Look what marriage is doing (3)
To date, I have made the case that the centre of marriages throughout this country is not holding. The cracks in some may be plastered; but the others stand between probable reparable and total collapse with between bad and embarrassing consequences.
Advertisement
The obvious discomfort is that these continue to hound questions which no one wants to answer, let alone to tackle for a safe resolution to a problem which is leaving all of us looking like stark staring bonkers—the State, Church, Tradition and couples with a variety of cri de coeur. The children, who are and would be the hopeful successors to “our heritage won for us” sit in the middle of nowhere-hapless before an increasingly growing army of single parents in a country without the dole and child benefit.
At one level, counselling shortfalls before and after pose a key cause factor; the church has reason to reexamine their rules. To quote I believe the Archbishop of Canterbury or so recently: “The church has to get it right;” and the State cannot distance itself to rely on the courts to do the painful job of dismantling marriages as if it is their real responsibility. The macro family consensus appears to have died. The two lump together the second tier in the mess.
In this slot I am skirting peculiar failures not discussed yet. It is neither to cast aspersions nor finger-point blame except to heighten the urgency and urge an exit ways and means. I insist in my mind in a persistence for change to explain away my rejection of blame game. The reason is that would have been found to be a counter-productive exercise since my aim is to stir the hornet’s nest by raising enough alarm for a national rethinking debate because marriage has lost its sacred mantra and become a fancy dress and/or a soap opera wherein pretence treads.
Numbers swelling game
Peculiar first failure lies in the apparent numbers swelling game at play in the church. It takes a wrong rationale from a basic credo in cricket. It says ‘you catch them young.’ On the contrary, by its particular dynamics demands and burdens with decisions to take that “early” or “young” theorem is deadly spoiler-defeatist in the consummation of marriage “till death do us part.” This is where you find the entry of the cause-trouble questionable counselling, the content and who counsels?
A point of veritable controversy exists in the arguments about cause of friction-induced break-up. It is the role of mothers especially since the start of the fashion show towards the close of “Kalabule” era in this country—1972-79 with particular reference to scores of immature teenage marrying and the show boat that came along with them. You see it split micro families—husbands were and have been in trouble for objecting to daughters being given away at that tender age. It is only one significant part of it.
Role of Churches
The case of the role of the church is the next crucial issue. I am limiting it to where it is clear that the peculiarity of the core of the problem lies. Central are the Clergy who are ordained and self-appointed in our midst. I shall not divide them into orthodox and unorthodox. That is not emphatically to say ‘the value is the same.’ Their given duty is counselling, officiating and adjudicating to settle complaints to try to pre-empt in line with “let no man put asunder.”
You find today that majority are young in general—male and female. How is their marriage and are they married? The Roman Catholic Reverend Fathers are the poorest in the groupings because their lot is not like “Caesar’s heirs.” There are stories about temptations and falls. Do we see what burden is placed on them and indeed the entirety of Clergy? Of course there have been less than simple temptations. The potential is there though it does not for a formula stop the waywards in cassocks or black suits necessarily at once or any other time. “There is a ‘Mensah’ in every country,” the elders say; but above all there is valuable deterrence in its ambit.
