A Book Ahead of Its Time

“With each passing day, the conversation about marriage grows in gravity and urgency,” German author Ida Friederike Görres wrote in 1956. That sentence could easily have been written today. The same goes for her 1971 book, What Binds Marriage Forever, a well-argued, rigorous defense of the indissolubility of marriage and the dangerous precedents Görres saw coming for it.

Originally published in German, the book fell out of print the same year it was published. Jennifer Bryson, a translator and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, found a copy on Ebay and immediately recognized its significance. Her English translation—the first—was released earlier this year by The Catholic University of America Press. It’s a must-read for marriage scholars.

Who was Ida Görres?

Ida Görres (1901-1971) was a prolific and prominent Catholic author who wrote hagiography, and books and articles about Catholic Church teachings, in particular those related to marriage and sexual ethics. She handed in the manuscript for What Binds Marriage Forever the week before she died. On May 14, 1971, she gave an impassioned speech at the opening of the Wurzburg Synod that had convened to discuss changes to Church teachings related to marriage and remarriage. The following day, she collapsed, passing away soon after. Professor Joseph Ratzinger, who would later become Pope Benedict XVI, delivered the eulogy at her funeral. 

Structure and Context

The indissolubility of marriage is a cornerstone of Catholic Church doctrine. But this is far more than a Catholic book. The concept of lifelong marriage and the idea that spouses become “one flesh” has existed across religious denominations for thousands of years. Divorce is not a modern invention either, but widespread acceptance is a 20th century phenomenon. And the adoption of no-fault divorce gave legal recognition to the impermanence of marriage.

The truth of conclusions about the weakening of marriage stand in stark relief against the lens of time. All of her warnings have come to pass, and more, including phenomenon she mentions in passing like the explosion of birth control, the trivialization of adultery and pre-marital sex, etc. Moreover, the marriage rate is the lowest in recorded history.

Many modern social ills are easily traceable to passage of no-fault divorce. Görres talked of a crisis that went back further, within the Church, particularly in Germany. The divorce revolution and proliferation of annulments were still to come, but she saw them developing. (In recent years, the progressive German synodal way has reasserted itself, causing renewed conflict with the Vatican over issues concerning marriage, gender, and sexuality.)

In 1968, Pope Paul XI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae, which reaffirmed Church teaching on the inseparable connection between sex, procreation, and marriage, was released. It crossed hairs with the Sexual Revolution and those who considered Church teachings outdated. Gőrres, on the other hand, called the Pope’s encyclical prophetic before she died.

Her book is organized into 102 concise reflections. It’s a breezy first read that whets the appetite for a second, closer study. To make the book more helpful for scholars and other researchers, Bryson has added citations and footnotes, a general index, and one with Biblical references, along with a bibliography and study guide.

Observations That Still Apply Today

For Görres, the growing movement to treat marriage as soluble resulted from cultural and religious influences that made it more difficult for unions to last. Catholic teaching already allowed for separation in appropriate cases and still does. Görres identified the root of the problem as Church wrangling on how to legitimize remarriage.

We tend to think of the personal “happiness” obsession as a late 20th and early 21st century phenomenon, but it actually dates back to the 18th century. Görres saw this driver at work in the strategy to condone spouses moving on to new partners. It operated in tandem with cultural premiums placed on “freedom” and “progress.”

These notions created inevitable loggerheads within the Catholic Church. For her, assaults on the indissolubility of marriage struck at the heart of the faith because “the sacramentality of the marriage covenant consists explicitly in the fact that it is the one, general sign in the re-execution of the covenant between Christ and the Church.” Görres criticized priests and theologians for caving to pressure. Why couldn’t priests put the same amount of effort into helping heal marriages as cleaning up the rubble, she asked. Today, Pope Leo has continued to warn priests about exhibiting “false mercy” toward those wanting to exit their marriages.

Görres identified three main elements that bind marriage: covenant, law, and grace. She wasn’t opposed to love but contended that the lopsided emphasis on love...made long-term marriage unsustainable.

Pointing out the language of wedding vows—for better and for worse—Görres noted that “all possible difficulties and crises have already been factored in from the start.” For Görres, the chopping away at indissolubility was in part a definitional strategy. Indeed, as we can observe from today’s conversations, language is an oft-used debate tactic. Hence, what is a woman? What is a man? Therefore, second marriages had to become first marriages. Annulments provided the fix.

Görres sounded the alarm about the Pandora’s Box she saw opening. “Defective consent,” which drives 95% of U.S. annulments today (the U.S. leads the world), was in its infancy in her day. But she already called it “incomprehensible gibberish,” essentially the same conclusion drawn by multiple current scholars. Görres also flagged the rash of wedding “paperwork” defects being used to annul marriages of long duration with children. “[T]he errors are suddenly fished up because someone wants to marry someone else,” she wrote, calling out the hypocrisy. Görres is blunt, but not unduly harsh.

Similarly, she witnessed people of faith in happy marriages being emotionally manipulated to feel sorry for those in unhappy marriages. She termed the tactic “inverted envy.” We see the same play used today when people of faith are accused of being judgmental or exercising their privilege.

Divorces in her day also left behind innocent spouses cast aside to embrace new unions subsequently accepted into the Church with full communion. These standers for marriage are still largely overlooked by the Church.

Historically, Görres identified three main elements that bind marriage: covenant, law, and grace. She wasn’t opposed to love but contended that the lopsided emphasis on love—not a basis for marriage for most of human history—made long-term marriage unsustainable. This was particularly true of Eros, she said, which is fleeting by nature. “[L]ove is not its root, rather its fruit,” Görres observed. Nevertheless, the soulmate idea of marriage took over the 20th and 21st century zeitgeist. 

The State of Marriage, Then and Now

Given the developments Görres saw nearly 60 years ago, I think she’d be horrified at the state of marriage today. Would she say things have gone too far to reverse? No, she’d probably be more on fire than ever. Which makes her book still highly relevant for those in the trenches today. Her fresh insights and bold defense are encouraging and welcome reminders of why marriage is still worth fighting for. That applies equally to couples struggling with marital challenges or perhaps contemplating marriage for the first time. Those readers would appreciate her book for its reflections on the beauty and mystery of marriage that are not often discussed. 

Kudos to all who assisted in giving What Binds Marriage Forever new life and bringing it to new readers. May it help in the effort to restore marriage to its rightful place of honor and reverence.

Beverly Willett is a lawyer, Co-founder of the Coalition for Divorce Reform, and author of Disassembly Required: A Memoir of Midlife Resurrection. Her novel-in-progress is entitled Nobody’s Fault.

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views, policies, or positions of the Institute for Family Studies.