Jeff Sadow’s article yesterday gives Louisiana a persuasive policy case for promoting marriage: Children living with their married parents tend to perform considerably better in school.

We applaud Sadow for this most important article, while also admitting that what we add here is not necessarily his point of view.

Sadow cites forthcoming research showing the academic divide between children raised by married parents and those raised in single-parent households. His analysis follows that connection through family stability, socioeconomic status (SES), and what he aptly calls “future orientation.” As he explains, “marriage status—as a reflection of attitudes—comes causally prior to SES,” which then influences academic achievement. Here is just one pull:

Soon to be published is an analysis of the impact that marriage has on children’s academic achievement. Researchers note an enormous gulf in achievement between children in married households with both parents present and, at the other extreme, those in single-parent-led households. They caution that this can be confused with other associated indicators such as race, leading to incorrect policy prescriptions that too enthusiastically declare that racial considerations are at fault for poor outcomes when, in reality, something else is at work.

This is all good. For my work today, I simply add to it.

What the Catechism Adds to Sadow’s Case

As I read Sadow’s article, I kept thinking of the Catechism of the Council of Trent. His evidence and the Church’s old teaching work together because the political and religious arguments concern the same divinely created order. The Old Church, before Modernism got its tentacles in it, taught the true nature and ends of marriage. The State, responsible for temporal affairs only, is supposed to protect that first principle through law and policy, yes, for the good of families and the wider community.

Describing the core reason man and woman are joined in marriage, Trent begins with the life they build together:

First of all, nature itself by an instinct implanted in both sexes impels them to such companionship, and this is further encouraged by the hope of mutual assistance in bearing more easily the discomforts of life and the infirmities of old age.

That mutual support and commitment to the other, even as old age looms more and more by the year, creates the impregnable household in which children are received and formed. The Catechism continues:

A second reason for marriage is the desire of family, not so much, however, with a view to leave after us heirs to inherit our property and fortune, as to bring up children in the true faith and in the service of God. That such was the principal object of the holy Patriarchs when they married is clear from Scripture.

What is now described as future orientation appears here simply as a natural effect of marriage. Husband and wife enter a shared life whose duties extend beyond present appetites and pleasures. Their children enter a home already ordered toward absolute permanence, sacrifice, and preparation for what lies ahead—with no alternatives on the table. Education begins on that rock-solid foundation, years before the first day of school.

The Catechism speaks directly to this responsibility:

These words are to be understood not only of bearing children, but also of bringing them up and training them to the practice of piety; for the Apostle immediately subjoins: If she continue in faith. Scripture says: Hast thou children? Instruct them and bow down their necks from childhood.

Yes, academic development forms one crucial part of this parental work. The Catholic understanding reaches still further, forming the child in virtue and preparing his soul for eternity beyond material inheritance. Trent explains that marriage was elevated by Christ to a sacrament so that its natural purposes would be directed toward a supernatural end:

For as marriage, as a natural union, was instituted from the beginning to propagate the human race; so was the sacramental dignity subsequently conferred upon it in order that a people might be begotten and brought up for the service and worship of the true God and of Christ our Saviour.

That supernatural end is, thankfully, lived only through ordinary natural duties. No one has to do anything spectacular other than raising virtuous children. Even Trent’s explanation of the word “matrimony” returns us to motherhood and the formation of children:

The word matrimony is derived from the fact that the principal object which a female should propose to herself in marriage is to become a mother; or from the fact that to a mother it belongs to conceive, bring forth and train her offspring.

How different is this from what we see in the culture today?

Recovering this understanding will require time, prayer, and the rebuilding of a culture around the natural order of God, not to mention a thick skin to absorb the blows of all who would call this overly banal and prudish. Sadow recognizes the difficulty, particularly when policy typically follows culture instead of leading it:

Unfortunately, with policy more often emanating from culture than the reverse, it becomes a tough row to hoe. And Louisiana faces the problem of children in unmarried households more than almost any other state, with a bare majority of its children in married households, the fourth-lowest proportion of any state – even as there are some marriage-friendly laws on its books, such as mandating family impact statements for relevant proposed regulations and a Children’s Code that tries to frame its laws and statutes around the best interests of children and their families.

Louisiana has nevertheless left some salutary measures on the table, and Sadow points to one from this year’s legislative session:

It has left some salutary measures on the table. This year, Republican state Sen. Rick Edmonds sponsored a bill that would have included educational instruction on what is termed the Success Sequence, or a rendering designed to make students aware of the benefits of finishing high school, securing employment, and getting married before having children, with research showing significant positive effects in avoiding of poverty. The bill made it out of committee but never received a Senate floor vote; possibly, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education could issue regulations to enact it.

The proposal is sound, but one limit inside the never-ending back-and-forth and series of firsts and flops in government is identified by the Catechism. Means to an end as they may be, and sound ones, political laws cannot operate by themselves. Without a culture rooted in first principles, it will always always always hit a block at some point.

That limitation does not render such political efforts irrelevant. But the law can’t manufacture sacramental grace on its own, compel lifelong fidelity on its own, or restore a culture through legislation alone. It can, however, recognize the natural order marriage creates, stop treating that order as interchangeable with every other domestic consideration, and teach young people truthfully under God and not just the State about the obligations upon which stable families depend.

One of the goods civil policy should protect is marital permanence, which directly serves the formation of children. Trent teaches:

In any event, dissolubility is at once opposed to the proper education of children, and to the other advantages of marriage.

The stability Sadow associates with stronger academic performance is indeed one visible fruit of the indissoluble union taught by the Church. Christ gives us the measure— “You shall know them by their fruits.”

Admittedly, as Sadow indicates, Louisiana has had tough sledding getting the State to cooperate even at the level of basic instruction.

But what if for a change we began with the first principle… first?

Final Thoughts

Indeed, Sadow’s proposals give Louisiana sensible ways to act upon the truth of matrimony, including instruction in the Success Sequence, preparation for marriage, and greater use of reconciliation counseling before divorce. These policies would place civil authority in service to an institution it didn’t create—but has every duty to protect.

The two arguments therefore meet where they should. Trent teaches why marriage is ordered toward mutual support and the formation of children. Sadow shows lawmakers some of the measurable outcomes when that order is honored or abandoned. The state then carries the teaching into its proper temporal sphere, shaping policy around the good of marriage, rather than pretending every domestic arrangement can serve children equally well if we just change this or that law.

Louisiana’s educational gains deserve praise. Protecting them will require attention to the institution forming children before the schools ever receive them. Stronger classrooms grow from stronger homes, and the state serves both when its laws reflect what the Church once bullishly taught about marriage.

Thank you for reading The Hayride!