|
[EN
-
ES
-
FR
-
IT]
DICASTERY FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
UNA
CARO
In Praise of Monogamy
Doctrinal Note on the
Value of Matrimony
as an Exclusive Union and Mutual Belonging
Index
Presentation
I. Introduction
II. Monogamy in the Bible
Monogamy in the Second Chapter of Genesis
Prophetic Nuptial Symbolism
Wisdom Literature
The Nuptial Symbolism of the New Testament
III. Echoes of Scripture in History
Reflections by Christian Theologians
Early Patristic Developments on Matrimonial Unity and Communion
Some Medieval and Modern Authors
The Development of the Theological Vision
in Recent Times
Magisterial Interventions
Early Interventions
Leo XIII
Pius XI
The Period of the Second Vatican Council
Saint John Paul II
Benedict XVI
Francis
Leo XIV
IV. Some Perspectives from Philosophy and Cultures
In Classical Christian Thought
Communion of Two Persons
One Person Entirely Referred to Another
Face to Face
The Thought of Karol Wojtyła
Further Considerations
Other Perspectives
V. The Poetic Word
VI. Some Reflections for Further Study
Mutual Belonging
Transformation
Non-Belonging
Mutual Help
Conjugal Charity
A Special Form of Friendship
In Body and Soul
The Multifaceted Fruitfulness of Love
A Friendship Open to All
VII. Conclusion
Presentation
This text is meant for the universal Church, but it can also be rightly
considered in light of the specific cultural challenges faced in every local
context. The document takes seriously the current global situation marked by the
development of technological power, within which humans are tempted to see
themselves as limitless beings capable of achieving anything they imagine. In
this context, the value of exclusive love—reserved for one person alone and
inherently involving the free renunciation of many other options—can easily be
overlooked.
In fact, the intention of this Note is fundamentally aimed at making a
positive proposal: to gather reasons and motivations from Sacred Scripture,
Christian history, philosophy, and poetry that can inspire the pursuit of a
unique and exclusive union of love—a mutual belonging that is both rich and
all-encompassing.
This effort aims to enrich reflection and teaching on marriage with an aspect
that has not yet been extensively developed. At the same time, it may provide
marriage groups and movements with varied and useful material for study and
discussion. This explains the length of the Note and the number of
authors and texts cited. For some, this choice might seem to offer too much
information. However, we believe that each author and text cited contributes a
unique nuance or emphasis that can encourage serene reflection and sustained
study.
In this Note, we will consider the most important interventions of the
Magisterium on the given theme, as well as a series of authors from antiquity to
the present—including theologians, philosophers, and poets. We have found a
great wealth of reflections that affirm the unity of the spouses, their
mutuality, and the all-encompassing significance of the marital relationship. In
this way, the various texts come together to form a beautiful mosaic that will
surely enrich our understanding of monogamy.
For those seeking only a brief synthesis that explains the reasons for choosing
an exclusive union between one woman and one man, it will suffice to read the
final chapter and the conclusion of this Note, which focus on the mutual
belonging of the spouses and on conjugal charity. In any case, we encourage a
patient reading of the entire text to grasp more fully the breadth of the issues
involved in this rich subject.
Víctor Manuel Card. Fernández
Prefect
I.
Introduction
1.
[Una caro] “One flesh” is the way in which the Bible explains matrimonial
unity. In common parlance, however, the expression “the two of us” is used when
there is a strong feeling of mutuality in a marriage, that is, the perception of
the beauty of an exclusive love and a covenant between two people who share life
in its fullness, with all its struggles and hopes. A person speaks of “the two
of us” when referring to shared desires, sufferings, ideas, and dreams: in a
word, when referring to those stories that only spouses have experienced. This
expression is a verbal manifestation of a deeper reality: a conviction and a
decision to belong to each other mutually, to be “one flesh,” and to walk
together along the path of life. As Pope Francis said: “Married couples, too,
should form a first-person plural, a ‘we.’ [They should] stand before each other
as an ‘I’ and a ‘you,’ and stand before the rest of the world, including the
children, as a ‘we.’”[1] This happens because, although they are two different people—two
individuals who each retain their own unique and inalienable identity—the
spouses have, by their free consent, forged a union that places them together
before the world. It is a union that generously opens itself to others, but
always starting from that unique and exclusive reality of the conjugal “we.”
2.
Pope Saint John Paul II, when addressing the topic of monogamy, affirmed that
this theme “deserves to be delved into more and more.”[2] His indication of the need for a broader treatment of the topic is one of
the motivations that led the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to prepare
this Doctrinal Note. Moreover, at the origin of this text are, on
the one hand, various dialogues about the topic of polygamy with the bishops of
Africa and bishops from other continents during their ad limina visits.[3] On the other hand, it is also motivated by the observation that various
public forms of non-monogamous unions (sometimes called “polyamory”) are
increasing in the West, in addition to the more private or secret forms that
have existed throughout history.
3.
However, these reasons are secondary to the first one because monogamy is not
simply the opposite of polygamy; it is far more than that, and understanding it
more profoundly allows us to see marriage in all its richness and fruitfulness.
The question is closely linked to the unitive purpose of sexuality, which is not
limited to ensuring procreation, but also helps to enrich and strengthen the
unique and exclusive union between spouses, as well as their sense of mutual
belonging.
4.
As The Code of Canon Law itself states: “the essential properties
of marriage are unity and indissolubility.”[4] Elsewhere, the Code affirms that marriage is “a bond which by its
nature is perpetual and exclusive.”[5] It is noteworthy that there is an abundant bibliography on the
indissolubility of the conjugal union in Catholic literature. This topic has
received much more attention in the Magisterium, particularly in the recent
teaching of many bishops in response to the legalization of divorce in various
countries. However, on the unity of marriage—that is, marriage understood as a
unique and exclusive union between one man and one woman—one finds a less
extensive reflection, both in the Magisterium and in theological manuals
dedicated to the subject.
5.
For this reason, this Note has chosen to focus on the property of
unity and its existential reflection: the intimate and all-encompassing
communion between spouses. To avoid expecting something from this Note
that it does not intend to develop, it is necessary to emphasize that the
following pages will not focus on the indissolubility of marriage (that is, a
union that lasts in time until death separates the Christian spouses) nor the
procreative end of marriage. Indeed, both topics have already been treated
abundantly in theology and in the Magisterium. Instead, this Note will
focus solely on the first essential property of marriage, unity, which can be
defined as the unique and exclusive union between one woman and one man—in other
words, their mutual belonging that cannot be shared with others.
6.
This property is so essential and primary that marriage itself is often defined
simply as a “union.” Thus, the Summa Theologiae states that “marriage is
the marital union (coniunctio) of a man and a woman, between
legally qualified persons, maintaining an indivisible communion of life,”[6] and that “in matrimony, there is a joining in respect of which we speak of
husband and wife; and this joining […] is matrimony.”[7] A similar definition was already found in the writings of Justinian, who
collected earlier opinions on the matter and defined “marriage or matrimony” as
“the union (coniunctio) of a man and a woman, encompassing an indivisible
communion of life.”[8] Closer to our own time, Dietrich von Hildebrand affirms that marriage is
“the deepest and closest love union” between human persons.[9]
7.
Already in these classical definitions, we see that the unity of the two
spouses—as the foundational objective fact and essential property of every
marriage—is called to express itself constantly and grow as a “communion of
life,” that is, as conjugal friendship, mutual assistance, and total sharing
that, with the help of grace, increasingly represents another union that both
transcends and encompasses it: the union between Christ and his beloved Bride,
the Church, the People of God, for whom he shed his own blood (cf. Eph.
5:25-32).
8.
Pope Saint John Paul II connects these two aspects closely. For, he notes, if
“by virtue of the covenant of married life, the man and woman ‘are no longer two
but one flesh’ (Mt. 19:6; cf. Gen. 2:24),” then “they are called to grow
continually in their communion [...] so that every day they may progress
towards an ever richer union with each other on all levels.”[10]
9.
This Note will, accordingly, deepen the understanding of unity as an
essential property of marriage—an objective and constitutive reality that is the
primary and foundational characteristic of marriage in all its
manifestations—and it will explore the various forms of that unity which enrich
and strengthen the conjugal covenant. In this way, it becomes possible to see
this unity not as a monolithic univocal reflection of divine unity, but as an
expression of the one God who is communion in the Trinitarian relations.
10. Finally, it is hoped that this Note on the value of monogamy—primarily
addressed to the bishops and treating a theme that is both very important and
beautiful—may also be of help to married couples, engaged couples, and young
people thinking about a future marriage, so they may better grasp the richness
of the Christian vision of marriage. It is true that, for many, such a message
may sound strange or countercultural; however, the words of Saint Augustine can
be applied here: “Give me a heart that loves, and it will understand what I am saying.”[11] After all, a real passion for the beauty of conjugal love has found
expression in the dedication of so many believers—men and women, clergy and
laity, individually or in ecclesial groups—who have accompanied many couples on
their journey through life and have also developed a spirituality and a pastoral
ministry centered on marriage. For all these shining examples, one can only
express rightful thanks.
II. Monogamy
in the Bible
11. “They are no longer
two, but one flesh” (Mk. 10:8). This declaration Jesus makes about marriage
conveys the beauty of love: a bond that “gives solidity to this community of
life, and the impulse that draws it toward ever more perfect fullness.”[12] Established “in the beginning,” at the very moment of Creation, marriage
appears as a conjugal covenant willed by God, as “a sacrament of the Creator of
the universe; hence, it is engraved in the human being himself, who is oriented
to this journey on which man leaves his parents and is united to a woman in
order to form only one flesh, so that the two may be a single existence.”[13] Even though “the history of the Old Testament is clearly the theater of
the systematic defection from monogamy”[14]—as seen, for example, in the stories of the Patriarchs, where, according to the
custom of the time, some individuals are described as having multiple wives (cf.
2 Sam. 3:2-5; 11:2-27; 15:16; 1 Kgs. 11:3)—many passages of the Old Testament
also celebrate monogamous love and exclusive union. For example, we read: “There
are sixty queens, eighty concubines, and maidens without number. But my dove,
the perfect one, is only one” (Cant. 6:8-9a). The examples of Isaac (cf. Gen.
25:19-28), Joseph (cf. Gen. 41:50), Ruth (cf. Rt. 2-4), Ezekiel (cf. Ez.
24:15-18), and Tobias (cf. Tb. 8:5-8) also witness to this monogamous ideal.
Therefore, while monogamy may lack strong factual and normative support in the
Old Testament, its theological foundations are developed in great depth. It is
along this fruitful path that the following reflections will proceed.[15]
Monogamy in the Second Chapter of Genesis
12. At the root of the
monogamous model, the second chapter of the Book of Genesis stands as a true
anthropological manifesto placed at the beginning of Scripture. It
describes the plan that the Creator presents as an ideal for human freedom. The
divine exclamation, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make
him a helper (‘ēzer) fit for him” (Gen. 2:18), clearly highlights the
state of need in which man finds himself as soon as he comes out of God’s hands:
a condition of solitude and isolation. Despite the presence of other living
beings, man desires a helper who will correspond to him (cf. Gen. 2:20):
a partner who is alive, unique, and personal, whom he can look upon face to
face, as suggested by the word keneḡdô, usually translated as
“similar to” or “corresponding to,” in order to emphasize the need for a
dialogical encounter that involves each person’s gaze and face. Indeed, “the
original Hebrew suggests a direct encounter, face to face, eye to eye, in a kind
of silent dialogue, for where love is concerned, silence is always more eloquent
than words. It is an encounter with a face, a ‘thou’, who reflects God’s own
love and is man’s ‘best possession, a helper fit for him and a pillar of
support,’ in the words of the biblical sage (Sir. 36:24).”[16] Man, therefore, seeks an irreplaceable face before him: a “thou,” with
whom he can weave a genuine relationship of love based on self-gift and
mutuality.
13. Commenting on this
passage from Genesis, Pope Benedict XVI observes: “The first novelty of biblical
faith consists […] in its image of God. The second, essentially connected to
this, is found in the image of man. The biblical account of Creation speaks of
the solitude of Adam, the first man, and God’s decision to give him a helper. Of
all other creatures, not one is capable of being the helper that man needs, even
though he has assigned a name to all the wild beasts and birds and thus made
them fully a part of his life. So God forms woman from the rib of man. Now Adam
finds the helper that he needed: ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of
my flesh’ (Gen. 2:23). […] While the biblical narrative does not speak of
punishment, the idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, driven
by nature to seek in another the part that can make him whole, the idea that
only in communion with the opposite sex can he become ‘complete.’”[17]
14. The conclusion of the
biblical account—“Therefore, a man leaves his father and his mother and
clings (dāḇaq) to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Gen.
2:24)—expresses well this need for an intimate union: a physical and inner
attachment so profound that the Psalmist employs the same verb to describe the
soul’s mystical union with God: “My soul clings (dāḇaq) to you” (Ps.
63:8; cf. 1 Cor. 6:16-17). As Pope Francis explains: “The very word ‘to be
joined’ or ‘to cleave’, in the original Hebrew, bespeaks a profound harmony, a
closeness both physical and interior, to such an extent that the word is used to
describe our union with God: ‘My soul clings to you’ (Ps. 63:8). The marital
union is thus evoked not only in its sexual and corporal dimension, but also in
its voluntary self-giving in love. The result of this union is that the two
‘become one flesh,’ both physically and in the union of their hearts and lives,
and, eventually, in a child, who will share not only genetically but also
spiritually in the ‘flesh’ of both parents.”[18] With the expression “one flesh,” the couple’s total and mutual self-giving
becomes an exclusive and integral relationship. Thus, by using the evocative
term ’iššāh to refer to the woman (cf. Gen. 2:23), the sacred author
sought to remind us that these two persons constitute a couple, equal in their
fundamental dignity but distinct in their individual identity. The fullness of
the union between human beings is found in this equality made of a necessary,
dialogical, and complementary mutuality. Ultimately, according to the Creator’s
original design—which Jesus himself references when he uses the phrase “in the
beginning” when commenting on the indissolubility of marriage (cf. Mt. 19:4)—man
and woman are called to form a unique, personal, complete, and enduring
relationship in marriage: an exclusive covenant of life and love that takes
precedence even over blood relations (cf. Gen. 2:24). Viewed in this light,
applying the nuptial metaphor to God’s relationship with Israel (which emerges
with all its force in the prophetic texts) opens an even richer horizon for
understanding the spouses’ lives as a form of mutual belonging.
Prophetic Nuptial Symbolism
15. In the Prophets, the
categories of conjugal love imprint particular features on the understanding of
the covenant between God and his people, no longer modeled after the pattern of
agreements between a king and his vassal princes.
16. Emblematically
emerging here is the personal story of the prophet Hosea (eighth century B.C.),
which serves as a theological paradigm for reinterpreting the love story between
God and Israel (cf. Hos. 2:4-25). Despite being betrayed by Gomer, his wife,
Hosea is unable to extinguish his love for her. Instead, he holds on to the hope
that, after being abandoned and disappointed by her lovers, she will return home
so their love can be fully restored, for she remains the only love of his life,
and he forgives her betrayals (cf. Hos. 2:16-17).
17. This symbolic and
nuptial transposition of divine faithfulness continues throughout the prophetic
tradition with various accents. Ezekiel describes how God cares for his people
like a man who spreads his cloak over a woman (cf. Ez. 16:8). On the one hand,
this gesture symbolizes the marital covenant in which protection is offered to
the spouse; on the other hand, it aims to shield the woman from others’ gaze,
thus evoking the exclusivity of the bond.
18. The prophet Malachi
condemns the breaking of marriage bonds among the people of Israel and
remarriage to pagan wives: “For I hate divorce, says the Lord the God of Israel,
and covering one’s garment with iniquity, says the Lord of hosts” (Mal. 2:16).
This passage has also been interpreted in another way, as a “typological” or
“cultic” reference, where it is seen as referring to a single perversion—namely,
idolatry—drawing an implicit parallel between profaning the covenant with God
and deceiving one’s spouse through adultery.
19. Ultimately, conjugal
love truly allows us to describe a covenantal dialectic between Israel and the
Lord, and between humanity and God. The idea of God as the only bridegroom of
Israel is also connected with that of Israel as the only bride. The uniqueness
of the beloved likewise shines through in the theme of election, whereby Israel
becomes the one chosen people (cf. Amos 3:2). The covenant thus takes on an
additional dimension in that it designates the bond between God and his people,
based on a monogamous bond so real that worship of another god constitutes
adultery.
20. Pope Saint John Paul
II offers a beautiful summary of this: “In many texts, monogamy seems to be the
only right analogy for monotheism understood in the categories of the covenant,
that is, of faithfulness and trust in the only true God-Yahweh, Israel’s
Bridegroom. Adultery is the antithesis of this spousal relation and the opposite
of marriage (also as an institution) inasmuch as monogamous marriage actualizes
in itself the interpersonal covenant of man and woman, and it realizes the
covenant that is born from love and welcomed by both parties as a marriage (and
recognized as such by society). This sort of covenant between two persons is the
foundation of the union by which ‘the man…unites with his wife, and the two will
be one flesh’ (Gen. 2:24).”[19]
Wisdom Literature
21. In the same vein is
all the wisdom literature that praises the monogamous union as the true
expression of love between a man and a woman. The passage from the Song of
Songs, “my beloved is mine, and I am his” (Cant. 2:16), represents a significant
climax here. In this poetic jewel, the woman of the Song expresses her love
using the symbol of the seal that, in the ancient Near East, designated a
person, identified him or her, and was worn either on an armband or with a chain
on the chest: “Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm; for
love is strong as death” (8:6). In this way, the beloved declares that she is
almost her lover’s “identity card;” one does not exist without the other.
Intelligence, will, affection, action—indeed, the entire personality of each one
is mutually and exclusively shared with the other in full symbiosis. Even death
itself stands in vain against this vital unity.
22. Furthermore, the
statement repeated twice in the Song of Songs—“My beloved is mine and I am his,
[...] I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine” (Cant. 2:16; 6:3)—expresses this
unity of complete self-giving, reciprocity, and mutual belonging, as an echo of
the declaration of love that the man addresses to the woman in Gen. 2:23:
“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh.”
23. Both Jewish and
Christian traditions, especially in their mysticism, agree in interpreting the
Song of Songs as an allegory of the covenant between God and Israel, as well as
the relationship between God and the soul. In a symbolic sense, the Song of
Songs can be seen as extolling the love between a man and a woman by emphasizing
precisely the uniqueness of an exclusive relationship. In this love story, the
two lovers seek and desire each other with a mutuality in which there is no room
for a third. This fundamental anthropological datum refers back to Israel’s
profession of faith, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord” (Dt. 6:4).
This is one of the most solemn proclamations in the Old Testament about God, and
it uses the language of unicity when professing the truth of faith. In other
words, the Song of Songs affirms that at the beating heart of one of the most
profound human experiences—the relationship of love—there is a unicity that is
analogous to that which the faith proclaims about God. Monogamy is therefore
deeply connected to the unicity and exclusivity of the God of Israel, and it
goes hand in hand with monotheism.
24. In this regard, Pope
Benedict XVI states: “God used the way of love to reveal the intimate mystery of
his Trinitarian life. Furthermore, the close relationship that exists between
the image of God-Love and human love enables us to understand that:
‘Corresponding to the image of a monotheistic God is monogamous marriage.
Marriage based on exclusive and definitive love becomes the icon of the
relationship between God and his people, and vice versa. God’s way of loving
becomes the measure of human love.’ This insight still awaits fuller
exploration.”[20]
25. The twofold formula:
“My beloved is mine and I am his, [...] I am my beloved’s and my beloved is
mine” (Cant. 2:16; 6:3), recalls the theological formula of the covenant between
God and biblical Israel: “The Lord is your God, and you are his people” (cf. Dt.
7:6). It opens the way to the theological category of the covenant as a mutual
commitment of faithfulness. The biblical concept of covenant thus allows us to
delineate the sanctity of marriage between husband and wife, expressed as a true
community of life and love through mutual and exclusive giving. All of this will
become fully evident in the texts of the New Testament.[21]
The Nuptial Symbolism of the New Testament
26. In the Gospel, Jesus
explicitly refers back to “the beginning”—that is, to the origins of the first
human couple (cf. Gen. 1:27; 2:24)—to reaffirm that monogamous, faithful, and
indissoluble love elevates the spousal relationship as intended by the Creator
in its totality and exclusivity (cf. Mt. 19:3-9).
27. In the Gospel accounts
of Mark and Matthew, Jesus speaks unequivocally about monogamy when he refers
back to its origins and the will of the Creator. The debate with the Pharisees
about the possibility of divorce provides him with the opportunity to make an
authoritative statement on the matter. He reaffirms the principle of monogamy
that is at the foundation of God’s plan for the family: “from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this
reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and
the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What
therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mk. 10:6-9; cf. Mt. 19:4-6). As the basis of his statement, Jesus brings
together two important exegetical elements: “male and female he created them”
(Gen. 1:27) and “for this reason a man leaves his father and his mother and
clings to his wife, and [the two] become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). So, it is God
himself who joins the first man and woman as a couple in one flesh. In other
words, Jesus restores God’s original plan, going beyond the norm given by Moses
and recalling an older one, while at the same time highlighting a divine
presence in the very root of this relationship: “What, therefore, God has joined
together, let no man put asunder” (Mt. 19:6).
28. Furthermore, following
prophetic theology, the New Testament repeatedly introduces nuptial symbolism
into its Christological and ecclesiological themes (cf. Rev. 19:7-9). John the
Baptist calls Christ the “Bridegroom” par excellence (cf. Jn. 3:29), while the
Bride of the Lamb is the New Jerusalem (cf. Rev. 21:1ff.), a fruitful mother who
is saved from the attack of the dragon (cf. Rev. 12:3-6).
29. Saint Paul
systematically develops the idea of complete and perfect nuptial love between
Christ and the Church in the Letter to the Ephesians (cf. Eph. 5:21-33), drawing
on, among other things, the passage from Genesis that speaks about the couple
being “one flesh” (cf. Gen. 2:24). The monogamous and indissoluble love between
the couple—again in line with the theme that the prophets developed and used to
define the covenant between God and Israel—is revealed to be the symbol of the
bond between Christ and the Church. Christian marriage, in its authenticity and
fullness, is therefore a sign of the new Christian covenant.
30. Special attention is
also due to the expression “great mystery,” which is a translation of the
original Greek “mysterion.” Saint Jerome, in the Vulgate,
translated it as “sacramentum,” which enabled the Church’s tradition to
adopt the Pauline formula as an explicit declaration of the sacramentality of
marriage. The passage in its entirety strongly praises the theological
significance of exclusive nuptial love. The two spouses, indissolubly uniting,
become a sign that refers back to the embrace with which Christ holds the Church
close to himself. Christian spouses, therefore, bear witness in the world not
only to a human bond, involving eros and agape, but are also the
living “image” of a sacred and transcendent bond: namely, that which unites
Christ with the community of Christians. Already in Genesis, the couple who love
and generate new life is defined as the “image” of God the Creator: “God created
man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he
created them” (Gen. 1:27).
31. The Apostle, evoking
above all the passage in Genesis where the two, man and woman, “become one
flesh” (cf. Gen. 2:24), describes the intimacy of love between husband and wife
as a luminous emblem of the communion of life and charity that exists between
Christ and the Church (cf. Eph. 5:32). Throughout this passage in the Letter to
the Ephesians—so rich in humanity yet also so dense in its theological
depth—Paul does not merely propose a model of Christian marital conduct; he
points to the perfect and unique union between Christ and the Church as the
original source of monogamous marriage. It is not only an image of that union
but reproduces and embodies it through the spouses’ love. Monogamous marriage,
thus, constitutes an effective and expressive sign of the grace and love that
substantiates the union between Christ and the Church.
32. Finally, we find a
beautiful exhortation on this theme in the Letter to the Hebrews. After an
appeal to charity (cf. Heb. 13:1-3), the author briefly discusses marriage,
encouraging esteem for this bond and respect for marital fidelity: “Let marriage
be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Heb. 13:4).[22] The author exhorts the reader to honor the institution of marriage,
emphasizing the value of conjugal faithfulness. A solemn warning follows: God
will judge fornicators and adulterers—that is, those who do not respect the
sanctity and oneness of marriage. This exhortation to esteem marriage and the
marriage bed was historically motivated by the fact that various ascetic
tendencies denigrated marriage and saw it as a compromise with matter, echoing
in their own way what was expressed in Col. 2:20-23. However, the
exhortation is not directed against sexual relations, but against those who
denied conjugal fidelity and the oneness of marriage.
III. Echoes of Scripture in
History
33. Over the long course
of the Church’s history, the revealed Word contained in Sacred Scripture has
given rise to various echoes that we will attempt to bring together, at least in
part.
Reflections by Christian Theologians
34. It is helpful to
receive the richness of Christian thought across the centuries, starting with
the Fathers of the Church—with their particular importance—and continuing
through theologians from different schools and perspectives.
Early Patristic Developments on Matrimonial Unity and Communion
35. Saint John Chrysostom
recognizes how marital unity has a particular value. Unlike other Church
Fathers, he argues that “formerly there were various reasons for marriage, but
now there is only one.” He explains, in fact, that Saint Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 7:2,
5, 9) “commands [husband and wife] to come together, not in order to beget many
children,” but because this helps spouses eliminate “wantonness and unrestrained
desire.”[23] Ultimately, the holy Doctor of the Church believes
that the unity of marriage—with the choice of one person to whom one is
joined—helps to free people from an unrestrained sexual release, devoid of love
or fidelity, and guides their sexuality in the right direction.
36. Saint Augustine, while
mainly emphasizing the importance of procreation, first and foremost highlights
the good of unity that is expressed in fidelity: “Fidelity means that there must
be no relations with any other person.”[24] Augustine also conveys the beauty of marital unity as a good in itself,
describing it dynamically as a “walking together,” “side by side”: “The first
natural tie of human society is man and wife. Even these God did not create
separately and join them as if strangers, but he made the one from the other,
indicating also the power of union in the side from where she [the woman] was
drawn and formed. For they are joined to each other side by side, who walk
together and observe together where they are walking.”[25]
37. Even before Augustine,
Tertullian had already offered his well-known praise of marriage as a unity of
two, in flesh and in spirit, who walk together “in a single hope”: “How shall we
ever be able adequately to describe the happiness of that marriage which the
Church arranges […]. How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two
who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in
the religion they practice. They are as brother and sister, both servants of the
same Master. Nothing divides them, either in flesh or in spirit. They are, in
very truth, two in one flesh; and where there is but one flesh there is also but
one spirit.”[26]
38. This reality of being
“one flesh” is interpreted by the Fathers in an intensely realistic way, so much
so that when faced with contradictions in the lived reality of marital unity,
they are not afraid to make statements such as: “he who divides the flesh,
divides the body,”[27] “to sever flesh is a horrible thing,”[28] and “God did not intend for that ‘one flesh’ to be separated and torn
apart.”[29]
39. In any case, one
should recall that the Latin Church places special emphasis on the juridical
aspects of marriage, which has led to the beautiful conviction that the spouses
themselves are the ministers of the Sacrament.[30] By their consent, they establish a unique and exclusive matrimonial union:
an objective fact that precedes any experience or feeling, even a spiritual one.
Meanwhile, the Eastern Fathers and the Eastern Churches place greater emphasis
on the theological, mystical, and ecclesial aspects of a union that, thanks to
the Church’s blessing, is enriched over time under the impulse of grace, while
the communion between the spouses becomes increasingly integrated into the
communion of the Church. This is why, in the East, the rite of marriage—together
with all its signs, and with the prayer and the gestures of the priest—has been
given greater prominence. Saint John Chrysostom already speaks of the crowning
of the bride and groom (stephánōma) by the priest, and he explains its
mystagogical meaning: “For this reason, crowns are placed upon their heads as a
symbol of victory, since, having remained undefeated, they reach the marriage
bed.”[31]
40. At the same time, a
more positive view of the relational dimension of marriage also prevails in the
East, which is also expressed in the sexual union in marriage, without reducing
its purpose to procreation alone. This is shown, for example, when Saint Clement
of Alexandria firmly distances himself from those who consider marriage a sin,
even when they tolerate it to ensure the continuation of the species. Instead,
he affirms: “If marriage contracted according to the Law is a sin, then I do not
understand how anyone can claim to know God while asserting that what God has
commanded is a sin. However, if ‘the Law is holy,’ then marriage is holy.”[32] Likewise, Saint John Chrysostom teaches that “marriage must not be
regarded as a trade but as a communion of life,”[33] and he emphasizes that excessive continence within marriage could
jeopardize marital unity.
41. Matrimonial unity and
communion as a reflection of the union between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph.
5:28-30) is a theme particularly developed by the Eastern Fathers, and Saint
Gregory Nazianzen draws specific spiritual conclusions from this: “It is well
for the wife to reverence Christ through her husband; and it is well for the
husband not to dishonor the Church through his wife. […] [But also, may] the
husband cherish his wife, for so Christ does the Church.”[34]
Some Medieval and Modern Authors
42. In Saint Bonaventure’s
thought on marriage—which is substantially similar to that of Saint Thomas
Aquinas, who will be discussed later on—we can identify a reflection, within his
broader theological vision, which affirms that consummation is necessary for
marriage fully to signify our union with Christ: “A consent regarding the future
is not a true consent, but merely the promise of a consent to come; and actual
consent without intercourse does not produce complete union, since the parties
are not yet one flesh. Therefore, the words concerning the future [i.e., the
betrothal] are the inception of marriage, and the words concerning the present
[i.e., the marriage vows] are its ratification, but the union of sexes alone is
its consummation; for then only do the parties become one flesh and one body,
and in this only is the union between Christ and ourselves fully signified.”[35]
43. It is also helpful to
recall the theological and pastoral thought of Saint Alphonsus Maria de’
Liguori, who presents the union and mutual self-giving of the spouses in an
integral way (including sexual relations). He describes the union and mutual
self-giving as intrinsic essential ends of marriage, while considering
procreation as an intrinsic but accidental end. Therefore, he affirms: “Three ends may be considered in marriage: intrinsic essential ends,
intrinsic accidental ends, and extrinsic accidental ends. The intrinsic
essential ends are two: the mutual gift of selves, with the obligation of
satisfying the [marriage] debt [i.e., sexual relations], and the indissoluble
bond. The intrinsic accidental ends are likewise two: the procreation of
offspring and the remedy for concupiscence.”[36]
44. Saint Alphonsus also
refers to extrinsic ends such as pleasure, beauty, and many others, which
he affirms to be licit.[37] In this way, the holy Doctor of the Church seeks to enrich the vision of
marriage in order to develop a pastoral approach that helps spouses live their
union in a richer and more engaging way. He also affirms that it is permissible
to desire marriage on the basis of an attraction to one or more of these
extrinsic ends, because—as long as the principal ends are not excluded—such a
desire “is not a disorder.”[38]
45. Closer to our own
time, the personalist theologian and philosopher Dietrich von Hildebrand takes
up the emphasis on the centrality of love in marriage found in the teaching of
Pope Pius XI, in order to deepen the understanding of the properties and
meanings of marriage itself.[39] Regarding the topic at hand, von Hildebrand distinguishes two forms of
union that complement each other and enrich the initial approach of this
document: the first form of union is expressed with the pronoun “we,” and the
second with the pair “I–thou.” In the “I–thou” form, the two come face to face,
giving themselves to one another in such a way that “the other person acts
entirely as a subject, never as a mere object.”[40] This also entails a shift from seeing the other as a “he” or a “she” to
recognizing the other as a “thou.” In contrast, when the union is considered as
a “we,” the other is with me, at my side, walking together with me, and
motivated by the shared realities that unite us.[41] Conjugal union draws life from both of these experiences.
46. In the marital union,
von Hildebrand emphasizes two indispensable attitudes. The first is “discretio,”
that is, a space of personal privacy that preserves each person’s identity and
freedom, but which can be shared with complete freedom, leading, in this case,
to a deepening of the bond. The second attitude is
“reverence” for the other, which, especially in the sexual union, manifests the
fact that one loves a person, sacred and inviolable, and not a
mere object. The inner dynamism of the marriage bond—the “we,” in von
Hildebrand’s terminology—impels spouses to express their intimate personal
communion in an ever fuller manner.
47. This vision is also
shared by Alice von Hildebrand (née Jourdain), Dietrich’s wife. She maintains
that the full realization of humanity can only be attained in the union
of man and woman, the “divine invention”: “Not only did He [God] make man
to be comprised of soul and body—a spiritual reality and a material one—but
moreover, to crown this complexity, ‘male and female he created them.’ Clearly,
the fullness of human nature is to be found in the perfect union between man and
woman.”[42] For this reason, the Belgian philosopher and theologian considers the
spousal love between a man and a woman to be the pinnacle of the human vocation:
the highest expression of the divine image as a call to self-gift in love, where
the tenderness of affection between the spouses plays a fundamental role, willed
by the Creator. “The heart is the very center of the person,”[43] she warns in light of certain temptations to place restless activity
before the receptivity of love, understood particularly in its affective sense.
She then adds, “where tenderness reigns, concupiscence recedes.”[44]
48. The total self-giving
character of spousal love can also be seen in what Alice von Hildebrand
identifies as its genuinely “sacrificial” dimension, clearly recalling Christ’s
love to the end. This consists in placing the good of the other before one’s
own, in what may be called a “death to self,” which at times could even lead one
to renounce even the joys of family life for the sake of a greater good: “What
most ‘lovers’ forget, whether friends or whether husband and wife, is that
sacrifice is the sap of great loves. That sacrifice is the holy vitamin of love
also applies in marriage, which offers the spouses innumerable opportunities to
die to themselves.”[45] In other words, this means that spousal love shows its human and spiritual
fruitfulness when it remains open to the highest demands of charity.[46]
The Development of the Theological Vision in Recent Times
49. Hans Urs von Balthasar
gives particular importance to the marital consent that creates that new unity
which transcends the two individuals: “The personal coming together of the two
self-emptying partners is only possible in terms of the third factor, which
[...] is that objective of the meeting of their two freedoms. And that third
term is their marriage vows, in which each one affirms the freedom of the other,
handing over each one’s mystery to the other. We call this ‘objective’ because
it is more than the juxtaposition of their two subjectivities [...] [it is]
their will to become one (to belong to one another). This is a will that is
placed over and between them, because neither one of them can claim for himself
or herself the unity that arises from their mutual affirmations.”[47]
50. This covenant, in
which each spouse transcends him- or herself and yields to the new reality that
is created, is in no way a denial of their identity as free individuals.
Instead, it is the fullness of freedom realized in the complete giving of
oneself to another person: “the event of mutual self-surrender—which happens
only under the overshadowing of the directing and inspiring Holy Spirit—is the
farthest thing imaginable from the self-alienation of the individual. For the
individual comes to a sense of himself in no other way than through being
addressed by the freedom of another, who in turn gives himself to him in the
unveiling of his own freedom. And this decision will be a mature one if he is
not always hesitating and taking back, but transcending himself in order to
bestow himself on the other.”[48]
51. Von Balthasar
contemplates in a distinctive and theologically profound way how this marital
unity reflects the union between Christ and his Church: “The measure of married
love becomes the love between Christ and his Church. [...] The primeval unity
lies in the fact that the Church was fashioned out of Christ just as Eve was
fashioned out of Adam: She flowed from the pierced side of the Lord on the
Cross, where he slept the sleep of death inflicted on him by the powers of evil.
In this sleep of mortal suffering, he cleansed the Church ‘that he might present
[her] to himself…In all her glory, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing’
(Eph. 5:27). As man, he allowed himself to fall into the sleep of death so that,
as God, he might derive from this death the mystery of fruitfulness by which he
would create for himself his Bride, the Church. Thus the Church is, yet is not,
Christ himself—his body and his spouse. ‘He who loves his own wife, loves
himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh; on the contrary, he nourishes and
cherishes it, as Christ also does the Church (because we are members of his
body…)’ (Eph. 5:28-30).”[49]
52. Such a Christological
and pneumatological vision has concrete consequences for the lived experience of
marriage: “This once more shows clearly, if we look back at the mutual surrender
of the spouses, that the common law of their love both corresponds
(Christologically) to their own attitude of free surrender (which of course is
no externally imposed law) as well as truly transcends them both as a creative,
fruitful third (pneumatological) element, inspiring them both to the acts of
their surrender.”[50]
53. Karl Rahner also
understands marital unity as an expression of the love between Christ and the
Church, but not as if Christ and the Church were equal partners before each
other, since the love with which Christ loves the Church has its origin in God’s
“gracious will to communicate himself.”[51] From this divine will, as its cause, flows the first effect, which is the
unity of Christ and the Church. Ultimately, love, as expressed in the spouses’
lives, returns to its origin in God himself.[52] It is helpful to consider two particularly eloquent texts from Rahner on
this point. The first reads: “There is always something free and boundless in a
truly personal love which is superior to all the chances and changes of life, so
that when a man and woman truly love each other, they grow beyond themselves and
enter a stream which flows into infinity. That which dwells in the infinite
distance, and which is silently evoked in such a love, can finally be called by
one name only: God.”[53] Then, the second text reads: “Marriage and the covenant between God and
humanity in Christ can not only be compared by us, they stand objectively in
such a relation that matrimony objectively represents this love of God in Christ
for the Church; the relation and the attitude of Christ to the Church is the
model for the relation and attitude that belongs to marriage, and is mirrored by
imitation in marriage, so that the latter is something contained or involved in
the former.”[54]
54. This Trinitarian and
Christological view of marital unity has since been powerfully and poetically
underscored by several contemporary Orthodox authors. Three examples can be
noted.
55. From his own mystical
vision, the Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann
affirms: “In a Christian marriage, in fact, three are married; and the united
loyalty of the two toward the third, who is God, keeps the two in an active
unity with each other as well as with God. Yet, it is the presence of God which
is the death of the marriage as something only ‘natural.’ It is the cross of
Christ that brings the self-sufficiency of nature to its end. But ‘by the cross,
joy entered the whole world.’ Its presence is thus the real joy of marriage.”[55]
56. Another beautiful
testimony can be found in the words of the Russian philosopher and theologian
Pavel Evdokimov: “The consubstantial unity of marriage constitutes the unity of
two persons placed in God […]. Thus, the original Trinitarian structure is:
man–woman in the Holy Spirit. The actual realization of their unity in marriage
(where, according to Paul, the husband is the image of Christ and the wife is
the image of the Church) becomes the conjugal likeness of the unity of Christ
and the Spirit.”[56]
57. Finally, it is worth
quoting an illuminating passage from the theologian John Meyendorff: “A
Christian is called—already in this world—to experience new life, to become a
citizen of the Kingdom; and he can do so in marriage. […] It is a unique union
of two beings in love, two beings who can transcend their own humanity and thus
be united not only ‘with each other,’ but also ‘in Christ.’”[57]
58. Contemporary Eastern
authors also emphasize the relational aspect in light of the Trinity. The Greek
theologian John Zizioulas affirms: “The Person is otherness in communion and
communion in otherness. The person is an identity that emerges through
relationship (schesis, in the terminology of the Greek Fathers); it is an
‘I’ that can exist only as long as it relates to a ‘thou’ which affirms its
existence and its otherness. If we isolate the ‘I’ from the ‘thou’, we lose not
only its otherness […] [The ‘I’] simply cannot be without the other. This is
what distinguishes a person from an individual.”[58] Within this Eastern understanding of relationality—which is ultimately a
reflection of Trinitarian communion—another Greek theologian and philosopher,
Christos Yannaras, shows how married life must be understood within the broader
framework of relationships in the ecclesial community. This perspective makes it
possible to see sexuality as a personal relationship transfigured by Trinitarian
grace: “The relationship and knowledge of the partners becomes an ecclesial
event, realized not only through nature but also through the Church […] in the
context of those relationships which constitute the Church as an image of her
trinitarian prototype.”[59] He then adds: “This does not mean a ‘spiritualization’ of marriage and
depreciation of the natural relationship, but a dynamic transformation of the
natural sexual impulse into an event of personal communion, in the same way as
the Church always brings about communion: as grace, a gift of personal
distinctiveness and freedom.”[60]
Magisterial Interventions
Early Interventions
59. Up to the pontificate
of Leo XIII, magisterial interventions concerning monogamy were few and concise.
One brief but significant intervention to mention is that of Pope Innocent III
in 1201, where he refers to pagans who “divide their conjugal affection among
many women at the same time,” and affirms, referencing Genesis, that such a
practice is “contrary […] to the Christian faith, since in the beginning one rib
[from Adam] was changed into one woman [namely, Eve].”[61] He then draws on Scripture (cf. Eph. 5:31; Gen. 2:24; Mt. 19:5) to
emphasize that it is said “the two shall become one flesh [duo in carne una],”
and that the man shall be joined “to ‘the wife’” and not “to wives.” Finally, he
interprets the prohibition of adultery (cf. Mt. 19:9; Mk. 10:11) as referring to
monogamous marriage.[62]
60. The Second Council of
Lyons once again maintains that it is to be held as certain that “neither is a
man allowed to have several wives at the same time nor a woman allowed to have
several husbands.”[63] The Council of Trent draws the meaning of monogamy from the fact that
“Christ the Lord taught more clearly when, referring to these words as having
been uttered by God, he said: ‘So they are no longer two but one’ (Mt. 19:6).”[64] In the eighteenth century, Pope Benedict XIV, addressing the issue of
clandestine marriages, reiterates that “neither [spouse] can, as long as the
other is living, enter into another marriage.”[65]
Leo XIII
61. In Pope Leo XIII’s
teachings on monogamy, the main argument that the spouses become “one flesh”
appears again: “We clearly see this declared and openly confirmed in the Gospel
by the divine authority of Jesus Christ, who testified to the Jews and the
Apostles that marriage, by its very institution, must be only between two
people—namely, between a man and a woman—and that from the two, as it were,
one flesh is made.”[66]
62. In his reflection, the
defense of monogamy also constitutes a defense of the dignity of women, which
cannot be negated or dishonored, not even under the pretext of a desire for
procreation. Thus, the unity of marriage, as Leo XIII concludes, implies a free
choice on the part of the woman, who has the right to demand exclusive
mutuality: “Nothing was more pitiable than the wife who was cast down to such
humiliation as to be considered almost as an instrument for satisfying lust or
for bearing offspring. Nor was it considered shameful that those who were to be
given in marriage were bought and sold like corporeal things, and that sometimes
the father or the husband was given the power to inflict the most extreme
punishment upon the wife.”[67]
63. Monogamous marriage is
an expression of a mutual and exclusive pursuit of the other’s good: “For
[husband and wife] must always be so disposed in mind as to understand that each
owes to the other the greatest love, constant fidelity, and skillful and
continual assistance.”[68] This reality of being “one flesh” acquires with Christ a new and precious
purpose and reaches its fullness in the Sacrament of Marriage: “To this it must
be added that, for this very reason, marriage is a Sacrament: it is a sacred
sign that confers grace and bears the image of the mystical nuptials of Christ
with the Church. The form and figure of those nuptials are expressed in the very
bond of the highest union by which a man and a woman are joined to one
another—and this bond is nothing else but marriage itself.”[69]
Pius XI
64. Pope Pius XI offers a
greater development of the doctrine on matrimonial unity in his Encyclical
Casti Connubii. He underlines the value of “the mutual fidelity of the
spouses in fulfilling the marriage contract, so that what belongs to one of the
parties by reason of this contract sanctioned by divine law, may not be denied
to him or permitted to any third person.” This fidelity, he concludes, “demands
in the first place the complete unity of matrimony which the Creator Himself
laid down in the beginning when He wished it to be not otherwise than between
one man and one woman.”[70]
65. The Pontiff then
enriches the teaching on the unity of marriage by offering a new reflection on
conjugal love, “which pervades all the duties of married life and holds pride
of place in Christian marriage.”[71] The noblest reality that can be found in marriage is conjugal love,
especially when, through grace, it is elevated to the supernatural level of
charity. As a result, the marital union becomes a path of spiritual growth:
“This outward expression of love in the home demands not only mutual help but
must go further; must have as its primary purpose that man and wife help each
other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so
that through their partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in
virtue, and above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their
neighbor [...]. This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort
to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, [...] be said to be the
chief reason and purpose of matrimony.”[72] This “broadening” of the meaning of marriage—beyond the narrower sense
that had previously predominated, which saw it mainly as an institution ordered
to procreation and the proper upbringing of children—opened the way toward a
deeper awareness of the unitive meaning of marriage and sexuality.
66. It may also be
recalled that, even in his own time, Pope Pius XI felt moved to point out
tendencies against monogamy, which have become far more widespread today: “It
follows, therefore, that they are destroying mutual fidelity, who think that the
ideas and morality of our present time concerning a certain harmful and false
friendship with a third party can be countenanced, and who teach that a greater
freedom of feeling and action in such external relations should be allowed to
man and wife, particularly as many (so they consider) are possessed of an inborn
sexual tendency which cannot be satisfied within the narrow limits of monogamous
marriage. That rigid attitude which condemns all sensual affections and actions
with a third party they imagine to be a narrowing of mind and heart, something
obsolete, or an abject form of jealousy, and as a result they look upon whatever
penal laws are passed by the State for the preserving of conjugal faith as void
or to be abolished.”[73]
The Period of the Second Vatican Council
67. Following the path
opened by Casti Connubi, the Second Vatican Council presents marriage
principally as a work of God, consisting of a communion of love and life that
the spouses share—a communion that is ordered not only to procreation but also
to the integral good of both. Marriage is defined as an “intimate communion of
life and conjugal love.”[74] In marriage, man and woman, who through the conjugal covenant “‘are no
longer two but one’ (Mt. 19:6), help and serve each other by their marriage
partnership; they become conscious of their unity and experience it more
deeply from day to day. The intimate union of marriage, as a mutual giving
of two persons, and the good of the children demand total fidelity from the
spouses and require an unbreakable unity between them.”[75]
68. Christ himself “now
encounters Christian spouses through the sacrament of marriage. He abides with
them in order that by their mutual self-giving, spouses will love each other
with enduring fidelity, as he loved the Church and delivered himself for it.
Authentic married love is caught up into divine love and is directed and
enriched by the redemptive power of Christ and the salvific action of the
Church.”[76] In this way, it becomes possible to live conjugal love: “Married love is
an eminently human love because it is an affection between two persons rooted in
the will and it embraces the good of the whole person; it can enrich the
sentiments of the spirit and their physical expression with a unique dignity and
ennoble them as the special elements and signs of the friendship proper to
marriage. The Lord, wishing to bestow special gifts of grace and divine love on
it, has restored, perfected, and elevated it. A love like that, bringing
together the human and the divine, leads the partners to a free and mutual
giving of self, experienced in tenderness and action, and permeates their whole
lives.”[77] The truly human performance of the acts proper to marriage fosters “the
self-giving [those acts] signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”[78]
69. The Council explicitly
refers to marital unity to explain that this unity, “distinctly recognized by
Our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to
man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection.”[79] The Council’s defense of marital unity is based on two firm points. First,
it reaffirms that the marital union is all-encompassing—it “permeates [the
spouses’] whole lives”[80]—and therefore is possible only between two persons. Second, it emphasizes that
such love corresponds to the equal dignity of each spouse; for, in a “plural”
union, the spouses would be forced to share with others that which should be
intimate and exclusive. In this way, they would become like objects within a
relationship that would degrade their personal dignity.[81]
70. After the Council and
returning to its reflections on marriage, Pope Saint Paul VI expressed deep
concern about questions of marriage and the family. While in Humanae Vitae
he underscores the procreative meaning of marriage and conjugal acts, he
also shows that this meaning is inseparable from the unitive meaning. Indeed, he
states that “the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting
husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of
generating new life.”[82] In this context, he reaffirms the importance of mutuality and exclusivity,
which evokes the communion of love and mutual perfection.[83] There is, therefore, an “inseparable connection” between the two meanings
of sexual acts. If both meanings are preserved, the conjugal act “fully retains
its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility
of parenthood to which man is called.”[84] Thus, just as we affirm that the unitive meaning is inseparable from
procreation, we must also affirm that the pursuit of procreation is inseparable
from the unitive meaning, as Pope Saint John Paul II later clarifies: “The total
physical self-giving would be a lie if it were not the sign and fruit of a total
personal self-giving.”[85]
Saint John Paul II
71. In his reflection on
the spousal relationship, Pope Saint John Paul II uses Christ’s reference to
“the beginning” to introduce the hermeneutic of the gift.[86] God’s self-giving is revealed in Creation, and Creation itself constitutes
the fundamental and original gift. The human being is the only creature who can
receive the created world as a gift and who can, at the same time, as the image
of God, make his or her own life a gift. In this logic, the spousal meaning of
the human body, in its masculinity and femininity, manifests that the person is
created for self-gift to another, and that only through this gift of self
does the true meaning of one’s being and existence come to fulfillment.[87]
72. Within this horizon,
when explaining the Christian understanding of monogamy, Pope Saint John Paul II
affirms the Semitic and non-Western origin of its deepest foundations, affirming
that monogamy appears as “an expression of the interpersonal relationship, that
is, of the one in which each one of the parties is recognized by the other as of
equal value and in the totality of her person. This monogamous and personalistic
conception of the human couple is an absolutely original revelation that bears
the stamp of God and deserves to be delved into more and more.”[88]
73. However, the holy
Pontiff acknowledges that “the whole tradition of the Old Covenant indicates
that the effective necessity of monogamy […] never reached the consciousness and
ethos of the later generations of the Chosen People. […] [A]dultery is not
understood, by contrast, as it appears from the point of view of the monogamy
established by the Creator.”[89] For this reason, he seeks to read the Old Testament not from a normative
but from a theological standpoint, and he does so based on two anchor points.
The first is Christ’s desire to return to the beginning,[90] to the origin of Creation, when the original couple was monogamous in the
sense of “the two in one flesh”: “God made man in his image, creating him male
and female. Here is what immediately surprises, first of all. To be like God,
humanity must be a couple of two people moving towards each other.”[91] The second reference point is the prophetic reflection on the exclusive
love between God and his people, for “the prophets, who often denounce in their
teaching the abandonment of the true God-Yahweh by the people, comparing it to
‘adultery,’ bring out this content in the most authentic way […]. Adultery is a
sin because it is the breaking of the personal covenant between the man and
the woman. […] In many texts, monogamy seems to be the only right analogy
of monotheism understood in the categories of the covenant, that is, of
faithfulness and trust in the only true God-Yahweh, Israel’s Bridegroom.
Adultery is the antithesis of this spousal relation and the opposite of
marriage.”[92]
74. Following this line of
thought, Pope Saint John Paul II argues that this union—even if it is
exclusive—does not express God’s original will for monogamy if one of the
spouses becomes merely an object used to satisfy the other’s desires: “It does
not correspond to the personal union or ‘communion’ to which man and woman have
been reciprocally called ‘from the beginning,’ in fact, it is contrary to it,
that one of the two persons should exist only as a subject of the satisfaction
of sexual urge and that the other should become exclusively the object for such
satisfaction. Further, it does not correspond to this unity of ‘communion’—in
fact, it is contrary to it—that both the man and the woman should mutually exist
as objects for the satisfaction of sexual urge, and that each of them on his or
her own part should only be a subject of such satisfaction. Such a ‘reduction’
of the rich content of reciprocal and perennial attraction among human persons
[…] extinguishes the meaning proper to man and woman.”[93]
75. The gift of “the Holy
Spirit who is poured out in the sacramental celebration offers Christian couples
the gift of a new communion of love that is the living and real image of that
unique unity which makes of the Church the indivisible Mystical Body of the Lord
Jesus. […] [It is] at the same time a stimulating impulse so that every day they
may progress towards an ever-richer union with each other on all levels: of the
body, of the character, of the heart, of the intelligence and will, of the
soul.”[94]
Benedict XVI
76. Benedict XVI takes up
this teaching when he recalls, again referring to the account of Creation, that
“eros is somehow rooted in man’s very nature; Adam is a seeker, who
‘abandons his mother and father’ in order to find woman; only together do the
two represent complete humanity and become ‘one flesh.’ The second aspect is
equally important. From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man
towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus,
does it fulfill its deepest purpose.”[95]
77. Benedict XVI also
taught that marriage gathers up and brings to fulfillment that powerfully
transformative force that is love—a force that, in its dynamic of exclusivity
and permanence does not seek to suppress human freedom, but instead opens life
to no less than an eternal horizon: “It is part of love’s growth towards higher
levels and inward purification that it now seeks to become definitive, and it
does so in a twofold sense: both in the sense of exclusivity (this particular
person alone) and in the sense of being ‘for ever.’”[96]
Francis
78. Pope Francis has given
us the gift of an original and experientially-grounded reflection on various
aspects of the exclusive union of spouses in the fourth chapter of his Apostolic
Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. There, one can find a detailed description
of conjugal love in its different manifestations, using 1 Cor. 13:4-7 (“Love is
patient, love is kind…”) as a starting point. He begins with patience, noting
that without it, “we will always find excuses for responding angrily. We will
end up incapable of living together, antisocial, unable to control our
impulses.”[97] Next, he discusses benevolence, or doing good for others, as a “dynamic
and creative interaction with others.”[98] He then addresses lovingness, emphasizing that someone who has learned to
love “abhors making others suffer”[99] and is “capable of speaking words of comfort, strength, consolation, and
encouragement.”[100] Love, he notes, also involves a certain “detachment from self” to give
oneself freely, even to the point of giving one’s life.[101] Consequently, love can overcome the internal hostility toward others’
faults that “sets us on edge where others are concerned” and ultimately isolates
us.[102] Additionally, he highlights forgiveness, which “assumes that we ourselves
have had the experience of being forgiven by God,”[103] the ability to rejoice with others, so that “when something good happens
to one of its members, they know that others will be there to celebrate it with
them.”[104] Then, there is trust, because love “trusts, it sets free, it does not try
to control, possess, and dominate everything.”[105] Love also hopes for the other, since it always hopes “that others can
change, mature, and radiate unexpected beauty and untold potential.”[106]
79. Pope Francis thus
helps us embody conjugal charity. At the same time, with healthy realism, he
warns about the danger of idealizing marriage with unrealistic expectations, as
if theological mysteries must perfectly align with married life and the couple
should be perfect in every situation. In reality, this would create a constant
sense of guilt in the more fragile spouses, who struggle and do their best to
maintain their union: “We should not however confuse different levels: there is
no need to lay upon two limited persons the tremendous burden of having to
reproduce perfectly the union existing between Christ and his Church, for
marriage as a sign entails ‘a dynamic process…, one which advances gradually
with the progressive integration of the gifts of God.’”[107] Instead, one must positively value all the struggles, painful moments, and
challenges that surprise and unsettle spouses, the changes in the beloved, and
even the defeats later overcome, as parts of a journey where the Holy Spirit
works as he wills. For, in this way, “after suffering and struggling together,
spouses are able to experience that it was worth it, because they achieved some
good, learned something as a couple, or came to appreciate what they have. Few
human joys are as deep and thrilling as those experienced by two people who love
one another and have achieved something as the result of a great, shared
effort.”[108]
Leo XIV
80. Among the first
interventions that Pope Leo XIV made, with reference to the theme of this
Note, one can consider his message on the tenth anniversary of the
canonization of Louis and Zélie Martin, the parents of Saint Thérèse of the
Child Jesus. On that occasion, the Holy Father referred to the couple as the
“model of a couple that the Holy Church presents to young people,” as “such a
beautiful adventure: a model of fidelity and attention to one another, a model
of fervor and perseverance in the faith, of Christian education of children, of
generosity in the exercise of charity and social justice; a model also of trust
in times of trial.”[109]
81. Indeed, Pope Leo XIV’s
own motto, “In illo uno, unum” (“In him who is One, we are made one”),
taken from a passage of Saint Augustine,[110] could be applied to the life of a couple, suggesting that “being one” is
possible and fully attainable in God. In this sense, the unity proper to
marriage finds its foundation and completeness in the relationship with God. On
the occasion of the Jubilee of Families, Grandparents, and the Elderly, Pope Leo
XIV reaffirmed to spouses that “marriage is not an ideal but the measure of true
love between a man and a woman: a love that is total, faithful and fruitful […].
This love makes you one flesh and enables you, in the image of God, to bestow
the gift of life.”[111]
*
82. The Code of Canon
Law refers to “the matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman
establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which
is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and
education of offspring,” and recalls that between the baptized, marriage “has
been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”[112]
83. Finally, in its
synthetic approach, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“Polygamy is contrary to conjugal love which is undivided and exclusive.”[113] Furthermore, “by its very nature, conjugal love requires the inviolable
fidelity of the spouses. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which
they make to each other.”[114] Therefore, “adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his
commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant, which the marriage bond
is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution
of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the
good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents’
stable union.”[115] This does not exclude an understanding of “the predicament of a man who,
desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives
with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However,
polygamy is not in accord with the moral law.”[116]
IV. Some Perspectives from
Philosophy and Cultures
In Classical Christian Thought
84. In Saint Thomas
Aquinas, we find a now-classic expression of Christian philosophical thought on
the foundations of monogamy. In Book III of the Summa contra Gentiles,
his view is presented mainly from a philosophical perspective, with reasoning
drawn from natural theology and his knowledge of biology at the time. The
spousal relationship is thus described as a natural bond, a “fellowship of man
and woman”[117] or a “social union” (socialis coniunctio),[118] founded in human nature, which unites man and woman.
85. Saint Thomas affirms
that monogamy derives essentially from a natural instinct, being inscribed in
the nature of every human being; this sphere, therefore, prescinds from the
demands of faith. In fact, “human beings naturally desire to be assured
of their offspring, and this assurance would be altogether nullified in the case
of promiscuous intercourse. Therefore, the union of one man with one woman comes
from a natural instinct.”[119] Such a union—which strengthens the mutual balance between man and woman—is
governed by a “natural equity.” There is thus no room for any form of polyandry
or polygamy, which, among other things, the Angelic Doctor defines as a form of
slavery: “It would seem also contrary to equity for the aforesaid fellowship to
be dissolved. […] Hence, if a man, after taking a wife in her youth while she
is yet fair and fruitful, can put her away when she has aged, he does her an
injury, contrary to natural equity. […] Consequently, if the husband could leave
his wife, there would not be just fellowship between husband and wife, but a
kind of slavery on the part of the latter.”[120]
86. Moreover, equity in
love creates a substantial parity between the spouses—that is, a fundamental
equality between man and woman: “Besides, equality is a condition of friendship.
Hence, if a woman may not have several husbands (because this removes the
certainty of offspring), if it were lawful for a man to have several wives, the
friendship of a wife for her husband would not be freely bestowed but servile,
as it were. And this argument is confirmed by experience, since where men have
several wives, the wives are treated as servants. Further, in perfect
friendship, it is impossible to be friends with many, according to the
Philosopher [i.e., Aristotle]. Hence, if the wife has but one husband, while the
husband has several wives, the friendship will not be equal on either side.”[121]
87. Marital fidelity is
thus founded upon that highest degree of friendship that can be established
between man and woman. This “greatest friendship” (maxima amicitia)—as an
oblative love (amor benevolentiae), distinct from a merely possessive
love (amor concupiscentiae), which would instead be aimed at one’s own
advantage—leads to an intimate and total exchange between equals, where each one
gives without reserve, seeking the good of the other: “The greater the
friendship, the more stable and lasting is it. Now, there seems to be the
greatest friendship between husband and wife: for they are made one not only in
the act of carnal intercourse, which even among animals causes an agreeable
fellowship, but also by sharing the whole of domestic life. As a sign of
this, man must leave father and mother for the sake of his wife (cf. Gen 2:24).”[122]
Communion of Two Persons
88. In the twentieth
century, some Christian philosophers emphasize a view of marriage as a union of
persons or a communion of life. In the context of classical Thomist thought,
Antonin-Dalmace Sertillanges presents marriage as a union of two persons—one
that can never be understood as a kind of fusion or destruction of self in order
to form a higher unity, nor as a mere means of procreation for the good of the
species: “The human being, who is a person—that is to say, an end in himself,
according to the language of the philosophers; one whose worth does not depend
on the species […]—will seek, in his union, his own good together with that of
the species. If, then, man and woman establish a life whose bond is love, this
life will unfold around two centers, like an ellipse with two focal points, […]
but with no one being sacrificed.”[123]
89. Consistent with this
line of thought, Sertillanges shows that even the pursuit of a good for oneself
within marriage can be a way of taking the other person seriously,
since it opens for him or her the possibility of being
fruitful thanks to the spouse: “‘It is better to give than to receive,’ I
have said; but to receive is also to give. Receive, my heart, that the friend
may find in you the witness of what [the friend] gives. Be happy, that the
friend may say: ‘So I bring forth happiness!’”[124] In this way, in the conjugal union, “the two lives enrich one another all
the more since their union is destined to become ever closer, and their distinct
contributions are by nature called to complete each other,”[125] for “this love that makes two beings to be together what each could never
be alone is the most decisive natural enrichment.”[126] Thus, the marital communion implies a “twofold preference that intersects
and forms the strongest of bonds, making each person at once the most loving and
the most beloved, and enabling each one to find his or her own due by procuring
that of the other: a happiness of being one in two.”[127]
One Person Entirely Referred to Another
90. At this point, it is
helpful to link three authors who have increasingly deepened a line of thought
on marital unity. The first is Søren Kierkegaard, who holds that people realize
themselves when they can step outside of themselves, thus making love and union
possible: “Love is self-giving, but self-giving is only possible by my going out
of myself,”[128] which involves accepting risk and unpredictability. Only in this way does
it become possible to make that decision to belong entirely to just one person,
with all the risks this decision may entail. At the same time, Kierkegaard
observes, “a decisive step is required for this, and consequently, courage is
also required; yet marital love collapses into nothing if this does not take
place, for only thereby does one show that one loves not oneself but another.
And how is one to show this except by being only for the other?”[129] Consequently, the Danish philosopher contends, “it is an insult and
consequently ugly to want to love with one part of the soul and not with the
whole soul; to make one’s love into an element, and yet take another’s whole
love.”[130]
91. Thus, the foundation
of monogamy can be found in the very idea of personhood: a concept that at once
allows one to understand the meaning of one’s own existence and to love that of
one’s spouse. The inner call to abandon oneself before the other becomes, in
this way, the basis of “loving only one” person.[131] Kierkegaard confirms this when he acknowledges that, where true love draws
lovers out of themselves and toward each other, they become “deeply convinced
that, in itself, their relationship is a complete whole that will never be
changed.”[132] He also recognizes that this means spouses are called to “make the moment
of enjoyment into a little eternity.”[133] This then implies the action of the spiritual will, but above all, a
reference to God, without separating marriage—including its elements of
enjoyment and sexuality—from the love of God: “Now when the lovers refer their
love to God, this thanks will already place an absolute stamp of eternity upon
it.”[134]
92. From these sources,
the personalism of Emmanuel Mounier also develops, starting from the “absolute
value of the human person,”[135] whose full realization only occurs through self-giving, in a process that
transforms all the tensions of one’s personality.[136] Conversely, when a family becomes “a closed society,” it is “modelled
after the individual who is the ideal of the bourgeois world,”[137] and in this way represents merely the sum of two individualisms rather
than a union. If the true nature of the family is understood, then “individuals
must sacrifice their idiosyncrasies to it […]. [The family] is a venture to be
risked, an enterprise to be realized.”[138] However, this requires them to strive for this goal with all their
strength. Such an all-encompassing union is between two and admits of no
rivals.
93. Also an advocate of
personalism, Jean Lacroix is more directly inspired by Kierkegaard and expresses
similar ideas through the notion of the mutual recognition of the two
persons (“s’avouer l’un à l’autre”), which opens them to communion with
all: “When spouses mutually recognize each other, they also recognize themselves
before a reality that is greater than them. [...] For the family can undoubtedly
be the place, the source, and the archetype of all sociality [...]. Therefore,
it is the analysis of recognition that will allow us to discern what is true and
what is false in the conception of the family as the primary ‘cell’ of society.”[139] Recognition of the other is “the human act that fully embraces both
intimacy and sociality,” and, thus, it responds to the transcendental desire for
love in its richest sense.[140] But this requires recognizing the other “as other.”[141] In this way, the tendency to struggle against the other is “transformed
into mutual recognition.”[142] In this horizon, one understands that “the foundation of marriage, which
is essentially love, must be full recognition: a recognition of the body, a
recognition of the soul, and a total recognition of that embodied spirit which
is the concrete human being.”[143] Therefore, monogamy clearly arises from the affirmation that marriage
between a man and a woman is a “higher unity” than any other on earth: “the
family-based mode of being is the highest realization of human unity.”[144]
Face to Face
94. The French philosopher
Emmanuel Lévinas, in his reflection on the face of the other, seeks to discover
how personal relationships are always a “face-to-face” encounter. Through the
face, which always demands recognition, personal interiority becomes
communicable and requires the continual rediscovery of the other.[145] When it moves within this dynamic of the other’s face, sexual desire can
properly hold together sensitivity and transcendence; affirmation of oneself and
the recognition of otherness. In this face-to-face encounter, the caress serves
as an expression of the love that seeks union by admiring, respecting, and
preserving otherness: “It is not an intentionality of disclosure but of search:
a movement unto the invisible.”[146] Lévinas’s thought can provide a fruitful path to deepen the understanding
of marriage as an exclusive union: a face-to-face encounter that is possible
only between two people, which, when fully realized, claims for itself a mutual
belonging that is exclusive, incommunicable, and not transferable beyond that
“two of us.”
95. Polygamy, adultery,
and polyamory are based on the illusion that the intensity of the relationship
can be found in the succession of faces. However, as the myth of Don Juan shows,
number dissolves name: it disperses the unity of the momentum to love. If
Lévinas has shown that the face of the other summons one to an infinite, unique,
and irreducible responsibility, then multiplying faces in a supposedly total
union means fragmenting the meaning of marital love.
The Thought of Karol Wojtyła
96. Behind the well-known
catecheses on love that Pope Saint John Paul II offered as the Pontiff stand the
philosophical reflections of the young Bishop Karol Wojtyła. These reflections
deepen our understanding of the unique and exclusive bond of marriage.
97. The young Polish
thinker takes the subject matter of this Note very seriously. He explains
that marriage possesses “an inter-personal structure: it is a union and a
community of two persons.”[147] This, he states, forms its “distinctive character,” “the inner and
essential raison d’être of marriage,” which is “above all the creation of
a lasting personal union between a man and a woman.” This is its “full value,”
which remains even beyond procreation.[148]
98. Underlying all his
thinking is what he calls the “personalistic norm,” which requires us to “treat
a person in a manner appropriate to his or her essential nature” and never as
“an object to be enjoyed by another,”[149] as happens in polygamy. To be a person necessarily means that one can
“never in any circumstances be a mere object of enjoyment for another person but
can only be the object (or rather, the co-subject) of love,”[150] because the person “cannot be treated as an object of use and as such the
means to an end.”[151]
99. Wojtyła’s thought
clarifies why only monogamy can ensure that sexuality develops within a
framework where the other person is recognized as a subject, with whom one
shares all of life: a subject who is an end in him- or herself and never a means to
satisfy one’s own needs. The sexual union, which involves the whole person, can
treat the other precisely as a person—that is, as a co-subject of love and not
an object of use—only if it unfolds within a relationship of a unique and
exclusive belonging. In such a relationship, only two individuals can
fully and completely give themselves to each other. In every other situation,
the gift of self would be incomplete because it must leave space for others;
this would result in everyone being treated as a means and not as persons. For
these reasons, he concludes that “strict monogamy is a function of the personal
order.”[152]
100. In the same work, Karol Wojtyła expands the
reflection on monogamy with an original development about the unitive purpose of
sexuality. Here, the unitive finality becomes an expression and maturation of
the objective fact of marital unity, as an essential property of marriage. For
this reason, Wojtyła strongly rejects the rigorist thesis—which he considers to
be characteristic of Manicheanism or the “very one-sided spiritualists”—and
which holds that “in using man and woman and their sexual intercourse to assure
the existence of the species Homo, the Creator himself uses persons as
the means to his end.”[153] Only in this context, according to the rigorists, would sexual pleasure be
considered tolerable. Wojtyła instead maintains that “there is nothing inimical
to the objective dignity of persons in the fact that sexual use is an element in
married love. […] There exists a joy which is consonant both with the
nature of the sexual urge and with the dignity of human persons, a joy which
results from collaboration, from mutual understanding and the harmonious
realization of jointly chosen aims, in the broad field of action which is
love between man and woman. This joy, this frui may be bestowed either by
the great variety of pleasures connected with differences of sex, or by the
sexual enjoyment which conjugal relations can bring […] in so far as that love
develops on the basis of the sexual urge in a normal manner.”[154]
101. In his effort to avoid the rigorist extreme,
which ultimately excludes the unitive purpose of sexuality within marriage,
Wojtyła explains that the other can be truly loved as a person and, at the same
time, be fully desired. These two realities “differ, but to the point of being
mutually exclusive” because “a person may desire the other as a good for
himself/herself and, at the same time, desire what is good for the other,
independently of whether it is also a good for himself/herself.”[155] Recognizing the integrity of the person and his or her needs, one must
also acknowledge that mutual love requires many other expressions besides
sexuality. If “what both persons bring to their mutual love is only or mainly
desire, if their aim is merely to use each other, to seek pleasure, then
reciprocity itself does not possess the characteristics”[156] that give stability to marriage (such as virtuous love, trust, and
unselfish giving).
Further Considerations
102. The marriage of Jacques and Raïssa Maritain
appears as a special case of intellectual, cultural, and spiritual communion. It
cannot be presented as the only model, since the forms of marital union are
certainly as varied as the persons involved. Still, their special case has much
to say. Given the wonderful experience of sharing with Raïssa in an interior
search for truth and especially for God, Jacques relativizes, but does not
exclude, the importance of desire, passion, and sexuality: “The truth of the
matter, as I see it, is, first, that love as desire or passion, and romantic
love—or at least an element of it—should, as far as possible, be present in
marriage as a first incentive and starting point. […] The second point is that
far from having as its essential aim to bring romantic love to perfect
fulfillment, marriage has to perform in human hearts quite another work—an
infinitely deeper and more mysterious, alchemical operation.”[157] He is fascinated by a “really disinterested love, which does not exclude
sex, of course, but which grows more and more independent of sex.”[158] He does not mean, in a Gnostic or Jansenist sense, a spiritual love
entirely disconnected from the body or earthly realities—for such an
interpretation would run contrary to his anthropological thought. Instead, he
refers to the ideal of “a complete and irrevocable gift of the one to the other,
for the sake of the other. Thus it is that marriage can be between man and woman
a true community of love, built not on sand, but on rock.”[159] This ideal of total self-giving to one’s spouse occurs “through the hard
discipline of self-sacrifice and by dint of renouncements and purifications. […]
Each one, in other words, may then become really dedicated to the good and
salvation of the other.”[160] In this context, he emphasizes the constant need for forgiveness: “[Each
one must be] prepared, as guardian Angels have to be, to forgive the other a
great deal: for the gospel law of mutual forgiveness expresses, I believe, a
fundamental requirement.”[161]
103. In this text, Maritain’s philosophical
perspective appears entirely transformed by a supernatural vision, where the
power of theological love drives the lover completely outside of himself in
pursuit of the other’s good—up to the very fullness of that good, which is the
beloved’s salvation: that is, his or her complete union with God. While
Maritain’s profoundly spiritual vision might seem to exclude a complete
philosophical treatment of marital love that we find in other authors, it has
the great merit of guiding our reflection on monogamous love in an ascent toward
the highest values. There, such love matures in an oblative or self-offering way
that, within marriage, takes the form of a radical union. This admirable
union manifests itself in the sincere and constant concern for the good of the
other as a supernatural movement, and in the tender and generous pursuit of the
full and total realization of the beloved in the saving love of God.
104. In a later work, however, Jacques Maritain
shows greater philosophical precision in the annotations he developed based on
his wife’s Diary, published after her death, and then completed and
published separately by him.[162] Already from the opening pages, the theme returns of that very special
love which reaches the highest levels of generosity and selflessness. The French
philosopher calls it a “mad, boundless love”[163] [l’amour fou] because it is a love “envisaged under its extreme and
entirely absolute form,”[164] characterized by “the power which it has of alienating the soul from
itself.”[165] However, what is new in this commentary on Raïssa’s Diary is that Jacques
takes a decisive step forward by integrating sexuality positively into the
context of that most perfect love. Starting from human nature, composed of
spirit and body, and from the all-encompassing nature of marital love, he
affirms: “People can give themselves to another, or be drawn out of themselves
into another to the point of making the other their All, but only if they
give—or are ready to give—their body while also giving their soul.”[166] In this supreme love between two human beings, marital unity finds its
most precious earthly expression.
Other Perspectives
105. It seems useful here to consider a
perspective from the non-Christian East as well. We will briefly consider, by
way of example, the traditions of India. In that region, although monogamy has
generally been the norm and considered an ideal in married life, polygamy
continued to exist over the centuries. In any case, one of the oldest texts
drawn from the Hindu scriptures, the Manusmṛti, states the following:
“Let mutual fidelity continue until death; this may be considered as the summary
of the highest law for husband and wife. Let man and woman, united in marriage,
constantly exert themselves, that they may not be disunited and may not violate
their mutual fidelity.”[167] A significant text often cited in support of monogamy is the
Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (or
Bhāgavata Purāṇa), where we read: “Rāmacandra took a vow to accept
only one wife and have no connection with any other women. He was a virtuous
king, and everything in his character was good, untinged by qualities like
anger.”[168] When Rāvaṇa abducted his wife, Sītā, Rāmacandra—who could have taken any
other woman as his wife—took none. In addition, the emphasis placed on the
wife’s chastity in the Tirukkuṟaḷ (a classical collection of Tamil
aphorisms) indicates the importance of total fidelity: “What treasure is more
precious than a wife who possesses the stability of chastity? [...] She who
keeps constant watch over herself, cares for her husband, and protects the good
name of her family—give to her the name ‘woman.’”[169]
106. In connection with the philosophical and
cultural reflections discussed so far, it is also opportune to consider the
theme of education. Our age, in fact, knows various distortions regarding love,
such as the increase in the number of divorces, fragile marriages, the
trivialization of adultery, and the promotion of polyamory. In light of this, it
is important to recognize that the great collective narratives of our time
(e.g., novels, movies, and songs) continue to celebrate the myth of the “great
love” that is unique and exclusive. The paradox is evident: social practices
undermine what the imagination celebrates. This reveals that the desire for
monogamous love remains deeply inscribed within the human being, even when
behaviors seem to belie it.
107. How, then, can we preserve the possibility of
a faithful and monogamous love? The answer lies in education. It is not enough
to denounce failures; starting with the values that the popular imagination
still preserves, new generations should be prepared to receive the experience of
love as an anthropological mystery. The world of social networks—where modesty
vanishes and violence of a symbolic and sexual nature proliferates—shows the
urgent need for a new pedagogy. Love cannot be reduced to an impulse: it always
summons the whole person’s responsibility and capacity for hope. Betrothal,
understood in its traditional sense, embodies this time of testing and
maturation, in which the other is received as a promise of the infinite. Thus,
education for monogamy does not constitute a moral constraint, but an initiation
into the greatness of a love that transcends immediacy. It directs the energy of
desirous love toward a wisdom of lasting commitment and an openness to the
divine. Monogamy is not an archaism but a prophecy: it reveals that human love,
lived in its fullness, in some way anticipates the very mystery of God.
V. The
Poetic Word
108. On the theme of poetic language, Pope Francis
affirms that “literary words are like a thorn in the heart that moves you to
contemplation and sets you on a journey. Poetry is open; it throws you into
another realm.”[170] He also adds: “The artist is someone who, with their eyes, both sees and
dreams; they perceive more deeply, prophesy, and announce a different way of
seeing and understanding the things before us. Indeed, poetry does not speak of
reality from abstract principles but rather by listening to reality itself.”[171] Given these premises, it is indispensable to turn to poetic language to
attain a greater grasp of the mystery of love between two people who unite and
mutually belong to one another.
109. It is helpful to note how many poets have
tried to express the beauty of this unique and exclusive union. Recognizing the
power of their poetry does not, of course, imply that their lives were perfect
or that they were always faithful in love. In any case, it seems clear that when
they found love and decided to belong exclusively to another person—or when they
perceived the value of an exclusive union—these poets needed to express it
through their art, as if to indicate that it was something that goes beyond
sexual satisfaction, fulfillment of a personal need, or a superficial adventure.
A few examples can be considered:
We have circled and circled
till we have arrived
home again—we two have.[172]
No one else, my love, will sleep with my dreams.
You will go, we shall go together through the waters of time.[173]
110. In these verses, one senses that—along a path
of respect and freedom—time consecrates the couple’s mutual choice, strengthens
their bond, deepens their satisfaction in belonging to one another, and enriches
that “we” which begins to feel indestructible. Within this union, each of the
two knows that, just as something of themselves has been given to the other,
each has also received so much in return from the beloved:
I have gone down millions of stairs, with your arm in mine—
not because four eyes might see better than two;
but because I knew that,
of the two of us,
the only eyes that truly saw,
though so greatly clouded,
were yours.[174]
I give you myself,
my sleepless nights,
the long sips
of sky and stars—drunk
upon the mountains,
the breeze of seas travelled
toward distant dawns. […]
And you receive my creaturely wonder,
my trembling like a stem
alive within the circle
of the horizons,
bent to the limpid
wind—of beauty;
and you, let me gaze upon these eyes
that God has given you,
so dense with sky—
so deep, as centuries of light
sunk beyond
the mountain peaks.[175]
111. The relationship is viewed as irreplaceable,
so that when poets seek to rediscover their roots, they see themselves in
relation to the other person, with a force that transcends time:
I will close my eyes
and just ask for five things,
five cherished roots:
One is endless love, […]
The fifth is your eyes,
My Matilde, well-beloved.
I do not want to sleep without your eyes;
I do not want to be without your gaze.[176]
112. Among the great poets, one generally does not
find naïve romanticism, but a realism that acknowledges
the risks of habitual stagnation and accepts the challenges that stimulate
growth, while not losing sight of the need for openness beyond the closed circle
of the two spouses:
The two of us, our hands entwined,
believe ourselves at home everywhere— […]
beside the wise and the mad,
among the children and the elders.[177]
113. This is rooted in the fact that the
authenticity of this union excludes any form of fusion that closes in on itself.
Mutual belonging is not merely the result of a personal need, but of a conscious
decision to belong to the other that makes it possible to overcome loneliness
and abandonment; it is a decision that is also deeply marked by great respect
for the other and for the other’s personal mystery. Love, which recognizes in
the other a unique value, perceives in its own way that the human person is
“non-transferable”—that the other cannot be one’s possession—and it demands a
similar attitude for itself:
Your questioning eyes are sad.
They seek to know my meaning
as the moon would fathom the sea….
But it is love, my beloved.
Its pleasure and pain
are boundless,
and endless its wants and wealth.
It is as near to you as your life,
but you can never wholly know it.[178]
114. In these few examples, it becomes clear how
the poetic word takes seriously the value of the exclusive union of two people
who have freely decided to remain together and to belong to one another
exclusively. What has been said about the all-encompassing character of love can
be summed up in the words of another great poet, Emily Dickinson: “That Love is
all there is, / is all we know of Love.”[179]
VI. Some Reflections for
Further Study
115. Thanks to the path taken so far, it is now
possible to gather a substantial collection of reflections that can help one
perceive the unique and exclusive union of marriage in a harmonious and
multifaceted way. These reflections are, in themselves, useful for gaining a
deeper understanding of the meaning of monogamy. Yet in this final part of the
Note, it seems fitting to focus attention on some important and specific
points concerning the theme under consideration. As we have seen, the
unity-union of marriage could be expressed through various philosophical,
theological, and poetic figures. However, among the many possible expressions,
two appear decisive: mutual belonging and conjugal charity. Both have frequently
emerged in various texts cited in this Note.
Mutual Belonging
116. One way of expressing this exclusive union
between two persons can be summed up in the expression “mutual belonging.” As
early as the fifth century, Pope Saint Leo the Great referred to the mutual
belonging of spouses when he addressed the situation of soldiers who, although
thought to be dead, returned from war and found that they had been “replaced” by
others. The Pope then ordered that “each person recover what is his own.”[180] This quote invites reflection on this mutual belonging in a richer, deeper
way.
117. Saint Thomas Aquinas affirms that, to
establish friendship, “even benevolence is not sufficient, for a certain
mutual love is required.”[181] Mutual belonging is based on the free consent of
both parties. In the Order of Celebrating Matrimony of the Roman Rite,
this consent is expressed by saying: “I take you to be my wife” and “I take you
to be my husband.”[182] Following the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, consent must be
understood as “the human act by which the spouses mutually give and receive one
another.”[183] This act, which “binds the spouses to each other,”[184] involves mutual giving and receiving: it is the dynamism that gives rise
to mutual belonging, which is called to deepen, mature, and become ever more
solid over time. In technical terms, the mutual giving is the matter; the
mutual acceptance is the form.
118. It is not by chance that Pope Saint Paul VI
connects the couple’s “mutual self-gift” in marriage to the unity of the
bond, describing it as “specific and exclusive to them alone.”[185] Similarly, Karol Wojtyła affirms that this mutuality “requires us to
consider the love of man and woman not so much as the love of each for the other
but rather as something which exists between them. […] [L]ove is not just
something in the man and something in the woman—for, in that case,
there would be, properly speaking, two loves—but is something common to them and
unique. […] Fully realized, it is essentially an interpersonal, not an
individual matter. […] It is reciprocity which determines whether that ‘we’
comes into existence in love. Reciprocity is the proof that love has matured,
that it has become something ‘between’ persons, has created a community.”[186] This mutuality is a reflection of the Trinitarian life: “two people whom
perfect love will bring together in unity. This movement and this love make them
resemble God, who is love itself, the absolute unity of Three Persons.”[187] The unity of the spouses’ relationship is profoundly rooted in the
Trinitarian communion.
119. Pope Francis often spoke of marriage as a
freely chosen belonging, because “without a sense of belonging we cannot
sustain a commitment to others; we end up seeking our convenience alone.”[188] In marriage, each spouse expresses “the firm decision […] to belong to one
another. Marriage is a means of expressing that we have truly left the security
of the home in which we grew up in order to build other strong ties and to take
on a new responsibility for another person. This is much more meaningful than a
mere spontaneous association for mutual gratification.”[189] Mutual and exclusive belonging thus becomes a strong motivation for the
stability of the union: “Marriage is also the experience of belonging completely
to another person. Spouses accept the challenge and aspiration of supporting one
another, growing old together, and in this way reflecting God’s own
faithfulness. […] [I]t is a matter of the heart, into which God alone sees (cf.
Mt. 5:28). Every morning, on rising, we reaffirm before God our decision to be
faithful, come what may in the course of the day. And all of us, before going to
sleep, hope to wake up and continue this adventure, trusting in the Lord’s
help.”[190]
Transformation
120. As time passes, even when physical attraction
and the capacity for sexual relations weaken, mutual belonging is not bound to
dissolve. The choice for the union of the two modifies and transforms.
Naturally, various intimate expressions of affection will continue; these, too,
are considered exclusive, as expressions of the one matrimonial union,
expressions that cannot be offered to others without a sense of inadequacy.
Because the experience of mutual and exclusive belonging deepens and grows
stronger over time, there are expressions of love that are reserved only for the
person with whom one has chosen to share one’s heart in a singular way.
121. For Pope Francis, this is precisely one of
the advantages of understanding the marital union as mutual belonging: “Close
and exclusive relationships must last for four, five, or even six decades;
consequently, the initial decision has to be frequently renewed. While one of
the spouses may no longer experience an intense sexual desire for the other, he
or she may still experience the pleasure of mutual belonging and the
knowledge that neither of them is alone but has a ‘partner’ with whom everything
in life is shared. He or she is a companion on life’s journey.”[191] Thus, “even amid unresolved conflicts and confused emotional situations,
they daily reaffirm their decision to love, to belong to one another, to
share their lives, and to continue loving and forgiving. [...] On this journey,
love rejoices at every step and in every new stage. [...] The marriage bond
finds new forms of expression and constantly seeks new ways to grow in strength.
These both preserve and strengthen the bond.”[192] In any case, it must be acknowledged that mutual belonging is a way of
understanding the marital union that has great richness, but also certain
limitations that need clarification.
Non-Belonging
122. A distinctive mark of the human person is
that he or she is an end in him- or herself. The human being is “the only
creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake.”[193] One can thus say that the human person is an end in himself or
herself, and therefore cannot be reduced to merely serving the
purposes of others. The person can never be treated in a way that fails to
respect this dignity, which can be called “infinite”[194] both because of God’s boundless love for each person and because it is an
absolutely inalienable dignity. Every “human individual possesses the dignity
of a person, who is not just something, but someone.”[195] Consequently, the person “cannot be treated as an object of use, and as
such, [as] the means to an end.”[196]
123. When this conviction is lacking—the
conviction proper to true love, which stops before the sacred dimension of the
other—the diseases of undue possessiveness of the other readily arise:
manipulation, jealousy, harassment, and infidelity. On the other hand, the
mutual belonging proper to exclusive mutual love involves a delicate care for
the other and a holy fear of violating the freedom of the other, who has the
same dignity and therefore the same rights. Those who love know that the other
cannot be a means for resolving their own dissatisfaction; they know that their
inner emptiness must be filled by other means, never through domination of the
other. This is what fails to occur in many unhealthy forms of desire that
culminate in various manifestations of overt or subtle violence, oppression,
psychological pressure, control, and ultimately suffocation. This failure to
respect and honor the other’s dignity can even be found in some appeals to
complementarity, where one spouse is allowed to develop only a part of his or
her potential while the other has ample room for personal growth. To prevent
this, it must be recognized that there is no single model of marital mutuality.
In a healthy and generous relationship, “there can be a certain flexibility of
roles and responsibilities, depending on the concrete circumstances of each
particular family.”[197] Consequently, “in the home, decisions cannot be made unilaterally, since
each spouse shares responsibility for the family; yet each home is unique, and
each marriage will find an arrangement that works best.”[198]
124. When, instead of healthy mutual
belonging—which always requires patience and generosity—signs of irritation or
even disrespect begin to appear in a spouse, it is important to act promptly,
before manipulation or violence emerges. In such situations, the person
must affirm his or her dignity, establish necessary boundaries, and embark on a
path of sincere dialogue, conveying a clear message: “You do not own me; you do
not dominate me.” And this is not only for self-defense but also for the other
person’s dignity, since “it is part of the mentality of domination that those
who dominate end up negating their own dignity.”[199]
125. The healthy and beautiful “two of us” can
only be the mutuality of two freedoms—freedoms that are never violated but
freely choose each other while always safeguarding a boundary that may not be
crossed or superseded, not even under the pretext of some need, personal
anxiety, or psychological state. As Pope Francis points out, spouses are “called
to an increasingly profound union, they can risk effacing their differences and
the rightful distance between the two. For each possesses his or her own proper
and inalienable dignity.”[200] Fully respecting this principle “demands an interior divestment.”[201]
126. Taking seriously what has been said so far,
one can see that the word “belonging” can be applied to marriage only in an
analogous sense. Any form of belonging other than that of a love that sees the
other as sacred in his or her freedom, untransferable at the core of his or her
personhood, and autonomous, would be simply a self-centered way of subjecting
the spouse to one’s own purposes or plans. The person does not simply dissolve
into the relationship or merge with the beloved; there is always a core that
cannot be surrendered. This should not be understood as a limitation or
impoverishment of mutual love; on the contrary, it allows one to keep intact
that level of respect and wonder that belongs to every healthy love, which never
seeks to absorb the other.
127. This is confirmed by the fact that there is a
dimension of the person that, being the deepest, transcends all others—including
the bodily dimension—and where only God can enter without violating it. There is
a core of the human being in which only the infinite love of God can reign. Only
he has that all-powerful and creative love that makes the very existence of
freedom possible. Therefore, when he touches a person’s core, he can only
strengthen, increase, and elevate it in its very nature, with no possibility of
mutilating, dominating, weakening, or overriding it. Indeed, “God alone enters
into (illabitur) the soul.”[202] Only God can enter into the depths of the human heart, for only he can do
so without disturbing the person’s freedom and identity.[203] Through grace, God becomes fully close, entering into the innermost depths
of the human being that he alone can reach.[204] Thus, “no one but God can presume to take over the deepest and most
personal core of the loved one.”[205]
128. As their love gradually matures, the couple
may understand and peacefully accept that the precious mutual belonging that
characterizes marriage is not a form of possession, but leaves open many
possibilities. For example, one of the spouses could ask for a moment of
reflection or a usual space for solitude or autonomy; one might refuse the
other’s intrusion into some area of his or her interior life; or one might keep
a personal secret guarded in the sancta sanctorum of the conscience,
without being followed or watched.
129. When love matures, the “two of us” possesses
all the strength of a union that is freely chosen by both, all the joy of shared
memories, all the satisfaction of a journey made together and dreams held in
common, and all the security that comes from feeling that one is not—and will
not be—alone. Yet that beauty is elevated by a magnificent freedom that no true
love could ever wound.
130. Therefore, marriage also excludes any form of
control that would seek to give security, absolute certainty, and the absence of
any surprise. In mature love, if the other person needs space to rediscover the
world, there can only be room for trust—not for the illusion of an absolute
tranquility, devoid of hidden fears and unable to face new challenges. In this
way, marriage does not completely free us from solitude, since the spouse cannot
reach that space that belongs solely to God, nor can the other fill the void
that no human being can fill. The fact that someone’s affection is imperfect
does not mean it is false, entirely selfish, or inauthentic, but simply that it
is an earthly and limited affection, which cannot be expected to satisfy one’s
every need.
Mutual Help
131. Certainly, this ability to accept the risk of
freedom does not mean that a spouse who is very sensitive to defending his or
her own autonomous spaces should cultivate an indifference toward the other
person’s fears, an excessive self-confidence, or a claim to complete
independence, which the other’s limited human heart, especially if it loves,
could not endure without great suffering. None of us can feel saved in the
isolation of self-sufficiency, because a covenant of love also involves the
recognition that the other person needs us.
132. Along with safeguarding healthy freedom, the
Word of God—while affirming the need for moments of autonomy and solitude—also
commands, “Do not refuse one another” (1 Cor. 7:5). When distance becomes
too frequent, the “two of us” risks being eclipsed and the desire for the other
may weaken. In any event, if mutual attraction fades, it is always possible for
the spouses to find a space for sincere dialogue to heal whatever is causing
their mutual distancing. Ultimately, it is always possible to seek new paths to
strengthen and enrich the “we” in a novel way. This is a healthy but difficult
balance that each couple reaches in its own way, through sincere
dialogue and mutual self-giving.
133. Mutual belonging becomes reciprocal help: a
help that not only seeks the other’s happiness and the easing of his or her
burdens but also enables the spouses to help one another mature as persons until
they attain the ultimate end of their lives before God, at the heavenly banquet.
Pope Saint Paul VI reminds us that “husband and wife, through that mutual gift
of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union
of two persons in which they perfect one another.”[206] Prayer as a couple is certainly a valuable way to grow in love and
holiness together: prayer that “has for its very own object family life itself.”[207] In this path of sanctification, Sertillanges notes that one must not
exclude sexuality, lived as a holy expression of the total gift of self to the
other, as Christ and his Church give themselves to one another: “The act carried
out in this way is, thus, not only legitimate, as the effect of a natural and
legal institution; it is not only virtuous, as useful and directed to useful
ends: it is holy with the holiness of the sacrament of which it is the
use, and holy with the holiness of the sacred union of all humanity to its
Redeemer.”[208]
134. Discussing monogamy requires one to recognize
that the uniqueness of the spouse, within the ‘horizontal’ order of human
relationships, reflects the uniqueness of the human person’s relationship with
God. Seen in this light, when we think about monogamy, we must also inquire
about how human love relates to its ultimate fulfillment. Indeed, every
relationship of love silently calls forth the presence of an infinite Third, who
is God himself.[209] Without this Third, love easily turns in upon its own finitude and
collapses. Conjugal exclusivity then appears not as a limitation, but as the
very condition for the possibility of a supernatural love that, beyond the
flesh, opens to the eternal. In fact, Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that the Holy
Spirit “proceeds invisibly into the soul by the gift of love,”[210] and so, in the experience of genuine love, we are joined to that Infinite
Love, who is the Holy Spirit. It is precisely the experience of a love so near
as that of marriage that stirs within the human heart a powerful desire for a
love that not only ‘lasts forever’ but is also ‘without end.’ In this way, the
love of the spouses becomes an epiphany of the transcendent and eternal vocation
of the human person. For only a love that is able to transcend human love—a Love
that is eternal and infinite—can answer that desire for a love that ‘lasts
forever’ and is ‘without end,’ which conjugal love itself awakens. This is why
the experience of the special and intense closeness that is offered by
the marital bond is ultimately destined to open the heart of every man and woman
to the desire for the incomparable closeness that only God can offer in a
full and definitive way. And God himself, by becoming man, begins to answer that
desire, also by bestowing the seal of uniqueness upon the closeness that arises
from the marriage bond—a seal that is the sign and pledge of God’s communion
with each of us in an unending covenant of love. Consequently, how can one not
think of marriage as a path of mutual help for growing together in holiness, to
reach the heights of union with God?
135. Mutual help toward sanctification, in which
the two “support one another in grace,”[211] is realized above all in the exercise of conjugal charity, for only
charity lived toward the other allows us to grow in the life of grace. Indeed,
if I strive for holiness but do not have charity, “I gain nothing” (1 Cor.
13:3). For this reason, the final pages of this document are devoted to that
unitive power which is conjugal charity.
Conjugal Charity
136. The mutual character of the conjugal union
has already been discussed; it can be rightly considered as a form of intimate
and all-encompassing friendship. In this regard, it is helpful to recall that
Saint Thomas Aquinas specifies that friendship is “founded on some kind of
commonality.”[212] More than some ideological or aesthetic affinities, which can be very
important, it is the communion created by love that—by its unitive power—makes
the spouses more alike, increases what they share, and creates a treasury of
life between them. So, first of all, to speak of friendship, there must first be
love.
A Special Form of Friendship
137. One cannot properly understand marriage
without speaking about love, which, for Christians, is always called to reach
the heights of charity—that supernatural love that “bears all things, believes
all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:7). In fact,
the “grace proper to the Sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the
couple’s love.”[213] This supernatural love is a gift from God, which is sought in prayer and
nourished in the Sacraments. It reminds spouses that God is the principal author
of marital unity and that, without his help, their union can never reach its
fullness. When the Order of Celebrating Matrimony of the Roman Rite
quotes the Lord’s words, “what God joins together, let no one put asunder”[214] (cf. Mt. 19:6; Mk. 10:9), it becomes clear that conjugal unity is
established not only by human consent but also by the work of the Holy Spirit.
The same applies to the spouses’ growth in communion, which is animated by grace
and charity. This communion develops as a response to “a call from God and [is]
lived as a filial response to his call.”[215] Yet, the growth of charity does not take place without human cooperation;
in this case, it involves the cooperation of the spouses, who daily seek an ever
more intense, rich, and generous communion.
138. Charity, including conjugal charity, is an
affective union, where “affective” here means something more than feelings and
desires: it “denotes a certain union of affections between the lover and the
beloved, inasmuch as the lover deems the beloved as in some way one with
himself.”[216] It is expressed through an act of the will,[217] which desires and chooses someone, decides to enter into a close communion
with that person, and unites with that person freely, with all the more or less
intense effects this may have on one’s affective and sensory life in the form of
desire, emotion, sexual attraction, and sensuality. Even when these emotional or
bodily effects weaken or change over the different stages of life, the affective
union remains—and sometimes with great intensity—in the will. It is the will
that wants to stay united to the other, appreciating the beloved as of “great
worth”[218] and forming with him or her a union whereby the loved one becomes “one
with oneself.”[219]
139. Only in this way is it possible to maintain
faithfulness in adverse moments or in temptation, since charity holds us to a
value that is higher than the satisfaction of personal needs. In this context,
one cannot fail to recognize the testimonies of many couples who have supported
each other through various difficulties of life, sometimes during trials that
lasted many years, thus testifying to the prophetic relevance of monogamy. This
is expressed well in the Formula of Consent in the Order of Celebrating
Matrimony of the Roman Rite, where the spouses each say: “I promise to be
faithful to you, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health; to love
you and to honor you, all the days of my life.”[220] It is precisely conjugal charity, with its unitive force, that makes it
possible for these promises to be truly fulfilled. This affective, faithful, and
total union takes shape in marriage as a friendship, because ultimately charity
is a form of friendship.[221] Therefore, citing Saint Thomas Aquinas, Pope Francis affirms that “after
the love that unites us to God, conjugal love is the ‘greatest form of
friendship.’”[222]
140. There is a categorical statement in the Old
Testament about the need to love: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”
(Lev. 19:18). This affirmation comes at the end of a passage that
repeatedly recalls the obligations of the devout Israelite toward those who are
his “neighbor.” It is a well-known statement, for Jesus takes it up and
reaffirms it (cf. Mt. 22:39; Mk. 12:31; Lk. 10:29-37). In doing so, he
establishes a unique link between the universal human experience of love and the
category of the “neighbor.” Genuine love not only extends to those who are
already close to us, but it also has the power to create “proximity.”
Thus, the “neighbor” is someone with whom one shares some portion of life. In
this sense, conjugal love reveals and embodies a special “proximity” that gives
the commandment an especially compelling resonance. Indeed, the love shared by
spouses both realizes and recalls a unique nearness between two hearts that love
one another, creating a special affinity nourished by sharing oneself, one’s
possessions, and one’s whole life—something that the depth of conjugal love can
achieve with incomparable intensity. As love matures and grows, the heart of the
beloved in marriage perceives that no other heart can make that person feel ‘at
home’ quite like the heart of the loving spouse.
In Body and Soul
141. This conjugal friendship—rich in mutual
knowledge, appreciation of the other, shared rapport, intimacy, understanding,
patience, seeking each other’s good, and sensitive gestures—precisely because it
rises above sexuality, is at the same time able to embrace it and give it its
most beautiful, profound, unitive, and fruitful meaning. Pope Francis reminds us
that “God himself created sexuality, which is a marvelous gift.”[223] Likewise, “the sexual union, lovingly experienced and sanctified by the
sacrament, is in turn a path of growth in the life of grace for the couple.”[224] Placing sexuality within the proper context of a love that unites the
spouses in a single friendship ordered to the good of the other does not imply a
devaluation of sexual pleasure. When directed toward self-gift, pleasure is not
only ennobled but can also be enhanced. Saint Thomas Aquinas explains this well
when he recalls that “nature has introduced pleasure into the operations that
are necessary for human life,” and that if someone were to reject it “to the
extent of omitting things that are necessary for the preservation of nature, he
would sin, as acting counter to the order of nature; and this pertains to the
vice of insensibility.”[225] Within this same framework, Aquinas maintains that sensible pleasure was
greater before Original Sin because nature was purer and more integral, and thus
the body was more responsive. This is the opposite of an anxious dissipation
that ultimately harms pleasure by depriving it of the possibility of an
authentically human experience.[226] For the specifically human capacities that allow the human spirit to
permeate, direct, and bring the senses to fulfillment do “not lessen sensual
pleasure,” but rather make it possible in its fullness and richness, preventing
“the force of concupiscence from cleaving to it immoderately.”[227] To live sexuality as an act of the whole human person, body and
soul—thanks also to the transfiguring power of charity—means not experiencing it
passively, as a simple yielding to impulses, but living it as the conscious act
of a person who chooses to unite fully with the other.
142. Lived in this way, sexuality is no longer the
outlet for an immediate need, but is a personal choice that expresses the
totality of one’s person and receives the other as a whole person. Instead of
compromising the intensity of pleasure, this truth can increase it, making it
more profound, rich, and fulfilling. Just being treated as a person, and
treating the other in the same way, can free the heart from wounds, fears,
anguish, anxieties, loneliness, abandonment, and the inability to love, all of
which certainly impede pleasure. At the same time, the growth of love as a human
and theological virtue helps to liberate the best in each person’s unique
identity, thus enabling each one to have a greater and more human joy, to the
point of giving thanks to God who “richly furnishes us with everything to enjoy”
(1 Tim. 6:17). None of this takes away from the sexual union that “abundance of
pleasure that is in the venereal act ordered according to reason,” which “is not
opposed to the mean of virtue.”[228] On the contrary, if someone turns inward and focuses only on their
immediate needs, using others merely as tools for their satisfaction, the
pleasure results in greater dissatisfaction, and the feelings of emptiness and
loneliness grow more bitter.
143. In speaking about conjugal charity, Karol
Wojtyła encourages us to move beyond all unnecessary oppositions, explaining
that “love as a virtue is connected with emotional love, and with the love contained
in sensual desire.”[229] Pope Benedict XVI, in
Deus Caritas Est, reiterates that oblative
love (amor benevolentiae) and possessive love (amor concupiscentiae)
cannot be separated because “fundamentally, ‘love’ is a single reality, but with
different dimensions; at different times, one or other dimension may emerge more
clearly. Yet, when the two dimensions are totally cut off from one another, the
result is a caricature or at least an impoverished form of love.”[230] When discussing possessive love, we should consider not only sexual desire
but also any way of seeking the other as “a good for me”: for example, to
overcome loneliness, to receive help in difficulties, to have a space of total
trust, and so on. This form of love—which is not excluded in marriage—is a way
of expressing that I am not the other person’s savior, an all-powerful and
inexhaustible giver of good, but someone in need: incomplete, fragile, and
dependent on the other. It shows that the other is important to me, and I give
him or her the opportunity to become fruitful by doing good to me. To do
otherwise would be a kind of self-sufficiency that can easily turn into a
disguised self-centeredness, for Satan “disguises himself as an angel of light”
(2 Cor. 11:14). As Pope Benedict XVI explains, “man cannot live by
oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give; he must also receive.
Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift.”[231]
144. In this sense, we cannot ignore the fact that
in recent decades—within the context of postmodern, consumerist
individualism—various problems have emerged that originate from an excessive and
uncontrolled pursuit of sex, or from the simple denial of the procreative
purpose of sexuality. A characteristic feature of recent decades is the explicit
denial of the unitive purpose of sexuality and marriage itself. This
happens especially because of feelings of anxiety, of constantly being busy, of
wanting more free time for oneself, and of always being caught up in an
obsession with travel and experiencing other realities. As a result, the desire
for emotional exchange, for sexual relations themselves, and even for dialogue
and cooperation disappears because all of these come to be seen as “stressful.”
The Multifaceted Fruitfulness of Love
145. An integral vision of conjugal charity does
not deny its fruitfulness—that is, the possibility of generating new
life—because “this totality, which is required by conjugal love, also
corresponds to the demands of responsible fertility.”[232] The sexual union, as a way of expressing conjugal charity, must naturally
remain open to the transmission of life,[233] even though this does not mean that procreation must be an explicit goal
of every sexual act. In fact, three legitimate situations may occur:
(a) Where a couple cannot have children. Karol Wojtyła explains this
magnificently when he recalls that marriage “possesses an inter-personal
structure: it is a union and a community of two persons. […] [The couple may be
without children for a variety of reasons, but this] in no way deprives marriage
of its proper character. The inner and essential raison d’être of
marriage is not simply its eventual transformation into a family but is, above
all, the creation of a lasting personal union between a man and a woman based on
love. […] A marriage which, through no fault of the spouses, is childless still
retains its full value as an institution. […] [Such a family] does not lose its
significance.”[234]
(b) Where a couple does not consciously pursue a specific sexual act as a
means of procreation. Wojtyła also affirms that a conjugal act, “must be an act
of love, an act of unification of persons, and not merely the ‘instrument’ or
‘means’ of procreation.”[235]
(c) Where a couple respects the natural times of infertility. Following
this line of reflection, Pope Saint Paul VI states: “the Church teaches that
married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the
reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times
that are infertile.”[236] This can serve not only for “spacing births,” but also to choose the most
opportune moments to welcome new life. In the meantime, the couple can take
advantage of such periods to “express their mutual love and safeguard their
fidelity toward one another. In doing this, they certainly give proof of a true
and authentic love.”[237]
146. All of this shows the important innovation
Pope Pius XI offers when he states that conjugal love “pervades all the duties
of married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage.”[238] In this way, he helps to move beyond the discussion about the relationship
between the ends or meanings of marriage (the procreative and the unitive) and
the order that exists between them, by placing conjugal charity above this
dialectic of ends and goods as the central issue of married life, which, in
turn, gives marriage a multifaceted fruitfulness. Even in the most challenging
moments, spouses can say: “We are friends, we love each other, and we value one
another. We have decided to share our entire lives. We belong to one another,
and we have freely chosen this union that God himself has blessed and
strengthened. If at a given moment there are no children, we remain united and
find fruitfulness in other ways. If at a given moment there is no sexual
intercourse, we continue to live this unique, exclusive, and all-encompassing
friendship, which is also our best path of growth and sanctification.”
147. Saint Augustine himself, who so strongly
emphasizes the procreative purpose of marriage, teaches that marriage in itself
is good even if there are no children, “because of the natural companionship
between the two sexes. Otherwise, we could not speak of marriage in the case of
old people, especially if they had either lost their children or had begotten
none at all.”[239] A similar position, expressed in other words, is supported by Saint John
Chrysostom, who says: “What then shall we say? If there is no child, will they
[husband and wife] no longer be two? It is evident: for the [conjugal] union (míxis)
accomplishes precisely this, blending and intermingling the bodies of both. And
just as when someone pours perfume into oil and makes everything one, so too in
this case.”[240] In essence, the Second Vatican Council affirms this also: “Even in cases
where, despite the intense desire of the spouses, there are no children,
marriage still retains its character of being a whole manner and communion of
life, and preserves its value and indissolubility.”[241]
148. One author illustrates well that, beyond the
“objectives” that spouses may set for themselves—which do not constitute the
essence of marriage—“the union-unity that marriage entails is explained and
justified in itself, prior to its teleological orientation, for it is a
union-unity that possesses within itself its own complete rationale as a good;
from this, there undoubtedly derive certain proper acts, but as consequences,
never as causes.”[242] Of this union-unity, which belongs to the essence of marriage, conjugal
charity is the primary and most perfect moral and spiritual expression that
gives various forms of fruitfulness to marriage.
A Friendship Open to All
149. From what has been said, it follows that an
exclusive union that is formed and sustained by true love—even if still immature
and fragile—cannot be closed in on itself. It is not the extension of
individualism into the life of the couple, but is open to other relationships,
to the couple’s self-giving, and to their shared projects aimed at doing
something beautiful for the community and the world.
150. If marriage is already a relational framework
within which both of the spouses can mature, this is even more true when it is
generously open to others. This overcomes the human person’s “basic and tragic
tendency to close in on himself,”[243] which leads one to think that isolation brings greater freedom and
happiness. Rather, “as a spiritual being, the human creature is defined through
interpersonal relations. The more authentically he or she lives these relations,
the more his or her own personal identity matures. It is not by isolation that
man establishes his worth, but by placing himself in relation with others and
with God.”[244]
151. As Pope Francis teaches in his appeal to
universal fellowship in his Encyclical Fratelli Tutti, charity is called
to grow both deeply and broadly, “embracing everyone.”[245] Charity, therefore, urges us to expand the conjugal “we”: “[I cannot]
reduce my life to relationships with a small group, even my own family; I cannot
know myself apart from a broader network of relationships [...]. As couples or
friends, we find that our hearts expand as we step out of ourselves and embrace
others. Closed groups and self-absorbed couples that define themselves in
opposition to others tend to be expressions of selfishness and mere
self-preservation.”[246]
152. The risk of a closed “we” contradicts the
very nature of charity and can mortally wound it. Four factors can prevent this
closed “we” from distorting and impoverishing the meaning of conjugal union:
(a) The spaces that each spouse has in work, personal initiatives, and
moments of learning and development beyond married life. If either spouse is not
employed beyond the home, it becomes necessary to create such spaces for the
good of the marriage, enriching the dialogue and the relationship in general.
(b) The procreative meaning of marriage, which manifests the fruitfulness
of love that is not closed to the transmission of life. For those who are unable
to have children, adoption or other forms of stable support for other couples’
children can be ways of realizing this fruitfulness.
(c) The time shared with other married friends, during which—while
learning from others’ experiences and receiving their support—there is a
constant willingness to lend a hand in difficult moments, while also helping the
couple to become more aware of themselves as a unit, thanks to their friendship
with other couples.
(d) The social sense of the couple, which—faithful to the social
dimension of the Christian life—seeks ways to serve society and the Church,
engaging together in the pursuit of the common good: “Even large families are
called to make their mark on society, finding other expressions of fruitfulness
that in some way prolong the love that sustains them. [...] [Families should not
remain waiting within but should] instead go forth from their homes in a spirit
of solidarity with others.”[247] “Social love, as a reflection of the Trinity, is what truly unifies the
spiritual meaning of the family and its mission to others.”[248]
153. A particular proof of the openness of a
couple’s friendship toward others and the fruitfulness of their charity is
manifested in their concern for the poor. As Pope Leo XIV recalls, “no Christian
can regard the poor simply as a societal problem; they are part of our ‘family.’
They are ‘one of us.’”[249] Moreover, “love for the poor—whatever the form their poverty may take—is
the evangelical hallmark of a Church faithful to the heart of God.”[250] This fact is reflected in one of the options for the Final Blessing in
the Order of Celebrating Matrimony of the Roman Rite, which concludes
with the prayer: “May you be witnesses in the world to God’s charity, so that
the afflicted and needy who have known your kindness may one day receive you
thankfully into the eternal dwelling of God.”[251]
VII. Conclusion
154. Ultimately, while each spousal union is a
unique reality embodied within human limitations, every authentic marriage is
a unity composed of two individuals, requiring a relationship so intimate
and all-encompassing that it cannot be shared with others. At the same time,
since it is a union between two people who have the exact same dignity and
rights, it demands that exclusivity which prevents the other from being
relativized in his or her unique value and from being used merely as one means
among many to satisfy needs. This is the truth of monogamy that the Church reads
in Scripture when it affirms that from the two, they become “one flesh.” It is
the first essential and inalienable characteristic of that unique friendship
which is marriage, and which requires, as its existential manifestation, an
all-encompassing relationship—spiritual and corporeal—that matures and grows
ever more toward a union that reflects the beauty of the Trinitarian communion
and the beauty of the union between Christ and his beloved People. This occurs
to such an extent that we can recognize that “the primary meaning of marriage
[…] consists of that closest communion of love whereby two persons become one:
one heart, one soul, and one flesh.”[252]
155. The path followed throughout this Note
now makes it possible to highlight a development in Christian thought on
marriage, from antiquity to the present day, where it is clear that of
marriage’s two essential properties—unity and indissolubility—unity is the
foundational one. On the one hand, this is because indissolubility arises
from being a characteristic of a union that is unique and exclusive. On the
other hand, it is because the unity-union, accepted and lived with all its
consequences, makes possible the permanence and fidelity that indissolubility
requires. Indeed, various magisterial documents have described the matrimonial
union simply as an “indissoluble unity.”[253]
156. This union requires the constant growth of
love: “Marital love is not defended primarily by presenting indissolubility as a
duty, or by repeating doctrine, but by helping it to grow ever stronger under
the impulse of grace. A love that fails to grow is at risk. Growth can only
occur if we respond to God’s grace through constant acts of love, acts of
kindness that become ever more frequent, intense, generous, tender, and
cheerful.”[254] Marital unity is a reality that not only must always be better understood
in its fullest and most beautiful meaning, but it is also a dynamic reality,
called to continual development. As the Second Vatican Council affirms, husband
and wife “experience the meaning of their unity and attain it more fully day
by day.”[255] For indeed, “the best is yet to come,” as “fine wine matures with age.”[256]
The Supreme Pontiff Leo XIV, on 21 November 2025, the Liturgical Memorial of the
Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, approved the present Note, decided upon
in the Ordinary Session of this Dicastery on 19 November 2025, and he ordered
its publication.
Given in Rome, at the offices of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, on
25 November 2025.
Víctor Manuel Card. Fernández
Prefect
Msgr. Armando Matteo
Secretary
for the Doctrinal Section
Ex Audientia Die 21.11.2025
Leo PP. XIV
[1] Francis,
General Audience (23 October 2024): L’Osservatore
Romano (23 October 2024), 2. [2] John Paul II, Homily at the Mass for Families in Kinshasa
(3 May 1980), par. 2: AAS 72 (1980), 425.
[3] The Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM)
has undertaken the task of preparing a report for the Synod of Bishops on the
challenges posed by polygamy. While waiting for that document, it seems appropriate to note that,
according to a commonly held opinion, monogamous marriage in Africa would be
considered an exceptional reality, given the widespread practice of polygamy in
those regions. However, in-depth studies of African cultures show that various
traditions attribute particular importance to the first marriage between a man
and a woman and, above all, to the role that the first wife is called to
exercise vis-à-vis other wives. Indeed, research indicates that polygamy is a
practice tolerated by reason of life’s exigencies (e.g., the absence of
offspring, levirate obligations, the need for labor to ensure survival, etc.).
Many traditions, in fact, uphold the monogamous model as the ideal form of
marriage that corresponds to divine designs. The first wife, duly married
according to traditional customs, is often presented as the one given by God to
the man, even if the man later receives other women. In cases of polygamy, the
first wife is accorded a special place in performing sacred rites connected with
funerals, or in caring for the upbringing of children born to other women within
the family. It is noteworthy that, in recent decades, civil legislatures in some
countries have established monogamy as the ordinary matrimonial regime (cf. Société Africaine de Culture,
Les religions africaines comme source de valeurs de civilisation. Colloque de Cotonou, 16-22 août 1970, Présence Africaine, Paris 1972; Isidore de Souza, “Mariage et famille,” in
Revue de l’Institut Catholique de l’Afrique de l’Ouest 5-6 [1993], 164; Id.,
“Notion et réalité de la famille en Afrique et dans la Bible,” in Savanes
Forêts 30 [1984], 145-146).
[4] Can. 1056 CIC (emphasis added). Cf. can. 776, § 3
CCEO.
[5] Can. 1134 CIC (emphasis added). Cf. Catechism of the Catholic
Church, par. 1638.
[6] The Summa Theologiae
(Suppl., q. 44, a. 3) affirms the definition of
marriage given by Peter Lombard in Id., Sent. IV, d. 27, c. 2 (164): “Sunt
igitur nuptiae vel matrimonium viri mulierisque coniunctio maritalis, inter
legitimas personas, individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens.”
[7] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Suppl., q. 44, a. 1,
resp. (emphasis added).
[8] Justinian, Institutiones, I, 9, 1:
Justinian’s Institutes, ed. P. Krueger, Cornell University
Press, Ithaca (NY) 1987, 4: “Nuptiae autem sive matrimonium est viri et
mulieris coniunctio, individuam consuetudinem vitae continens” (ibid.).
[9] D. von Hildebrand, The Encyclical Humanae Vitae: A Sign of
Contradiction, Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago 1969, 31.
[10] John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation
Familiaris Consortio
(22 November 1981), par. 19:
AAS 74 (1982) 101-102 (emphasis added).
[11] Augustine, In Ioannis Evangelium, tract.
XXVI, 4 (“Da amantem, et sentit quod dico”): PL 35, 1608.
[12] Paul VI, Discours aux Foyers des Équipes Notre-Dame
(4 May 1970), par. 6: AAS 62 (1970) 430.
[13] Benedict XVI,
Meeting with the Youth of Rome and the Lazio Region in Preparation for the XXI
World Youth Day (6 April 2006), par. 2: AAS 98 (2006), 351. Cf. John Paul II, Apostolic
Exhortation
Familiaris Consortio
(22 November 1981), par. 68: AAS 74 (1982), 163-165.
[14] John Paul II, General Audience
(13 August 1980), par. 2: Insegnamenti III, 2
(1980), 397 (cf. Id., Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body,
tr. M. Waldstein, Pauline Books & Media, Boston 2006, 268).
[15] Cf. Pontifical Biblical Commission, What is Man? A Journey Through
Biblical Anthropology, tr. F. O’Fearghail and A. Graffy, Darton, Longman,
and Todd, London 2021, 168-169 (par. 173).
[16] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016), par. 12: AAS 108 (2016), 315-316.
[17] Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter
Deus Caritas Est
(25 December 2005), par. 11: AAS
98 (2006), 226-227.
[18] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016), par. 13: AAS
108 (2016), 316.
[19] John Paul II, General Audience
(27 August 1980), par. 4: Insegnamenti III, 2
(1980), 454 (cf. Id., Man and Woman He Created Them, op. cit.,
276-277).
[20] Benedict XVI,
Address to Members of the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on
Marriage and Family on the 25th Anniversary of its Foundation (11 May 2006):
Insegnamenti II, 1 (2006), 579; citing Id., Encyclical Letter
Deus Caritas Est
(25 December 2005), par. 11: AAS 98 (2006), 226-227.
[21] Cf. Second Vatican
Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Const.
Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 48: AAS 58
(1966), 1067; Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19
March 2016), par. 67: AAS 108 (2016), 338.
[22] In Greek: “Τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος” (Heb.
13:4).
[23] John Chrysostom, De virginitate, 19: PG 48, 547.
[24] Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram, IX, ch. 7, par. 12: PL 34, 397.
[25] Augustine, De bono coniugali, 1, 1: PL 40, 373.
[26] Tertullian, Ad uxorem, II, 8, 6-7: CCSL 1, 393, as cited in
Catechism of the Catholic Church,
par. 1642 (cf. PL 1, 1302A-B). It is noted in the margin that Tertullian dealt
with the subject of monogamy in a specific work, De monogamia: (PL 2,
929-954). In addition, another Father who directly addressed the topic is Jerome
(cf. Id., Epistula 123, ad Geruchiam de monogamia: PL 22,
1046-1059).
[27] Ambrose,
Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam, VIII, 7: PL 15, 1767.
[28] John Chrysostom, Commentarium in Matthaeum, hom. 62, 2: PG 58, 597.
[29] Lactantius, Divinae institutiones, VI, 23: PL 6, 720.
[30] Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Letter
Mystici Corporis Christi
(29 June
1943), “Matrimonio enim, quo coniuges sibi invicem sunt ministri gratiae,
externo Christianae consortionis providetur ordinateque incremento”: AAS
35 (1943), 202.
[31] John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Epistolam I ad Timotheum., hom. 9, ch. 2: PG 62, 546.
The International Theological Commission sought to take up the perspective of
the Christian East when it explained that the value of the spouses’ consent
should not make the sacrament “just the pure emanation of their love”; rather,
“the sacrament as such flows entirely from the mystery of the Church, in which
their conjugal love makes them share in a privileged way” (International Theological Commission,
Propositions
on the Doctrine of Christian Marriage [1977], “Christological Theses on the
Sacrament of Marriage,” Thesis 10).
[32] Clement of Alexandria, Stromata
III, 12: PG 8, 1185B; quoting Rom. 7:12.
[33] John Chrysostom, Quales ducendae sint uxores, 3: PG 51, 230 (emphasis added).
[34] Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratione
37, 7: PG 36, 291.
[35] Bonaventure,
Breviloquium, VI, 13, 3.
[36] A.M. de’ Liguori,
Theologia Moralis (Editio nova Leonardi Gaudé), Typis Polyglottis
Vaticanis, Rome 1912, lib. VI, tract. VI, ch. II, dub. I, par. 882 (emphasis added).
[37] Cf. ibid.,
par. 882: “The extrinsic accidental ends
can be many, such as the desire to establish peace, to obtain pleasure, and the
like.”
[38] Ibid.,
par. 883.
[39] Cf. D. von Hildebrand, Marriage: The Mystery of Faithful Love,
Sophia Institute Press, Manchester (NH) 19912.
[40] D. von Hildebrand,
Metaphysik der Gemeinschaft. Untersuchungen über Wesen und
Wert der Gemeinschaft, Kirche und Gesellschaft 1, Haas & Grabherr, Augsburg
1930, 40.
[41] Cf. ibid., 45.
[42] A. von Hildebrand, Man and Woman: A Divine Invention, Sapientia
Press, Ave Maria (FL) 2010, xiii.
[43] Ibid., 58.
[44] Ibid., 10.
[45] Ibid., 135-136.
[46] Cf. Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016),
par. 181: AAS 108 (2016), 383.
[47] H.U. von Balthasar, “Spirit and Institution,” in
Explorations in
Theology IV: Spirit and Institution, tr. E.T. Oakes, Ignatius Press,
San Francisco 1995, 218-219.
[48] Ibid., 223.
[49] H.U. von Balthasar, The Christian State of Life, tr. M.F. McCarthy,
Ignatius Press, San Francisco 1983, 233-234.
[50] H.U. von Balthasar, “Spirit and Institution,”
op. cit., 222.
[51] K. Rahner, “Die Ehe als Sakrament,” in Schriften zur Theologie, Band
VIII, Benzinger, Einsiedeln-Zürich-Köln 1967, 539.
[52] Cf. Id., “Marriage,” tr. D. White, in
Leading a Christian Life, Dimension Books, Denville (NJ) 1970, 7.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Id., The Church and the Sacraments, tr. W.J. O’Hara, Quaestiones
Disputatae 9, Burns & Oates, London 1963, 107.
[55] A. Schmemann, For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,
Crestwood (NY) 19982, 90-91.
[56] P. Evdokimov, Le mariage, sacrement de l’amour, Editions du Livre Français, Lyon 1944, 199.
[57] J. Meyendorff, Marriage, An Orthodox Perspective, St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, Crestwood (NY) 20003, 16.
[58] J.D. Zizioulas, Communion and Otherness: Further Studies in Personhood
and the Church, P. McPartlan (ed.), T&T Clark, London–New York 2006, 9.
[59] C. Yannaras, The Freedom of Morality,
tr. E. Briere, St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, Crestwood (NY) 1984, 161.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Innocent III, Letter
Gaudemus in Domino (1201): DH 778.
[62] Cf. Ibid.: DH 779.
[63] Second Council of Lyons, Session IV (6 July 1274), The Profession of Faith of Emperor Michael [VII]
Paleologus: DH 860.
[64] Cf. Council of Trent, Session XXIV (11 November 1563),
Doctrine and Canons on
the Sacrament of Marriage: DH 1798.
[65] Benedict XIV, Declaration
Matrimonia Quae in Locis (4 November 1741), par. 2: DH
2517.
[66] Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter
Arcanum Divinae Sapientiae
(10 February 1880): Acta Sanctae Sedis 12 (1879), 386-387 (emphasis added).
[67] Ibid., 387.
[68] Ibid., 389.
[69] Ibid., 394.
[70] Pius XI, Encyclical Letter
Casti Connubii
(31 December 1930), pars. 19-20:
AAS 22 (1930), 546.
[71] Ibid., par. 23:
AAS 22 (1930), 547-548 (emphasis added); cf. Augustine, De bono
coniugali 24, 32: PL 40, 394D.
[72] Pius XI, Encyclical Letter
Casti Connubii
(31 December 1930), pars. 23-24:
AAS 22 (1930), 548 (emphasis added).
[73] Ibid., par. 73:
AAS 22 (1930), 566.
[74] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 48: AAS
58 (1966), 1067.
[75] Ibid., par. 48:
AAS 58 (1966), 1068 (emphasis added).
[76] Ibid.
[77] Ibid., par. 49:
AAS 58 (1966), 1070.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ibid.
[80] Ibid.
[81] This same argument was taken up by Pope Saint John Paul II when he
explained that polygamy “is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and
women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore
unique and exclusive” (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation
Familiaris Consortio
[22 November 1980], par. 19: AAS 74 [1982], 102; cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council,
Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et Spes [7 December 1965], par. 47: AAS
58 [1966], 1067).
[82] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Humanae Vitae
(25 July 1968), par. 12: AAS 60
(1968), 488-489 (emphasis added).
[83] Cf. ibid., par. 8:
AAS 60 (1968), 485-486.
[84] Ibid., par. 12:
AAS 60 (1968), 489.
[85] John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation
Familiaris Consortio
(22 November 1981), par. 11: AAS 74 (1982), 92.
[86] Cf. Id., General Audience
(2 January 1980): Insegnamenti III, 1 (1980), 11-15; Id., General Audience
(9 January1980): Insegnamenti III, 1 (1980), 88-92; Id., General Audience
(16 January
1980): Insegnamenti III, 1 (1980), 148-152. Cf. Id., Man and Woman He
Created Them: A Theology of the Body, tr. M. Waldstein, Pauline Books &
Media, Boston 2006, 177-190.
[87] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966), 1045.
[88] John Paul II, Homily at the Mass for Families in Kinshasa
(3 May 1980), par. 2: AAS 72 (1980), 425.
[89] John Paul II, General Audience
(13 August 1980), nos. 3-4: Insegnamenti III, 2 (1980), 398-399 (cf. Id.,
Man and Woman He Created Them, op. cit., 269).
[90] Cf. Id., General Audience
(20 August 1980): Insegnamenti III, 2 (1980), 415-419 (cf. Id.,
Man and Woman He
Created Them, op. cit., 270-274).
[91] Id., Homily at the Mass for Families in Kinshasa
(3 May 3, 1980), par. 2: AAS 72 (1980), 425.
[92] Id., General Audience
(27 August 1980), nos. 1, 4: Insegnamenti III, 2 (1980), 451, 453-454
(cf. Id., Man and Woman He Created Them, op. cit., 274 and 276).
[93] Id., General Audience
(24 September 1980), par. 5: Insegnamenti III, 2 (1980), 719-720 (cf. Id.,
Man and Woman He Created Them, op. cit., 292).
[94] Id., Apostolic Exhortation
Familiaris Consortio
(22 November 1981), par. 19: AAS 74 (1982), 102.
[95] Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter
Deus Caritas Est
(25 December 2005), par. 11: AAS
98 (2006), 227.
[96] Ibid., par. 6:
AAS 98 (2006), 222.
[97] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016), par. 92: AAS
108 (2016), 348.
[98] Ibid., par. 93:
AAS 108 (2016), 348.
[99] Ibid., par. 99:
AAS 108 (2016), 350.
[100] Ibid., par. 100:
AAS 108 (2016), 351.
[101] Cf. Ibid., pars. 101-102: AAS
108 (2016), 351-352.
[102] Ibid., par. 103:
AAS 108 (2016), 352.
[103] Ibid., par. 108:
AAS 108 (2016), 354.
[104] Ibid., par. 110:
AAS 108 (2016), 354.
[105] Ibid., par. 115:
AAS 108 (2016), 356.
[106] Ibid., par. 116:
AAS 108 (2016), 356.
[107] Ibid., par. 122:
AAS 108 (2016), 359; which cites John Paul II, Apostolic
Exhortation
Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 9:
AAS 74
(1982), 90.
[108] Francis,
Amoris Laetitia, par. 130:
AAS 108 (2016), 362.
[109] Leo XIV,
Message on the Occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of the Canonization of the
Parents of Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus (18 October 2025): L’Osservatore Romano
(18 October 2025), 5.
[110] Cf. Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos
127, 3: PL 37, 1679: “non
ille unus et nos multi, sed et nos multi in illo uno unum.”
[111] Leo XIV,
Homily for the Jubilee Mass for Families, Grandparents, and the Elderly
(1 June 2025): L’Osservatore Romano (2 June 2025), 2; with reference to Paul VI,
Encyclical Letter
Humanae Vitae
(25 July 1968), par. 9: AAS 60
(1968), 486-487.
[112] Can. 1055, § 1
CIC (emphasis added). Cf. can. 776, § 1-2 CCEO.
[113] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1645.
[114] Ibid., par. 1646.
[115] Ibid., par. 2381.
[116] Ibid., par. 2387.
[117] Thomas Aquinas,
Summa contra Gentiles, III, ch. 123, n. 4.
[118] Id., Summa Theologiae, I, q. 92, a. 3,
resp. Cf. Id., Summa contra Gentiles, III, ch. 123, n. 4.
[119] Id., Summa contra Gentiles, III, ch. 124, n. 1.
[120] Ibid., III, ch. 123, nn. 3-4.
[121] Ibid., III, ch. 124, nn. 3-5; citing Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics, VIII, c.
5, par. 5; ibid., VIII, c. 6, par. 2.
[122] Ibid., III, ch. 123, n. 6 (emphasis added).
[123] A.-D. Sertillanges, L’amour chrétien, Librairie Lecoffre, Paris
19183, 163-164.
[124] Ibid., 147.
[125] Ibid., 172.
[126] Ibid., 173.
[127] Ibid., 176.
[128] S. Kierkegaard, “The Esthetic Validity of Marriage,” in
Either/Or: Part
II, Kierkegaard’s Writings IV, tr. H.V. Hong and E.H. Hong, Princeton
University Press, Princeton (NJ) 1987, 109-110.
[129] Ibid., 109.
[130] S. Kierkegaard, “The Balance Between the Esthetic and the Ethical in the
Development of the Personality,” in Either/Or: Part II, op. cit.,
301.
[131] S. Kierkegaard, “The Esthetic Validity of Marriage,”
op. cit., 62.
[132] Ibid., 109.
[133] Ibid., 21-22.
[134] Ibid., 58.
[135] E. Mounier, A Personalist Manifesto, tr. Monks of St. John’s Abbey,
Longmans, Green, and Co., London–New York–Toronto 1938, 69.
[136] Cf. ibid., 87-88.
[137] Ibid., 139-140.
[138] Ibid., 142 (emphasis in the original).
[139] J. Lacroix, Force et faiblesses de la famille, Éditions du Seuil,
Paris 1948, 56.
[140] Ibid., 54.
[141] Ibid., 58.
[142] Ibid.
[143] Ibid., 61-62.
[144] Ibid., 55.
[145] Cf. E. Lévinas, Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Externality, tr.
A. Lingis, Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh 1969, 194-247.
[146] Ibid., 258.
[147] K. Wojtyła, Love and Responsibility, tr. H.T. Willetts, Ignatius
Press, San Francisco 1981, 217-218.
[148] Ibid., 218.
[149] Ibid., 211.
[150] Ibid.
[151] Ibid., 41.
[152] Ibid., 216.
[153] Ibid., 43. For the reference to the “one-sided spiritualists,” see
ibid., 59.
[154] Ibid., 60-61 (emphasis in the original).
[155] Ibid., 85 (translation modified).
[156] Ibid., 87.
[157] J. Maritain,
“Marriage and Happiness”, in Reflections on America,
Image Books, Garden City (NY) 1958, 81.
[158] Ibid., 82.
[159] Ibid.
[160] Ibid.
[161] Ibid.
[162] Cf. J. Maritain,
«Love and Friendship», in Notebooks, tr.
J.W. Evans, Magi Books, Albany (NY) 1984, 219-257.
[163] Cf. Ibid.,
passim.
[164] Ibid.,
221.
[165] Ibid.,
222.
[166] Ibid.,
225 (emphasis added). (Translation modified.)
[167] Manusmṛti,
9, 101-102.
[168] Śrīmad Bhāgavatam,
IX, 10, 54.
[169] Tirukkuṟaḷ, couplets 54 and 56.
[170] Francis,
“Lettera ai poeti,” in Id., Viva la poesia!, A. Spadaro (ed.),
Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Rome 2025, 178.
[171] Ibid., 178-179.
[172] W. Whitman, “We Two—How Long We Were Fool’d,” in Id.,
Leaves of Grass,
New York 1867, 114.
[173] P. Neruda, “Sonnet LXXXI,” inId.,
Veinte poemas de amor y una canción. Cien sonetos de amor, Colección Biblioteca Premios Nobel 2, Altaya, Barcelona 1995, 203: “Ninguna
más, amor, dormirá con mis sueños. / Irás, iremos juntos por las aguas del
tiempo […]”.
[174] E. Montale,
“Ho sceso, dandoti il braccio, almeno un milione di scale,” in Satura
(1962-1970), Mondadori, Milan 1971, 37: “Ho sceso milioni di
scale dandoti il braccio / non già perché con quattr’occhi forse si vede
di più. / Con te le ho scese perché sapevo che di noi due / le sole vere
pupille, sebbene tanto offuscate, / erano le tue.”
[175] A. Pozzi,
“Bellezza,” in Parole. Diary of poetry, Mondadori, Milan 1964,
191-192: “Ti do me stessa, / le mie notti insonni, / i lunghi sorsi /
di cielo e stelle – bevuti / sulle montagne, / la brezza dei mari
percorsi / verso albe remote. […] / E tu accogli la mia
meraviglia / di creatura, / il mio tremito di stelo / vivo nel cerchio /
degli orizzonti, / piegato al vento / limpido – della bellezza: / e tu
lascia ch’io guardi questi occhi / che Dio ti ha dati, / così densi di
cielo – / profondi come secoli di luce / inabissati al di là / delle
vette –”.
[176] P. Neruda, “Pido silencio,” in
Extravagario (1958), in Obras completas, II:
De “Odas elementales” a “Memorial de Isla Negra”, 1954–1964, Opera Mundi,
H. Loyola (ed.), Galaxia Gutenberg–Círculo de Lectores, Barcelona 1999, 626-628:
“Yo voy a cerrar los ojos y solo quiero cinco cosas, cinco raíces preferidas. Una
es el amor sin fin… La quinta cosa son tus ojos, Matilde mía, bienamada, no
quiero dormir sin tus ojos, no quiero ser sin que me mires.”
[177] P. Éluard, “Nous deux,” in
Derniers poèmes d’amour, Seghers, Paris 1963, 1965: “Nous
deux nous tenant par la main / Nous nous croyons partout chez nous / […]
Auprès des sages et des fous / Parmi les enfants et les grands.”
[178] R. Tagore, “[The Gardener] 28,”
tr. R. Tagore, in The Gardener, Macmillan, London–New York–Toronto 1914,
55-56.
[179] E. Dickinson, “That Love is all there is” (1765), in
The Complete Poems of Emily Dickinson, T.H. Johnson (ed.), Little,
Brown and Company, Boston–Toronto 1960, 714.
[180] Leo I, Letter Regressus ad Nos
(21 March 458), c. 1: DH 311.
[181] Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 23, a. 1, resp. (emphasis added).
[182] The Order of Celebrating Matrimony, “Order of Celebrating Matrimony Within Mass,” par. 62: Catholic Book
Publishing, New Jersey 2016, 30.
[183] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 48: AAS 58 (1966) 1067. Cf. can. 1057 § 2
CIC; can. 817 § 1 CCEO.
[184] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1627.
[185] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Humanae Vitae
(25 July 1968), par. 8:
AAS 60 (1968), 485-486 (emphasis added).
[186] K. Wojtyła, Love and Responsibility, tr. H.T. Willetts, Ignatius
Press, San Francisco 1981, 84-85.
[187] John Paul II, Homily at the Mass for Families in Kinshasa
(3 May 1980), par. 2: AAS 72 (1980), 425.
[188] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016), par. 100: AAS
108 (2016), 351 (emphasis added).
[189] Francis,
Amoris Laetitia, par. 131:
AAS 108 (2016), 362 (emphasis added).
[190] Ibid., par. 319: AAS
108 (2016), 443 (emphasis added).
[191] Ibid., par. 163:
AAS 108 (2016), 375 (emphasis added).
[192] Ibid., pars. 163-164:
AAS 108 (2016), 375-376 (emphasis added).
[193] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 24: AAS 58 (1966), 1045.
[194] Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration
Dignitas Infinita (8 April 2024), Introduction and pars. 1,
6.
[195] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 357 (emphasis added).
[196] K. Wojtyła, Love and Responsibility, tr. H.T. Willetts, Ignatius Press,
San Francisco 1981, 41.
[197] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016), par. 175: AAS
108 (2016), 381.
[198] Ibid., par. 220:
AAS 108 (2016), 399.
[199] Ibid., par. 155:
AAS 108 (2016), 371.
[200] Ibid., par. 155:
AAS 108 (2016), 371.
[201] Ibid., par. 320:
AAS 108 (2016), 443.
[202] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 64, a. 1,
resp.: “solus Deus illabitur animae.”
[203] Cf. Id., De veritate, q. 28, a. 2, ad 8; Id.,
Summa contra Gentiles, II, ch. 98, n. 18; ibid., III, ch. 88, n. 6; Bonaventure, Collationes in Hexaemeron, 21,
18.
[204]Cf. Bonaventure,
In Sent., I, d. 14, a. 2, q. 2, ad 2: in Id., Opera theologica
selecta, I, Quaracchi 1934, 205-206. Cf. Ibid., q. 2, fund. 4 and 8 (Quaracchi 1934, 205).
[205] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016), par. 320: AAS 108 (2016), 443.
[206] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Humanae Vitae
(25 July 1968), par. 8: AAS 60
(1968), 486 (emphasis added).
[207] John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation
Familiaris Consortio
(22 November 1981), par. 59: AAS 74 (1982), 152.
[208] A.-D. Sertillanges, L’amour chrétien, Librairie Lecoffre, Paris
19183, 183.
[209] Cf. J.-L. Marion, The Erotic Phenomenon, tr. S.E. Lewis,
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2008.
[210] Thomas Aquinas, In Sent., I, d. 15, q. 4, a. 1, co.
[211] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution
Lumen Gentium (7 December 1965), par. 41: AAS
57 (1965), 47.
[212] Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 23, a. 1, resp.
[213] Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1641.
[214] The Order of Celebrating Matrimony, “Order of Celebrating Matrimony Within Mass,” par. 64: Catholic Book
Publishing, New Jersey 2016, 32.
[215] John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation
Familiaris Consortio
(22 November 1981), par. 59: AAS 74 (1982), 152.
[216] Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 27, a. 2, resp.
[217] Cf. Ibid., II-II, q. 23, a. 2,
resp.: “love, of its very
nature, implies an act of the will.”
[218] Ibid., I-II, q. 26, a. 3,
resp.
[219] Ibid., II-II, q. 27, a. 2,
resp.
[220] The Order of Celebrating Matrimony, “Order of Celebrating Matrimony Within Mass,” par. 62: Catholic Book Publishing,
New Jersey 2016, 30.
[221] Cf. Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 23, a. 1.
[222] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016), par. 123: AAS 108 (2016), 359; quoting Thomas Aquinas,
Summa contra Gentiles, III, ch. 123. Cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean
Ethics, 8, 12 (ed. Bywater, Oxford 1984, 174).
[223] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016), par. 150: AAS
108 (2016), 369.
[224] Ibid., par. 74:
AAS 108 (2016), 340.
[225] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 142, a. 1,
resp.
[226] Cf. Ibid.,
I, q. 98, a. 2, ad 3; II-II, q. 153, a. 2, ad 2.
[227]Ibid., I, q. 98, a. 2, ad 3.
[228] Ibid., II-II, q. 153, a. 2, ad 2.
[229] K. Wojtyła, Love and Responsibility, tr. H.T. Willetts, Ignatius
Press, San Francisco 1981, 123.
[230] Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter
Deus Caritas Est
(25 December 2005), par. 8: AAS
98 (2006), 224.
[231] Ibid., par. 7:
AAS 98 (2006), 223-224.
[232] John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation
Familiaris Consortio
(22 November 1981), par. 11: AAS 74 (1982), 92.
[233] Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Humanae Vitae
(25 July 1968), par. 11:
AAS 60 (1968), 488.
[234] K. Wojtyła, Love and Responsibility, tr. H.T. Willetts, Ignatius
Press, San Francisco 1981, 217-218.
[235] Ibid., 234.
[236] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Humanae Vitae
(25 July 1968), par. 16: AAS 60
(1968), 492.
[237] Ibid.
[238] Pius XI, Encyclical Letter
Casti Connubii
(31 December 1930): AAS 22
(1930): 547-548 [cf. DH 3707].
[239] Augustine,
De bono coniugali, 3, 3: PL 40, 375.
[240] John Chrysostom,
Homiliae in Epistolam ad Colossenses, hom. 12, cap. V: PG 62, 388.
[241] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 50: AAS 58 (1966), 1072.
[242] P.J. Viladrich, “Amor conyugal y esencia del matrimonio,” Ius canonicum
12 (1972), 311.
[243] Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter
Caritas in Veritate (29 June 2009), par. 53: AAS
101 (2009), 689.
[244] Ibid.
[245] Francis, Encyclical Letter
Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), par. 60: AAS 112 (2020), 990.
[246] Ibid.,
par. 89: AAS
112 (2020), 1007.
[247] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016), par. 181: AAS
108 (2016), 383.
[248] Ibid., par. 324: AAS
108 (2016), 445.
[249] Leo XIV, Apostolic Exhortation
Dilexi Te (4 October 2025), par. 104.
[250] Ibid., par. 103.
[251] The Order of Celebrating Matrimony, “Order of Celebrating Matrimony Within Mass,” par. 77: Catholic Book
Publishing, New Jersey 2016, 38.
[252] D. von Hildebrand, Marriage: The Mystery of Faithful Love, Sophia
Institute Press, Manchester (NH) 19912, 41 (emphasis added).
[253] Council of Trent, Session XXIV (11 November 1563),
Doctrine and Canons on the Sacrament of
Marriage: DH 1799 (emphasis added); cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par.
48: AAS 58 (1966), 1068; Catechism of the Catholic Church, par.
1641.
[254] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016), par. 134: AAS
108 (2016), 364.
[255] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et Spes (7 December 1965), par. 48: AAS 58 (1966), 1068 (emphasis added).
[256] Francis, Apostolic Exhortation
Amoris Laetitia
(19 March 2016), par. 135: AAS
108 (2016), 364.
|
