By Michael Pakaluk

Catholicism has survived in every environment and flourished in most because its essentials are lean. Consider even the Mass: in essence, hearing the Gospel; a profession of faith; prayer in common; and the Eucharist. "That's It" (as the fruit bar says).

Our religion has been lean since the replacement of the Mosaic Law by the two precepts of charity. But do not be deceived: more lean typically means more demanding. A friend who gave me the keys to his car in Mexico City warned: "There is only one traffic law here: at all times be aware of what everyone else is doing" - the leanest possible traffic code and the most demanding.

Likewise, the traditional Catholic family is lean in its principles. Women are not required to do certain things and men others. Types of clothing, modes of employment, divisions of tasks, a home's general culture - these are left open and free, to be decided on the basis of "best judgment." As Chesterton said, a banker returning from work may decide to have a picnic on his living room floor if he wishes.

The lean, essential principles, in my view, are three in number.

Principle One. Husband and wife must each have died to self in entering upon marriage. From that time forward, each must put the good of their marriage above any prior aspirations, dreams, goals, and ambitions. Metaphysically they no longer exist separately but only in a one flesh union.

Prior to becoming married, each may have evaluated the impending marriage as to whether it would help him or her to flourish, whether "my life" would be better marrying this person or not. Appropriately, this attitude is called "discernment." But after they are married the question is closed, and they rather should evaluate themselves in relation to the new common good that results.

Practically speaking this death to self implies a willingness to accept sacrifices and compromises. It also means a firm resolve to reject anything that might weaken or threaten the marriage.

The feminist critique of marriage is that traditionally only women have been asked to die to self in this way, not men. Men after marriage, it is claimed, were left as before. Therefore, in marriage, the wife acquires the same status as a slave, since the essence of a slave, as Aristotle pointed out, is that his master's good becomes his own good.

The critique does apply to some marriages but probably to many fewer than is thought. Who knows what hidden sacrifices for their wives were made by men apparently untrammeled in their success? In times of crisis, too, it becomes clear which has priority, the spouse or the job. And then the intention changes everything: it's possible that a husband putting long hours at work "for his wife and family," he thinks, is truthful in this intention.

In any case, the problem is not solved by the wife, now, acting just for herself, or even by each taking turns in (they might think) giving the other scope in self-advancement.

We therefore come to Principle Two, that, already this death to self implies an openness to children, because the unity that becomes their common good through marriage is specifically a procreative unity, made possible only because the one is male and the other female. It is impossible for them to be dedicated to their common good without their being dedicated to procreation. But as the procreative power is contingent - and a gift - we say that they should be "open to procreation" as to a great good.

The cases of apparently extreme unity but principled exclusion of children are so rare that they acquire special status: think of the "Shining Barrier" of Van and Davy in A Severe Mercy (which Vanauken believed they were chastised for).

One might restate Principle Two as: each parent dies to himself for the children, through dying to himself through the other. The children just as much as the spouse take priority over any aspirations, dreams, goals, and ambitions of each parent. In cases of conflict, what is to the ad...