever written. Tolstoy became a fruitcake as he grew older, his own marriage was more war than peace, and he fled to the local railway station where he died, refusing his wife admittance. He also wanted to reinvent Christianity. Well, no one is perfect. Nor is any marriage perfect. But without the common recognition of the ideal that each union seeks to embody we are left with swarms of autonomous individuals all of whose goods are mine and none ours.

When the common good of the family is forgotten the common good of political society is doomed. Isolated individuals, who group only for the furthering of their private goods, do not make a society. The common good is not the aggregate of private goods.

None of this is religious. It is natural morality. But natural morality, like religion, can be lost or at least obscured. We have entered a time when the family is regarded as an anomaly. God help us.

Ralph McInerny is a writer of philosophy, fiction, and cultural criticism, who has taught at Notre Dame since 1955.

(c) 2009 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info at thecatholicthing dot org

The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (10)Add Comment
0
Vanishing Family
written by Willie, June 02, 2009
Such is the prophecy of Humanae Vitae written in 1968 by Paul VI. This much maligned document ridiculed by progressive theologians is in our faces. Instead of marrying animals we have become just animals. If sex is a recreational activity alone as it has become, what difference does it make if man enjoys the same sex or even sheep. Dating, courtships and romance have gone. Our youth just hookup no strings attached. Such irresponsibility does not bode well for the defense of Western Civilization
0
...
written by Nathan, June 02, 2009
To say that marriage in the west has evolved may be true if you consider any change to be evolution. The important question is whether it has gotten better--a tough case to make. While the Enlightenment may have done some good in promoting the dignity of women, it seems to have degraded human society in other areas (e.g. religion!).
0
...
written by Tony, June 02, 2009
" A tree is known by its fruit ...". At the moment I can't provide chapter and verse, but I'd ask all defenders of "Progressivism", who think marriage needs to " evolve", what fruit has resulted from the Sexual Revolution and the breakdown of traditional marriage norms in Western societies?
0
Comment
written by David, June 02, 2009
Prof. McInerny grossly oversimplifies complicated issues and ignores the central fact that marriage in the West has and continues to evolve: the ideas of a freely chosen spouse (vs. an arranged marriage), romantic love (vs. an economic arrangement) and spousal rights (vs. women as property of the husband) are a result of the Enlightenment. Ironically, some of his arguments could also be used to support traditional polygamous societies that also humanize, direct and preserve family life.
0
...
written by Liz, June 03, 2009
Nathan: the so-called Women's Lib Movement did absolutely nothing for women except insure equal pay. Looking back over 40yrs, the Movement was supposed to "raise up" women. Instead, the "bad boy" syndrome can now apply to women - and there is no dignity. I'm appalled at what we have done, what we have allowed, and where this has all taken us. Men are no longer MEN and women, well, my grandmother (whom I admire to this day) would shudder in shame.
0
...
written by Paul Cornish, June 03, 2009
David suggests that the idea of a freely chosen spouse is a product of the Enlightenment, that is simply not so. It is more accurate to say that it is a product of Canon law and the ideal and practice of sacramental marriage in the middle ages. One need only read Aquinas' discussion of marriage in his Commentary on the Senetences to see this. There, sighting the law of the church, he argues that even a slave (servus) can marry without the consent of the master.
0
Mrs.
written by Karen, June 03, 2009
Amen! God help the family. Everything in nature has a reason and a pattern. What were humans created for? Not for sexual misconduct and the demoralization of families, and selfishness! And those same people wonder why such things happen in the world. How can we change this? We should also be saying God help our kids! They are the ones who will be suffering from this sin!
0
Parasitic?
written by Rev. Mark Reilly, June 04, 2009
I'm perplexed by Professor McInerny's use of the word "parasitic" in describing any larger society's relationship to its fundamental cell, the family. A parasitic relationship is a one way, harmful relationship. Some societies are indeed harmful to families, and thus suicidal. This is a pathological condition for sure - and one we must work to overcome in our own current situation, but not the norm. It seems to be an infelicitous use of the word in the context that he uses it. Clarification?
0
To Rev. Reilly
written by Brad Miner, June 04, 2009
If I may suggest a reason why Prof. McInerny used the word "parasitic" (and this is my opinion): It's wrong to think of a parasite as harmful. A parasite is morally no different than its host; it follows its nature, which is "dependence on something else for existence." The larger society grows up around marriage and needs marriage in order to thrive and survive. Therefore, society is parasitic on marriage, just as all men and women are parasitic on God.
0
Pastor
written by Fr. Larry Gearhart, June 04, 2009
What an excellent article by the good professor! As for people who are confused about women's liberation, I suggest the writings of Edith Stein, particularly, her Essays on Women.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Other Articles By This Author

CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner