*Spoiler Reflections* On Marriage and Jane Eyre

"Some mere human law." These are the words Mr. Rochester (Michael Fassbender) uses to describe marriage. To him, his love and devotion for Jane (Mia Wasikowska) are all that matter. Love, or at least, his idea of love, conquers all - even a marriage that already exists between him and mad Bertha Mason. This is the same attitude that many in our ailing modern culture take toward the sacred, God-given institution of marriage. And, like Jane in the oft-told story, it is this attitude that we must reject.

Multiple lines in the newest adaptation of Jane Eyre mirror the prevailing modern attitude toward marriage. A pre-existing marriage is just "a mere convention impediment," according to Mr. Rochester. "Convention" is then the villain in his eyes, not himself. This is the same line of reasoning used both by cohabitants and same-sex union activists. Marriage is a "convention." Marriage is man-made. Marriage can be ignored. Or marriage can be altered to welcome any new combination of consenting adults - and, perhaps one day, children - who want to bestow that title on their relationship. Conventions change, so why shouldn't marriage? If two or more people say they "love" each other (though the definition of that word has become suspect), then marriage is not required. On the other hand, if two or more people love each other, then society should accept them like any traditional married couple. That, at least, is the reasoning.

The reasoning Mr. Rochester uses in an attempt to persuade Jane to become his mistress is similar to those used to justify broken marriages. In other words, divorce. Mr. Rochester pleads with Jane, telling her that, in the sinful relationship that he proposes, "the essential things are the same" as those in a real marriage. "I pledge you my honor, my fidelity, my love until death do us part," he whispers. In our culture, as long as two people "love" each other, it doesn't matter whether those two people have ever been married. As long as they are legally free to marry, they are morally free to do so.

Unfortunately, this the Protestant attitude toward marriage. I'll never forget the scene in Fireproof, the famous pro-marriage, low-budget film, where Catherine has a conversation with a coworker named Anna. Catherine and her husband are on the verge of divorce (which would be her husband's fault more than hers), and Catherine has been enjoying the attentions of a male coworker. Anna expresses distrust of the coworker and says something like: "If he is willing to flirt with you while you're still married, then he probably won't respect your marriage to him if you end up getting married." However, if marriage is not truly "until death to us part," if marriage is merely a legal status, then why should he respect it? What does it matter whether another man flirts with Catherine before or after she files the paperwork? If her marriage lasts only until she gets tired of her husband, then it arguably never existed at all. Either marriage is a temporary legal status that can be changed at any moment (and is therefore pretty much pointless), or it has some meaning and is 'til death. There is no other option.

Despite all arguments to the contrary, marriage is not a convention. It is not man-made. The title of marriage cannot be given to just any relationship. In Ephesians 5, St. Paul repeatedly compares the relationship of a man and his wife (not just two people who love each other) to the relationship of Christ and His Church. In this way, marriage is a covenant that reflects Christ's covenant with His Church. Christ was faithful unto death and will remain faithful throughout eternity. The Church has likewise remained faithful and will remain so for eternity, though its members sometimes stray. Christ will not simply divorce his Church and find another that is easier to get along with. He made a covenant and sealed it with His blood. In marriage, the couple makes a covenant and seals it with the marital embrace. After that, nothing except death can part them.

This was Jane's idea of marriage. Mr. Rochester had entered into a sacred bond with another woman, and only death could part them. He could verbally pledge his honor, his fidelity, and his love, but they were not his to give because he had given them to someone else. As he pledges these three to her, Jane cries "You cannot!" When he is finished, she counters with the question, "What of truth?" His marriage to her would not be a true marriage, and she wants nothing to do with a mere imitation. She soon afterward flees the room and his house.

Jane is vindicated in the end. After a period of several months, she returns to Mr. Rochester's house to find it is partially destroyed. There has been a fire, and Bertha is dead. Mr. Rochester lost his sight in an attempt to save her life - a truly heroic gesture given that Bertha was the impenetrable wall that had been built between him and Jane. Mr. Rochester and Jane are now free to marry, and marry they do (though it is not shown in this particular movie). But this time, each is free to pledge their honor, fidelity, and love in a true marriage with no impediments. Their embrace of true marriage and true love brings a happiness that nothing, not even blindness, can dampen. Thus, the prevailing attitudes in our culture must be rejected, for no "mere human law" could give such happiness.

Off-site links to more in-depth Church teaching and arguments:

• Homosexuality and same-sex unions
• Marriage