Hugo Burnand: TRH The Duke and Duchess of CambridgeWrites Ms. Mary Kochan of Catholic Lane:
There was no pretending that this marriage was merely about the two young lovers and their “feelings.” Despite the fairy-tale aspects and all the Cinderella references, this wedding anchored their marriage into a familial and social order that goes way beyond them in time and geography. Contra the modern conception of the atomized individual, both families were present and involved as though “t]he future of humanity passes by way of the family” (Familiaris Consortio), because indeed it does. Human beings do not create themselves; they do not create their own identities. They discover who they are and for (blessedly, still) most that discovery takes place in a family context, where roles of son or daughter, nephew or niece, brother or sister, weave the texture of life.Further:
Just as human beings do not create themselves, they do not create marriage. Marriage is an estate given to man by his Creator and human beings stand under the judgment of God regarding how seriously they take it. There was no mincing of words on that score and everything attending the ceremony underscored the sacred nature of the proceedings. The couple did not use the wedding to showcase their hobbies or any other frivolity. They married in a sacred place, the most opulent and venerable space available to them given their station in life. Their wedding was presided over by the highest ranking clerics available to them. And the ceremony was accompanied by beautiful sacred music, some traditional and some composed especially to mark the occasion – but composed, as was their own prayer, in accord with the religious tradition they both inherited and assented to, screwed deeply into the sacred history of that heritage and thus timeless. Timeless the music, timeless the readings, timeless the prayers, and even the dress, for it is by such timelessness that we celebrate what is transcendent.
Woman then is a gift to man in a special way, something for him to “unwrap” and treasure. Hence the handing over of her by her father; hence the veil; hence the virginal white of the gown. And here come the cynics to remind us that they have lived together already for four years. Yes, but they did not on that account forgo the ceremonial giving and rightly so, for while the gift may have been opened illegitimately before, the giving here was still real – some things are honored even in the breach and you could see it in her eyes. They no longer live a lie, but William has in the old, but so true, terminology, “made an honest woman of her” — they tell the truth now, to each other and the world. The woman is given to the man and the world should pause and ponder.
Among other things, this means that there was no pretending that this man and woman could have been interchangeable with two men or two women. Imagine for a moment that Prince William had announced at 17 that he was “gay” and taken up with another young man. Would there have been a royal wedding and perhaps a new heir gotten by means of a lesbian surrogate and a turkey baster? No. It would not be. And we don’t say, “It would not be” with a proper British accent and a tone that indicates we simply mean “It just isn’t done.” No, we mean it would not exist. In the face of the homosexual agenda and all its propaganda, this wedding proclaimed the truth of marriage and showed homosexual pretense up for the play-acting absurdity that it is. Marriage is something, the lifelong union of man and woman, and marriage has ends – purposes – the chief among them being the procreation of children.
H/T: Tea at Trianon
The Queen's tour of Ireland demonstrated exactly why it's a good idea to have a monarch as head of state, says Jenny McCartney:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/jennymccartney/8528333/The-Queen-in-Ireland-a-majestic-turning-point.html
As much as I support the tradition and heritage of our empire, the homophobia in the above posts is somewhat disturbing. There's no reason to use the royal wedding to discredit homosexuals, or argue against gay marriage. There is a noted lack of societal detriment to permitting gay marriage, and thus no reason to disallow it.
ReplyDeleteSo if you're against gay so-called marriage or -- more generally -- against the State redefining the marriage institution, it's homophobia? If that's what you are saying, such induction I find disturbing, Mr. Anonymous!
ReplyDeleteTo some extent, the state prohibiting homosexuals from marrying is homophobic. The implication in the article is homosexuals are somehow unnatural or otherwise wrong. This implication, other than being false, also must be interpreted homophobic.
ReplyDeleteIt is not mostly a question of allowing or disallowing. Marriage is by definition not for same sex, Mr. Anonymous.
ReplyDeletePlease feel free to see my article on the issue.
Justin Raimondo is a homosexual. He is opposed to same-sex so-called marriage. Please feel free to see his articles here and here. Is Mr. Raimondo homophobic too?
I suppose it also depends on the definition of marriage. If you consider Marriage as a tradition defined as not permissible for those of the same sex, then yes, it is perfectly acceptable to say that homosexual marriage is impossible. However, if we consider it to be a legal union recognized by the secular state, then advocating against homosexual marriage would be homophobic.
ReplyDeleteIs it really necessary to turn discussion of the Royal Wedding into a tirade against same gender marriage? This issue was thoroughly debated on these pages two years ago, ending in a draw of both numbers and arguments on both sides of the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe sentiments stated by Ms. Mary Kochan are not shared by majorities of Monarchists, conservatives, or even Catholics. Nor are real life same gender unions lacking in heroic virtue, even if detractors cannot see beyond the base aspect. Please stop using this Monarchist forum to push these divisive views.
Please also note, gentlemen, that this post is about the defense of marriage as an institution in general, where the part debated over the latest few comments is only a part.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, this weblog has a fogeyish perspective. The emphasis on fogeyness -- and how it materializes -- of course varies from author to author -- in understanding with the editor. Monarchists will find in these pages things with which they do not agree.
In respect for the editor, I will not elaborate more on the policies of this weblog. However, monarchists are of course welcome here.
Another thought experiment would, I think, be more educational here. What if, as some tabloids on this side of the Atlantic have gossiped, one or both of the newly-wed couple was infertile? Would an unwillingness by Prince William to give up his new bride be considered counter to the sacred character of marriage? What about a resort to artificial means (using, hopefully, something more sterile than a turkey baster)? Some means of fertility enhancements would likely produce crises of inheritance, as would a decision on their part to adopt--but would any such decision violate their vows to each other and to God?
ReplyDeleteThis picture of them looks very nice. It is just too bad, that Prince William does not know (or not want) to dress like a proper gentleman.
ReplyDeleteLater that evening, he would wear his double breasted dinner jacket with unpolished full brogue shoes and a wristwatch as we pointed out in our Royal Wedding Evening Wear.