DAVID WARREN
Marriage, I have heard, is in some trouble as an institution of modern life. Oddly, its chief
assailants fixate on the element of "fealty" within the wedding rite. They find that more
important than what they imagine to be "accidents," such as the sex of the respective
participants. They understand that an allegiance is pledged, and could be pledged, only
between two actual persons. Fervid supporters of "gay marriage" are unlikely to embrace
polygamy as well.
We have here another case of vestigial Christianity: the beauty that is perceived within the
formal bond. But whether the relation is "heterosexual" or some other, it is fully adapted to
the requirements of our age. The "partners" must be "equal," and the bond remains
voluntary both before and after the ostentatious public ceremony. The whole profession of
fidelity can be quickly cancelled, without ceremony. One needn't go to Las Vegas any
more, and the only vexed question will be who gets what.
I mentioned soldiers. In my modest experience as a hack journalist, in zones proximate to
war, I have come to know some soldiers. I have also come to think that the Christianity
espoused by such a high proportion of them is immeasurably enhanced by their experience
of loyalty to comrades, under enemy fire. I am not alone in comparing this to the monastic
experience, where the common enemy may be "spiritual" and "unseen," but is nevertheless
vividly apprehended: and one monk would lay down his life for another.
There remains the moment when the young seminarian puts his hands within the hands of
his superior, and pledges fealty. I think the modern instinct is to wince at this. There is
something a little too real about it; it invades all of our "virtual" spaces. Henceforth, he will
serve.
poverty, drugs, and other passive things. Against a very active enemy, crusading is now in
poor taste. Hence the crusade is against abstract "terrorism," but against, say, the Daesh
only insofar as they may embody the abstract of unambiguous evil in brief moments of
media revelation.
Hours later, we are watching our tongues again, lest we betray a belief that the world is full
of real as well as virtual enemies, and we find ourselves committed to something
inconvenient and uncomfortable.
Allegiance, in marriage and all other forms, is not for a season. "I'm your man" can be
taken as an amusing and ironical pop lyric, but when taken literally, it is too much for our
sensibilities.
As I confessed above, I have difficulty myself, for I am a modern man like the rest, which is
to say, the grain of modernity runs through me. As Catholic Christian I am pledged to go
against this grain, but Lord it is sometimes hard, and I am sometimes frightfully
complacent. The groundwork of my loyalty to Holy Church is there, but the man who
stands upon it is apt to swivel away from the real, towards the "abstract" and painless.
"Fealty," the word, is not the same as "fidelity." It means, or has in English since before
modern English came into vogue, "obligation to fidelity." It can be spotted immediately, by
almost anyone who has become aware of historical time, as "a mediaeval concept." That is
to say, it is a Christian concept, a ghost proceeding from some despised or romanticized
"age of faith."
The idea that fidelity might entail an obligation is foreign to the modern mind, even in the
moments when it is given lip service, in light shadows such as contract law. To recover it
we must first re-imagine what it could mean.