Matrimony Chapter II §1: Unity of Christian Marriage

Chapter II: The Properties of Christian Marriage

§1: Unity

CHAPTER II THE PROPERTIES OF CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE SECTION I UNITY The unity of marriage (unit as matrimonii) consists in this, that a man have only one wife and a woman only one husband. This ideal state is called monogamy. Opposed to monogamy is polygamy. Polygamy may mean: (i) a plurality of wives or husbands in succession; (2) a plurality of husbands at the same time, more properly called polyandry; (3) a plurality of wives at the same time, which is polygamy in the strict sense of the term. Successive polygamy, i. e. repeated marriage, is not destructive of the unity of wedlock. The same cannot be said of polyandry, nor of polygamy proper, though here, too, it is necessary to make a distinction. Polyandry (polyandria simultanea) is directly contrary to the law of nature, whereas polygamy (polygamia simultanea) is forbidden by a positive divine law, but not by the law of nature, at least not absolutely. The 172 UNITY Catholic teaching on these points can be explained in the form of two theses. Thesis I: Polyandry, i. e. a plurality of husbands at the same time, is never a true marriage, but a crime against the law of nature. This may be technically qualified as “propositio certa” Proof. That polyandry is opposed to the law of nature is so evident that the Church takes the illicitness and invalidity of such marriages for granted.1 The profession of faith made by the Emperor Michael Palaeologus at the Council of Lyons, A. D. 1274, contains this passage: ” With regard to Matrimony [the Church] holds that a man may not have several wives at the same time, and that a woman is not permitted to have several husbands.” 2 Polyandry, i. e. a plurality of husbands at the same time, is forbidden because it frustrates the primary object of marriage, i. e. the begetting of children, and thus destroys the bonum prolis. A woman who habitually has carnal intercourse with several men will rarely conceive.8 Were such a relation permitted, the human race would soon become extinct. If (as sometimes happens) children are born of a polyandrous marriage, their parentage is often uncertain and it is generally speaking impossible to provide properly for their bodily and spiritual training. For these reasons polyandry is held in 1 Cfr. Rom. VII, 3. ringer-Bannwart, n. 465). 2 * De Matrimonio veto tenet * Cfr. St. Augustine, De Bono [Ecclesid], quod nec unus vir plures Coniug., c. 17, n. 20: * P lures enim uxores simul nec una mulier permit- feminae ab uno viro foetari possunt, Htur habere plures viroe.* (Den- una vero a pluribus non potest.* 174 MATRIMONY abhorrence by civilized nations, and even by the majority of uncivilized tribes. Thesis II: Polygamy proper, i. e. having several wives at the same time, cannot be a valid marriage. This proposition is de tide. Proof. While Calvin, in his extreme rigorism, condemned the plural marriages of the Patriarchs as adulterous, Luther and Melanchthon erred in the opposite direction by declaring polygamy to be permissible under the New Testament and allowing the Landgrave Philip of Hesse to marry another woman while his legitimate wife was still alive.4 The excesses committed by the Anabaptists of Minister are notorious. Mormonism is a menace to the American Republic. Against Luther the Council of Trent defined: “If anyone saith that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is not prohibited by any divine law, let him be anathema.” 5 The unity of Christian marriage can be demonstrated from Scripture and Tradition. a) Christ Himself restored monogamy, as it had existed in Paradise, and made it the only 4 Cfr. Lutheri Opera, ed. De dixerit, licere Christianis plures Wette, V, 241 : ” Quod circa matri- simul habere uxores et hoc nulla monium in lege Moysis fuit permis- lege divina esse, prohibitum, anasum, Evangelium non revocat aut thema sit.” (Dcnzinger-Bannwart, vetat.” n. 972). 5 Sew. XXIV, can. 2: Si quit valid form of Matrimony. Cfr. Matth. XIX, 4 sqq.: Have you not read that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. 6 When the Pharisees, in response to this declaration, called our Lord’s attention to the fact that Moses commanded to give a bill of divorce,” Jesus replied : “From the beginning it was not so. And I say to you that whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, committeth adultery/’ 7 In the first of these texts our Lord establishes monogamy as the law of the New Testament ; in the second, He condemns polygamy as adulterous. St. Paul always speaks of monogamy as a matter of course (cfr. Rom. VII, 2 sqq. ; 1 Cor. VII, 2 sq., 10 sq.; Eph. V, 31). The Fathers unanimously uphold monogamy and condemn polygamy. Theophilus of Antioch (+ about 186) • Matth. XIX, 4 sqq.; ” Non leg que iam nan sunt duo, sed una caro. stis, quia qui fecit hominem ab ini- Quod ergo Dens coniunxit, homo tio, masculum et feminam (ipcev non separet.” Kal BijXv) fecit eos et dixit: Prop- 7 Matth. XIX, 8 sq.: ” Ab initio ter hoc dimittet homo pattern et autem non fuit sic. Dico autem vomatrem et adhaerebit uxori suae (rjf bis, quia quicunque dimiserit uxor em yvpaucl a&rov) et erunt duo in came suam … et aliam duxerit, moechauna (oZ 3fo els o&pica fiiav). J to- tur (fioixarai)-* 176 MATRIMONY praises his fellow Christians for faithfully observing the law of monogamy.8 Clement of Alexandria writes: ” In restoring the ancient [practice], our Lord no longer permitted polygamy, … but only monogamy, because of the begetting of children and the care of the home, for which the wife is given [to man] as a helpmate.”* In the West, Tertullian valiantly championed the unity of marriage. Minucius Felix describes the domestic life of the Christians of his day as in full agreement with the law of monogamy.10 The teaching of the later Fathers and ecclesiastical writers differed in no wise from that of their predecessors. The constant practice of the Roman See, therefore, rests upon a solid doctrinal basis.11 b) In demonstrating the Catholic doctrine theologians generally emphasize the fact that the Creator meant marriage to be monogamous from the beginning, and consequently the conjugal union between Adam and Eve in Paradise must be looked upon as the pattern exemplar for all their descendants. The Christian law of monogamy, as we have seen, is simply a restoration of the original condition of marriage. Hence Pope Nicholas the First, that valiant champion of the marriage bond, was justified in writing : * To have two wives at the same time is repugnant to the orig8 Ad Autolyc, 1. Ill, n. 15 c. 31: * Unius matrimonii vinculo (Migne, P. G., VI, 1142). lib enter inhaer emus; cupiditatem pro0 Stromata, III, 12 (Migne, P. G.t creondi out unam scimus out nulVIII, 1 183). lorn.* 10 Tertullian, Apologeticus, c. 46: 11 Cfr. J. Sasse, De Sacramentis * Christianas uxori suae soli mascu- Ecclesiae, Vol. II, pp. 390 sqq., Freitus nascitur.” — M. Felix, Octovius, burg 1898. inal state of the human race, and forbidden by the Christian law.” 12 The unity of marriage, as established in Paradise, remained in full force up to the time of the Deluge. Lamech, a great grandson of Cain, was the first of the Patriarchs to have two wives. For so doing he was generally regarded as a transgressor of the law. After the Flood, because of the lack of males, God permitted the Jews (and probably also the gentiles) to have several wives. Traces of this dispensation are clearly discernible in the Mosaic law. Hence Calvin was wrong when he denied the licitness and validity of polygamous marriages during this period and accused the Patriarchs and their descendants down to the time of Christ of living in adultery. A divine dispensation in favor of polygamy is plainly evident from Deut. XXI, 15 sqq., where we read: ” If a man have two wives, one beloved and the other hated, and they have had children by him, and the son of the hated be the firstborn, and he meaneth to divide his substance among his sons, he may not make the son of the beloved the firstborn, and prefer him before the son of the hated,” etc. The intimate friendship with which Yahweh honored Abraham, Jacob, and David, who were all polygamists, show that He tolerated the practice. The use of the term “concubine” (pellex, irdXXai) in the Old Testament does not prove that a woman so designated was not a lawful wife. It simply indicates that she did not enjoy equal civil rights with her husband’s chief or favorite wife. These ” concubines ” may be likened to the morganatic wives of modern princes.18 12 A & ConsUlta Bulgarorum, c. rum ulla permittit.” (Migne, P. L., 51: “Duos tempore uno habere CXIX, 999). . uxores nec ipsa origo humanae con- 13 On the use of the term * conditionis admUtii nec lex Christiano- cubina* in Canon Law see Peach* MATRIMONY That it required a divine dispensation, or perhaps we had better say, toleration, to make polygamy lawful, is expressly stated by Pope Innocent III.1* We know that the Mosaic concession was revoked by Christ, not only for His faithful followers, but for infidels and pagans as well, and that no polygamist can be baptized unless he dismisses all his wives except one — the first.15 c) The fact that polygamy was tolerated in the Old Testament raises the question whether, and in how far, the practice can be said to be contrary to the moral law of nature. Polygamy, unlike polyandry,16 is not intrinsically immoral, else God could never have permitted it. This consideration has led Catholic philosophers and theologians to unite on the proposition that polygamy is opposed to the natural law, not primarily but secondarily. The meaning is: Though the objects of matrimony may be attained in a polygamous union, they cannot be reached with nearly the same perfection as in a monogamous marriage, and hence the law of nature counsels the latter, while it discountenances the former. It is evident that both the bonum prolis and the bonum fidei can be attained in a polygamous marriage, since one man can cohabit with and be true to several wives and provide for the children born to him. But it is equally patent that a plurality of wives is not conducive to domestic peace and happiness nor to the proper control of concupiscence, and that polygamy degrades the female sex. The most that Praelect. Dogma., Vol. VII, 3rd ed., pp. 415 sqq. 14 Cap. ” Goudemus,” De Dwort. : * Nulli unquam licuit simul plures uxores habere nisi cut fuit divind revektiione concessum.* is On monogamy as the ideal form of marriage see Billuart, De Matri’ monio, diss. 5, art. 1. 16 V. Thesis I, supra. can be said against polygamy, therefore, is that it greatly impedes the secondary end of marriage, and destroys the symbol of the mystic union of Christ with His Church so completely that the elevation of Matrimony to the dignity of a Sacrament would have been impossible had not plural marriage been definitively abolished.17 Thesis III: Whenever the marriage bond is broken by death, the surviving partner, under the divine law, is free to marry again. This proposition may be qualified as “doctrina catholica.” Proof. Our thesis merely asserts that second or successive marriages, contracted after the death of husband or wife, are not contrary to the divine law. It does not assert that such marriages may not be forbidden by the Church. In matter of fact the Church has the right to forbid remarriage, though she has never made use of it. While consistently upholding the principle that perfect monogamy is realized only where husband and wife remain faithful to each other, even in death, she has always permitted widowers and widows to remarry. This can be seen from many authentic declarations by popes and councils. Thus the First Nicene Council (325) commanded the converted Cathari to hold ecclesiastical communion with those who had married again (digami).tB Clement IV (1267) caused to be inserted into the profession ©f it On polygamy from the ethical cfr. St. Thomas, Supplement., qu. point of view lee Jos. Rickaby, S. J., 65, art. 1; Summa e. Gent,, III, 24; Moral Philosophy (Stonyhurst Se- IV, 78. ries), pp. 270 sqq.; on the toleration 18 Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 55: of polygamy in the Old Testament, * cum digamis communicabunt, * i8o MATRIMONY faith demanded of Midiael Pateologus a passage declaring second and third marriages valid and permissible.1* Eugene IV in his decree for the Jacobites says : ” We declare that a man can lawfully pass not only to a second, but to a third and fourth marriage, and to still others, provided there be no impediment,” adding, however, that ” It is more praiseworthy to abstain from successive marriages and to lead a continent life.” 20 This teaching was reinforced by Benedict XIV in two constitutions issued in 1742 and 1745, respectively. a) St. Paul writes in his first Epistle to the Corinthians: “I say to the unmarried and to widows : it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they have not self-control, let them marry; it is better to marry than to be on fire [with passion.]” 21 And again: “A wife is bound to her husband so long as he liveth; but if her husband die, she is free to marry whom she will; only [let it be] in the Lord.” 22 b) The Fathers taught that second marriage, while less perfect than continence, is not forbidden. W’Soluto vero legitimo matrimonio per mortem coniugum alterius secundas et tertias deinde nuptias successive licitas [Ecclesid] esse dicit” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 465)* 20 ” Declaramus non solum secundas, sed tertias et quartos et ulte» riores [nuptiasl, si aliquod impedir mentum non obstat, liclte contrahi posse; cotnmendatiores tamen dicimus, si ulterius a coniugio abstinentes in castitate permanserint* (Decretum pro Iacobitis, in Hardouin, Cone, Vol. IX, col. 1028). 211 Cor. VII, 8 sq.: * Dico autern non nuptis et viduis: bonum est Wis si sic permaneant, sicut et ego. Quodsi non se continent, nubant; melius est enim nubere quam uri.” 221 Cor. VII, 39: ” Mulier «/ligata est legi, quanto tempore vir eius vivit. Quodsi dormierit iKOifii)9% — mortuus fuerit) vir eius, liberata est: cut vult nubat, tantum in Domino.” — Cfr. Al. Schafer, ErklSrung der beiden Brief e an die Korinther, pp. 152 sq., Munster 1903. UNITY a) St. Ambrose says: “We do not prohibit second marriages, but neither do we praise them if often repeated.” 28 Clement of Alexandria writes : ” If the Apostle permits a man to pass to a second marriage because of incontinency, … such a one does not sin under the Testament — for there is no law to hinder him — but he fails to attain to that perfect ideal of life which is practiced according to the Gospel.” 24 When St. Jerome was criticized for attacking bigamists, he replied : ” Let my accuser blush for saying that I condemned first marriages, when he reads that I do not [even] condemn second and third, and, if I may say so, eighth marriage.” 25 St. Augustine knows no reason for condemning successive marriages, seeing that they are allowed by St. Paul.26 Tertullian’s Montanistic teaching on this head 27 found no defender among the Fathers. fi) It should be noted, however, that second marriages were frowned upon in the Orient. Councils held at Ancyra (314), Neocaesarea (314), and Laodicea, though acknowledging second marriages as valid, imposed a canonical fine on those who contracted them. Athenagoras (+ about 182) calls second marriage ” decent adultery,” 28 and says that the Christians of his time regarded it as ” a sign of incontinence and a violation of the faith pledged 23 ” Non prohibemus secundas nuptias, sed non probamus saepe repetitas.* (De Viduis, c n). 24 Stromato, 1. Ill, c 12 (Migne, P. G„ VIII, 1183). 26 * Erubescat calumniator mens dicens me prima damnare matrix monia, quando legit: Non damno digamos et trigamos et, si did potest, octogamos.* {Bp, 48 ad Pommoch., n. 9; Migne, P. L.t XXII, 499)29 De Bono Viduitatis, c. 12: * Quoties voluerit, viris mortuis nubat femina nee ex meo corde praeter scripturae sanctae ouctoritatem quotaslibet nuptias audeo condemnors/’ (Migne, P. L., XL, 439). 27 In his treatise De Monogamia. 28ed«peir4f noi%eLa> (Legat., c. 33). 182 MATRIMONY to the dead.” 29 St. Basil (+379) vigorously denounced second and third marriages30 and demanded severe canonical penalties for those who contracted them. In pursuance of this rigorous policy the Greek Church, under Nicholas I of Constantinople (A. D. 920), declared fourth and, under certain conditions, even third marriages null and void. This legislation was approved by Pope John X, but is no longer strictly enforced.” 2»Cfr. H. Kihn, Patrohgit, Vol 81 Cfr. Palmieri, De Mrtrimomo, I, p. 177, Paderborn 1904. pp. 100 tqq. — On the Eacratitcs and so He calls them ” castigata forui- their teaching iee J. Tixeront, Hiscatio ” and ” ecclesiae inquinamen- tory of Dogmas, Vol. I, pp. 190 turn.” Cfr. Ep. ad Amphiloch., 188, sqq., St Louit 1910. can. 4; can. 50.