The news that Simon Cowell is about to have a baby with the wife of his best friend has astonished even a world-weary media. While one newspaper has congratulated the father-to-be, in spite of the somewhat tangled circumstances of the child’s conception, others see it as a betrayal of the basic values of loyalty and trust amongst friends.
Whatever the particular details of this sorry tale, we have to see it against the background of a widespread breakdown of marriage and family life. Rather than thinking of others first, we are now encouraged to think first of ourselves. The rather amusing discovery that we increasingly use our mobile phone cameras to take pictures of ourselves just about sums up the situation.
It is not just selfishness, however. In the last 50 years there has been a full-scale ideological attack on marriage by activists and academics determined to undermine the institutions of society, of which the family is the most basic. It is where we first belong: the first school, the first church, the first community. Instead of the commitment and stability of marriage and family, regarded by these chattering classes as bourgeois, they have advocated and practised "pure relationships" which last only as long as either partner wants them to last.
Not surprisingly, this has had a devastating effect on the family: children being brought up without one parent (usually the father), lack of loving discipline at home and delinquency on the street, poor performance at school, skyrocketing figures for "special needs" and, most importantly, difficulties in forming and sustaining stable relationships. The tragic murder of little Daniel Pelka is another picture of this chaos in family life. The new partner of a parent can certainly be caring and loving towards the children but, as the Pelka case shows, this is not always the case.
I remember being told when I arrived as a bishop in the South-East that the children of a certain area lived under "reverse curfew". Because one of their parents (usually the mother) had a new partner; they were not allowed to be back home before a certain hour in the evening. What a recipe for children going wrong!
Again, all the evidence shows us that children are more likely to experience the separation of their parents if they are not married. Marriage used to be thought of as a contract for providing security to the spouses and for the bringing up of any children there might be. Society expected the parties to be committed to one another for life and the Church taught that they were now not just two individuals living together but sacramentally one so that "what God has joined together let no one put asunder". The continuous erosion of these values has given us no-fault divorce without consent. In other words, marriage is now not even an enforceable contract. It has been said that it's now easier for people to get out of a marriage than it is to get out of their mortgage.
When conflict in a marriage is very high, divorce can be a painful necessity – but research shows that children prefer their parents to stay together even when there is conflict, provided it is not beyond endurance. Nowadays, however, the first sign of tension can be an excuse for ending a marriage.
So is there a way out of such social disorder? One fundamental value we have to relearn is that it is more fulfilling, if more difficult, to live for others. This extends to society as a whole and even to the stranger – but it must begin in the family. An enduring commitment to our partner and an openness to the nurture of children are not limitations on being fully human but the very means of developing as persons.
Turning from the personal to the social, all the evidence is that marriage is good for the partners, with married people enjoying better health, longevity and overall satisfaction with life. It is also good for children. Every indicator, whether performance at school, health, social skills or delinquency, shows that children of married people do better. Nor is this only because such parents tend to be better educated and wealthier. These last two may well be part of a "cycle of virtue" where personally and socially useful values strengthen one another.
One point worth mentioning is that children relate to mothers and fathers differently. This has significance for their sense of identity, the development of relationships with those of the same and opposite gender and in the acquisition of certain skills. It is also worth noting that their relationship with their mother or father is specific and cannot be replaced by other role models, however well intentioned. Social scientists tell us that societies prosper when there is inter-generational communication. In traditional society, it used to take place at home, at school and at church. Where is it taking place now and where are the precious values for the flourishing of society being transmitted? Being competitive is not only a matter of economics but has important social dimensions. It is for these reasons that a public doctrine of marriage is essential.
We must, of course, support parents and children wherever and however we find them, but the State has a responsibility to support marriage and family because this is the basic building block of society. Preference for marriage, for example in the tax system, does not mean that the needs of others would therefore be neglected. Churches have long been involved in preparing couples for marriage. We cannot claim that this is always done well. With more and more couples now opting for civil marriage, however, preparation cannot be left to the churches. It must be a requirement for all intending to marry. This should include attention to the sexual, affective and nurturing aspects of marriage but also finance, the sharing of household chores and relating to the in-laws. It's vital that new parents are offered support in parenting or, rather, in mothering and fathering, as the roles of each are not always interchangeable. Identifying and assessing risk at the outset will save many tears later on.
Voluntary agencies, like Home Start, deserve support and funds as they work with parents to equip them for the complex demands of parenting. "Pre-nuptials" these days tends to mean the financial arrangements couples agree if the marriage should break down. In some parts of America, however, they are coming to mean a comprehensive agreement about what couples will do if their marriage runs into difficulties. This may include turning to appropriate relatives, friends or their church for help or to go through counselling. We should be examining such ideas here as well, so that intending partners realise the seriousness of what they are about to undertake.
Let us look beyond the infidelities, the failure and the social breakdown towards a vision of society where couples are helped to stay together, even when it is difficult, for their own sakes, for the children, who are often the biggest sufferers (Cowell’s girlfriend’s seven-year-old son has hardly been mentioned) and for the sake of society as a whole. For the truth is that those who have attacked marriage have put nothing in its place.
This article was first published in The Telegraph on 5th August.