I’m only half-kidding. Australian woman Jodi Rose did in fact marry Le Pont du Diable bridge (also known as the Devil’s Bridge) on June 17, 2013. The union was not blessed by a Catholic priest, however. It was blessed instead by the mayor of the neighboring town. For those who are wondering, here are five reasons why the Catholic Church would never have allowed marriage between this woman and this bridge.
1. The bridge never consented.
Ms. Rose took advantage of the bridge’s inanimate nature and married it even though the bridge could not possibly express its consent to the marriage. (Catechism, sec. 1626 )
2. The bride never agreed to be faithful.
“He understands that I love other bridges — and men — ours is a love that embraces the vagaries of life, as materialised in the swirling currents of the river that flow beneath his magnificent body,” stated Ms. Rose on her blog. She clearly refused to pledge herself solely to her spouse. (Catechism, sec. 1646)
3. Their union can never be fruitful.
The wedding between Ms. Rose and the bridge is lacking the mutual complementarity of man and woman, husband and wife, human and … human. Moreover, Ms. Rose has “yet to explain how she determined the sex of the bridge,” according to the newspaper report .(Catechism, sec. 1652)
4. They never consummated their marriage.
The couple never joined together as one flesh. Ms. Rose explained, “he is a workaholic so couldn’t leave the river banks. I left him with a loving kiss and my friends joined me in helping to celebrate the union with a swim in the River Tech which flows beneath him.” (Catechism, sec. 1627)
5. They never received the Church’s dispensation for marrying out of cult.
If a Catholic wishes to marry a baptized non-Catholic, the couple must apply for and receive express permission from the Church. To marry a non-baptized person requires a special dispensation to overcome the impediment of disparity of cult. Built by the Benedictine monks in the 11th century, the Devil’s Bridge does appear to be Catholic. Ms. Rose, on the other hand, is not. She expressed her religious views as follows: “While I respect those whose romantic and sexual feelings are oriented towards objects, mine is a symbolic affair, a pagan / animist view of the spiritual vibration in everything.” It is quite possible that this pagan/animist woman was never even baptized. Quite an impediment! (Catechism, sec. 1633, 1635)
So, if you ever find yourself experiencing yearnings like Ms. Rose’s, don’t cross that bridge when you come to it.
Reprinted from my personal blog Can We Cana?