Sect. 278The Recipient of the Sacrament of Matrimony—its Unity and IndissolubilityThe Recipient of the Sacrament of Matrimony—its Unity and Indissolubility

I. All persons capable of entering into the natural contract of marriage are, if baptized, capable of receiving the sacrament of Matrimony. This rule, however, is subject to the laws of impediments, which will be dealt with in the next section, A lawful marriage between unbaptized persons is no sacrament. If, however, they are afterwards baptized, and then explicitly renew their consent, their marriage becomes a sacrament. Some theologians assert that this takes place even without any explicit renewal. There is a difficulty concerning the marriage of a baptized and an unbaptized person. The Church, as we shall see, makes such a marriage null and void. Sometimes, however, she allows it. Hence the question arises: does the baptized party in this case receive the sacrament? Theologians are divided in their opinions. The affirmative seems to us the better view. The contract is a true contract, and where there is a true contract, the sacrament must exist, unless there is something wanting on the part of the recipient or the minister. But here the baptized party is capable of being a recipient, and the unbaptized party is capable of being the minister, as in the case of the sacrament of Baptism.

II. Marriage, as originally instituted by God, was between one man and one woman. This is called monogamy. Opposed to it is polygamy, which may be the union of one man with several women (usually called polygamy, but more properly polygyny), or the union of one woman with several men (polyandry). Perfect monogamy implies complete unity of marriage, i.e. a union unbroken even by death. But in the ordinary use it does not exclude successive plurality of wives or husbands.

1. We need not here refer to the unlawfulness of polyandry, as natural law itself condemns it. Whether simultaneous polygamy is also forbidden by the law of nature is disputed among theologians. The difficulty arises from the practice of the Patriarchs, which is nowhere reprobated in Scripture. Some writers hold that plurality of wives was lawful until the Gospel law was enacted. But the commoner view is that it was always contrary to the law of nature, and that a Divine dispensation was granted in the case of the Patriarchs. “Friendship,” says St. Thomas, “consists in a sort of equality. If, therefore, while a woman may not have several husbands … a man might have several wives, there would not be a free, but a slavish friendship of the woman for the man. And this is proved by experience, for among men having several wives, the wives are as handmaids. Again, an intense friendship for many is impossible.… If, therefore, the wife has only one husband, and the husband several wives, there will not be an equal friendship on each side” (Contra Gent., iii. 124). The Saint elsewhere explains that God could grant dispensations in this matter, because plurality of wives, although forbidden by the law of nature, was not opposed to the primary end of marriage, which is generation (In iv. Sent., d. 33, q. 1).

2. Under the law of the Gospel, polygamy is strictly forbidden. The Council of Trent anathematizes those who say “that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is prohibited by no Divine law” (sess. xxiv., De Matrim., c. 2). This doctrine is plainly proved by the words of our Lord when consulted by the Pharisees concerning divorce: “Have ye 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 (εἰς σάρκα μίαν). Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.” When the Pharisees objected that Moses permitted divorce, our Lord appealed to the primitive institution of marriage, and declared that this was thenceforth to be observed: “Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:2–9). Now marriage, as originally instituted, was clearly monogamous: “male and female made He them;” “cleave to his wife;” “two in one flesh.” Again, Christ taught that he who put away his wife and took another committed adultery. A fortiori, therefore, would it be adulterous to take another wife without putting the first away. Moreover, Christian marriage is a figure of the union between Christ and His bride, the Church, which is one (Eph. 5:22, 23).

We have no room for the many passages which might be quoted from the Fathers against plurality of wives. One or two will be enough. “It is not lawful for thee,” says St. Ambrose, “to take a wife while thy wife is alive. To seek another while thou hast thine own, is the crime of adultery” (lib. I, De Abraham, c. 7). And St. Augustine: “So much do the laws of marriage continue between them (the parties) while they live, that they who are separated are more united to each other than to those to whom they cleave. They would not be adulterers unless they continued to be spouses” (De Nupt. et Concup., i. c. 10).

The history of the Roman Pontiffs shows how strenuously they have upheld the unity of marriage. But of this we shall speak presently.

3. Successive plurality of wives or husbands is not forbidden even under the Gospel law. “I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they so continue even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to be burnt” (1 Cor. 7:8, 9). And further on: “A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband die, she is at liberty; let her marry to whom she will, only in the Lord.” The Apostle does not restrict his words to second marriages. He speaks indefinitely, and consequently the right has an indefinite extent. Nevertheless, in the Greek (Catholic) Church a third marriage is generally forbidden by ecclesiastical law.

III. Marriage, besides being one, is also indissoluble. To understand this rightly, some important distinctions must be made. Dissolution properly so-called is the breaking of the very bond of marriage so that the parties become free. Separation of bed or board, or both, does not involve dissolution of the bond. So, too, a declaration of nullity does not break the bond, but rather asserts that there has never been any bond at all. Again, we should carefully distinguish between (1) natural, i.e. non-sacramental marriage (legitimuin); (2) consummated sacramental marriage (ratum et consummatum); and (3) unconsummated sacramental marriage (ratum). We shall now state the laws applying to each of these cases.

I. It is commonly held by Catholic theologians that by the law of nature marriage is indissoluble. “Marriage,” says St. Thomas, “is intended by nature for the bringing up of children not merely for a time, but for their whole life. Wherefore, by the law of nature, parents lay up treasure for their children, and the children are their heirs. Therefore, since offspring is a good common to both husband and wife, their companionship should remain undivided, according to the dictate of the law of nature. And thus indissolubility of marriage belongs to the natural law” (Supply., q. 67, a. 1). And again: “Woman stands in need of man not only for the purposes of generation, but also for her own government, because man is wiser and stronger. Man takes woman into his companionship because she is required for generation; when, therefore, her comeliness and fruitfulness are at an end, she is prevented from being taken by another. If, then, a man, after taking a woman in the days of her youth, when she has comeliness and fruitfulness, could put her away when she grew old, he would be inflicting upon her an injury opposed to natural equity. In like manner it is clearly unbecoming for a wife to be able to put away her husband, since the wife is naturally subject to her husband as her ruler; for whoever is subject to another cannot quit that other’s rule. It is therefore against natural order for the wife to leave her husband. If, then, the husband could leave his wife, there would be no equal companionship between them, but a sort of slavery on the part of the wife” (Cont. Gent. iii. 123). The other arguments based on reason need not be insisted on here.

Our Lord Himself taught the indissolubility of natural marriage. “And there came to Him the Pharisees, tempting Him, saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any cause? Who, answering, said to them, Have ye 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 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” (Matt. 19:3–6). From Adam’s words, spoken under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and relating to primitive, natural marriage, our Lord infers the indissolubility of that same marriage. The passage which follows shows that this is the rightful interpretation. When the Pharisees objected, “Why, then, did Moses command to give a bill of divorce and to put away?” Our Lord answered, “Because Moses, by reason of the hardness of your heart, permitted you to put away your wives; but in the beginning it was not so.” Christ therefore insists that the power of putting away was only a permission granted on account of hardness of heart (πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν). He affirms that, apart from this permission, which was only given by the law of Moses, it is not lawful to put away, because to do so would be against the primitive and natural institution of marriage.

The Council of Trent understands this passage in the sense given. “The first parent of the human race, under the influence of the Divine Spirit, pronounced the bond of marriage perpetual and indissoluble when he said, ‘This now is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.’ But that by this bond two only are united and joined together, our Lord taught more plainly, when rehearsing those last words as having been uttered by God, He said, ‘Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh;’ and straightway confirmed the firmness of that tie, proclaimed so long before by Adam in these words, ‘What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder’ “ (sess. xxiv., proem). Pius VI., quoting these words of the Council, continues, “It is therefore clear that marriage, even in the very state of nature, and certainly long before it was raised to the dignity of a sacrament, was divinely instituted in such a way that it carried with it a perpetual and indissoluble bond which could be broken by no civil law” (Ep. ad Episc. Agriensem, 1789).

Although natural marriage is in itself indissoluble, it can nevertheless be dissolved by God, its author. It was He who inspired Moses to allow the Hebrews to put away their wives. Even under the Gospel law He has made it lawful to break the bond of natural marriage under certain peculiar circumstances. Writing to the Corinthians, St. Paul says, “If any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And if any woman have a husband that believeth not, and he consent to dwell with her, let her not put away her husband.… But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart. For a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases. But God hath called us in peace” (1 Cor. 7:12–15). That is to say, a Christian man or woman married to an unbeliever (i.e. not baptized) is not, in some cases, subject to a sort of slavery so as to be bound to live with the unbeliever, or to live apart in continence. If the unbeliever refuses to live with the Christian, the latter is not bound to go after the unbeliever, but may, after taking the proper steps, look upon himself or herself as free. Nay, more, even if the unbeliever is willing to live with the Christian, but with the intention of perverting or tempting the Christian, the latter is free in this case also. For the Apostle says that if the unbeliever consents, he should not be put away; hence, if he should not consent in the proper manner, we are to understand that he may be put away. Such is the interpretation given by St. John Chrysostom, Theophylact, Peter Lombard, St. Thomas, and many others; and the practice of the faithful, approved by the Church, abundantly confirms it. “If one of the parties of an infidel marriage be converted to the Catholic Faith,” says Innocent III., “and the other party will not dwell with him (or her), or not without blasphemy of God’s name, or in order to tempt to mortal sin, the one who is quitted shall, if he please, marry again, and in this case we understand what the Apostle saith, ‘If the unbeliever depart, let him depart, for a brother or sister is not under servitude in such cases;’ and the canon also in which it is said, ‘Contumely of the Creator dissolves matrimony in the case of him who is quitted’ “ (l. 4, Decret., tit. 19, c. 7). Gregory XIII., St. Pius V., and Benedict XIV. taught the lawfulness of these second marriages, and permitted them in practice.

2. Marriage between Christians is, as we have seen, always sacramental. This fact makes Christian marriage absolutely indissoluble. The Council of Trent has condemned those who say “that on account of heresy, or irksome cohabitation, or the affected (designed) absence of one of the parties, the bond of marriage may be dissolved; … or that the Church hath erred in that she hath taught, and doth teach, in accordance with the doctrine of the Gospel and of the Apostles, that the bond of marriage cannot be dissolved on account of the adultery of one of the married parties, and that both, or even the innocent one who gave not occasion to the adultery, cannot contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other, and that he is guilty of adultery who, having put away the adulteress, shall take another wife, as also she who, having put away the adulterer, shall take another husband” (sess. xxiv. cann. 5, 7).

(a) “Whosoever,” says our Lord, “shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her (ἐπʼ αὐτήν). And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery” (Mark 10:11, 12). And St. Paul teaches that death alone can solve the marriage tie. “For the woman that hath an husband, whilst her husband liveth is bound to the law; but if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. Therefore, whilst her husband liveth, she shall be called an adulteress if she be with another man; but if her husband be dead she is delivered from the law of her husband, so that she is not an adulteress if she be with another man” (Rom. 7:2, 3). “To them that are married, not I, but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10, 11). He also compares Christian marriage with the indissoluble union between Christ and His Church (Eph. 5:24 sqq.).

(b) Tradition, both theoretical and practical, inculcates the same doctrine. St. Augustine may be taken as representing the Fathers. “Throughout all nations and men the excellence of wedlock is in the procreation of children, and in the faithfulness of chastity; but as regards the people of God, it is also in the holiness of the sacrament (in sanctitate sacramenti), through which holiness it is a crime, even for the party that is divorced, to marry another whilst the husband lives (De Bono Conjug., vi. n. 3; cf. supra, p. 513).

(c) “It must be allowed,” says Leo XIII. (Encyc. Arcanum), “that the Catholic Church has been of the highest service to the well-being of all peoples by her constant defence of the sanctity and perpetuity of marriage. She deserves no small thanks for openly protesting against the civil laws which offended so grievously in this matter a century ago; for striking with anathema the Protestant heresy concerning divorce and putting away; condemning in many ways the dissolution of marriage common among the Greeks; for declaring null and void all marriages entered into on condition of future dissolution; and lastly, for rejecting, even in the early ages, the imperial laws in favour of divorce and putting away. And when the Roman Pontiffs withstood the most potent princes, who sought with threats to obtain the Church’s approval of their divorces, they fought not only for the safety of religion, but even for that of civilization. Future ages will admire the courageous documents published by Nicolas I. against Lothair, by Urban II. and Paschal II. against Philip I. of France, by Celestine III. and Innocent III. against Philip II. of France, by Clement VII. and Paul III. against Henry VIII., and, lastly, by Pius VII., that brave and holy Pontiff, against Napoleon I., in the height of his prosperity and power.”

There is a well-known passage of Holy Scripture which is commonly quoted in favour of divorce: “Whosoever,” says our Lord, “shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Matt. 19:9). Catholic interpreters usually explain this difficult text by referring to Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18; and 1 Cor. 7:39, where divorce is absolutely forbidden. They hold, therefore, that the apparent exception given in St. Matthew must be explained so as not to clash with the absolute rule given in the other Evangelists and St. Paul. There is, however, much difference of opinion as to the exact meaning of the text. Some writers lay stress on the word πορνεία, which they take to mean fornication, and not adultery (μοιχεία). Hence, according to them, the sense is: Whosoever shall put away his wife, except she be a wife of fornication, i.e. a mere concubine, etc. Others, likewise insisting that fornication is meant, hold that our Lord, speaking to Jews, told them that it was lawful for them to put away a wife who was found guilty of having sinned before marriage, because among them marriage with a virgin was alone looked upon as valid. Afterwards, when speaking to the disciples about marriage as it was to be among Christians, He forbade divorce under any circumstances. The common interpretation, however, allows that our Lord meant by πορνεία adultery, and that He spoke not merely of marriage under the Mosaic law; but it considers that He spoke not of divorce properly so-called, but of perpetual separation. The meaning would therefore be: Whosoever shall refuse to live with his wife altogether—which he may not do, except if she has committed adultery—himself commits adultery, i.e. becomes responsible for adultery on the part of his wife by exposing her to the danger of living with another. This interpretation may seem forced, but it may be proved from the context, and it has great patristic authority in its favour. The Pharisees asked our Lord whether it was lawful to put away one’s wife. Our Lord answered that it was not lawful. They objected that Moses allowed it. Our Lord replied that Moses did so on account of the hardness of their heart, but that in the beginning it was not lawful. He then laid down the new law, restoring the primitive indissolubility. Now, if He allowed divorce, He would not have restored the primitive perfection of marriage, wherein what God had joined together no man could put asunder. Moreover, in the Sermon on the Mount our Lord had said, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery” (Matt. 5:32). Some ancient authorities read, “Maketh her an adulteress” (in 19:9, as well as here). That is to say, exposes her to the danger of adultery, and so becomes responsible for her sin. It should be noted, too, that our Lord does not say, “Whosoever shall put away his wife and shall marry another, except it be for fornication, committeth adultery,” but “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,” etc. And that both in 5:32 and 19:9 He says absolutely, “He that shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery.” The following passages from three of the greatest Fathers will show that they held the unlawfulness of divorce, even in case of adultery. “As long as the husband is alive, even though he be an adulterer, or sodomite, or covered with crimes, and be deserted by his wife for these enormities, he is still her husband, and she may not take another. It was not on his own authority that the Apostle so decreed, but, Christ speaking in him, he followed Christ’s words, Who saith in the Gospel, ‘Whosoever putteth away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress; and whosoever shall take her that is put away, is an adulterer.’ Note the words, ‘Whosoever hath taken her that is put away is an adulterer.’ Whether she puts her husband away, or is put away by her husband, whoso shall take her is an adulterer” (St. Jerome, Ep., 55). St. Augustine deals expressly with the question of divorce in two books, De Conjugiis Adulterinis. Pollentius, to whom the books were addressed, was of opinion that adultery was a lawful excuse for divorce. He asked why, if our Lord meant that divorce was never lawful, He did not say so simply. The Saint answered that our Lord wished to condemn the graver sin of divorce where there was no adultery, without, however, excusing divorce in the case of adultery. The words given in Mark 10:11, 12, and Luke 16:18, condemn both cases absolutely. St. John Chrysostom, in his sermon “On the Bill of Divorce,” insists strongly on indissolubility even in the case of adultery. “A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; and, therefore, even though he gives her a bill of divorce, even though she leaves the house and goes to another, she is bound by the law, and is an adulteress.… If [divorce] were good, [God] would not have made one man and one woman, but would have made two women for the one Adam, if He willed one to be put away and the other to be taken. But by the very formation [of our first parents] He made the law which I am now writing about. And what law is that? Let every man keep for ever that wife who first fell to his lot. This law is more ancient than the law of the bill of divorce,” etc. (nn. 1, 2).

The passages quoted from the Fathers in favour of divorce are for the most part either mere repetitions of our Lord’s words, as recorded by St. Matthew, and therefore capable of the same interpretation; or else are ambiguous, and may be understood to refer to separation rather than divorce. Civil laws favouring divorce, even when enacted by Christian princes, are of no weight as theological arguments.

3. The absolute indissolubility of the marriage bond applies only in the case of sacramental marriage which has been consummated. If the parties, although validly married, have not become one flesh, the marriage is capable of dissolution. The Council of Trent has defined that the solemn religious profession of one of the parties breaks the bond in such a case (sess. xxiv. can. 6). Long before the Council this law was recognized and acted upon. Many instances are mentioned by ecclesiastical writers in which the bridegroom left his bride intact and consecrated himself to God; and the practice is always highly extolled. Whether the Pope also had the power of dissolving these marriages, was formerly disputed among theologians; but it is now certain that he has the power. “There can be no further question,” says Benedict XIV., “about the power of the Pope concerning dispensation in the case of unconsummated sacramental marriage; the affirmative is commonly held by theologians and canonists, and is acted upon in practice, as is well known” (Quætion. Canon., 479).