Marriage as foundation of the family

Marriage as foundation of the family

THE full reality of a family as ordinarily perceived has the following three constituent factors:  father, mother and children—all together considered as one intimate domestic community.  Marriage as qualified by the unifying and united unit of the spouses and the indissolubility of their union plus the actuality of their children they have brought into the world—this is when marriage in truth and in fact qualified as the ontological foundation of the family.

Sad but true, it would be downright hypocrisy to say that a soluble marriage for whatever cause is the foundation of the family, the premise of a domestic community.  With a soluble valid marriage for whatever cause or reason, fathers, mothers, children there can be.  But an honest-to-goodness permanently standing family, they are certainly not.

For the interpersonal good of the spouses who totally and irrevocably gave each one to the other, and for the proper upbringing of the children born through their procreative union and also for the harmony and peace of society precisely composed of families, the marriage bond should not be made altogether dependent on but the personal decision of one or both of the spouses to hold on to or to get rid of.  Needless to say, the family being a component of society affects the latter one way or the other—depending on the attributes or liabilities of the former.

Let it be expressly and categorically said that no mere human authority or power may abolish not only the natural right for men and women to get married but also to dare modify the essence and objectives of marriage as established by Natural Law and affirmed by Divine Law, do not give in to but mere human individualistic likes and personal dislikes about marriage.  The truth is that before the advent of any State, before the formation of any government, marriage has already been defined by ethics and morals.

It is both sad and pitiful when there are certain public officials—whose existence and finality are precisely meant for the promotion of the common good, for the affirmation of public welfare—who are the very ones who author and/or promote legislations against the intrinsic nature and ontological finalities of marriage which is one-to-one for life.  There are indications that those politicians thus promoting the dissolution” of marriage for this and that cause have failed marriages, other de facto partners or the like.  So it is that they invent these and those novel terminologies all of which in fact simply means divorce.