Continued from post of Sept 20th: C. S. Lewis On Christian Marriage. . . .“Before we consider this modern view in its relation to chastity, we must not forget to consider it in relation to another virtue, namely justice. Justice, as I said before, includes the keeping of promises. Now everyone who has been married in a church has made a public solemn promise to stick to his (or her) partner till death. The duty of keeping that promise has no special connection with sexual morality; it is in the same position as any other promise. If, as modern people are always telling us, the sexual impulse is just like all other impulses, than it ought to be treated like other impulses; and as their indulgence is controlled by our promises, so should its be. If, as I think, it is not like all other impulses, but morbidly inflamed, then we should be especially careful not to let it lead us into dishonesty.
To this someone may reply that he regarded the promise made in church as a mere formality and never intended to keep it. Whom then, was he trying to deceive when he made it? God? That was really very unwise. Himself? That was not very much wiser. The bride or bridegroom, or the “in-laws”? That was treacherous. Most often, I think, the couple (or one of them) hoped to deceive the public. They wanted the respectability that is attached to marriage without intending to pay the price: That is, they were imposters, they cheated. If they are still contented cheats, I have nothing to say to them: who would urge the high and hard duty of chastity on the people who have not yet wished to be merely honest? If they have now come to their senses and want to be honest, their promise, already made, constrains them. And this, you will see, comes under the heading of justice, not that of chastity. . . .one fault is not mended by adding another: unchastity in not improved by adding perjury.
The idea that ‘being in love” is the only reason for remaining married really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all. If love is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; and if it adds nothing then it should not be made. The curious thing is that lovers themselves, while they remain really in love, know this better than those who talk about love. As Chesterton pointed out, those who are in love have a natural inclination to bind themselves by promises. Love songs all over the world are full of vows of eternal constancy. The Christian law is not forcing upon the passion of love something which is foreign to that passion’s own nature: it is demanding that lovers should take seriously something which their passion of itself impels them to do.
And, of course, the promise, made when I am in love, to be true to the beloved as long as I live commits one to being true even if I cease to be in love. A promise must be about things that I can do, about actions: no one can promise to go on feeling in the same way. He might as well promise to never have a headache or always to feel hungry. But what, it may be asked, is the use of keeping two people together if they are no longer in love? There are several sound, social reasons; to provide a home for their children, to protect the woman (who has probably sacrificed or damaged her own career by getting married) from being dropped whenever the man is tired of her.
(this will be continued – C.S. Lewis has much more to say!)
~ ‘Mere Christianity’ p.95-97, Collier Books, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1942, 1945, 1952 New York, New York
