Article I: On the Origin of Matrimony

752. State of the question. - Concerning the origin and essence of matrimony many have erred, denying that it has been instituted by nature and by God. This is denied by Materialists, Positivists, Evolutionists, who say that it is of merely human institution; whence they hold its laws as relative and mutable, and as not founded in nature.

The Evolutionists say that it is a relatively recent institution, which is the fruit of a longer evolution, which runs through three stages: a) in the first there was promiscuity of the sexes, so that sexual conjunction took place apart from every law: primitive man is an animal ruled by sexual instinct and seeking satisfaction in any case whatever; when moral consciousness had been aroused, rules began to be established: thus the union already became less transient, and it was prohibited among those near of kin, but it is not yet stable matrimony; - b) in the second stage succeeds matrimony by abduction, or from violence; - c) in the third, matrimony by purchase, not yet by consent. It also existed under a threefold form: a) first there existed matriarchy, in which the offspring exclusively bears the name of the mother and enjoys only the maternal inheritance; which is explained only by the uncertainty of offspring on account of promiscuity; - b) then there was polygamous patriarchy; - c) finally matrimony in monogamy.

These assertions are mere hypotheses proved in no way, or illegitimate generalizations.¹ But the facts which are objected by the Evolutionists do not necessarily suppose promiscuity.²

¹ This is clear from Westermarck himself, History of Human Marriage (Origine du Mariage dans l'espece humaine), who nevertheless is an Evolutionist; likewise from Howard, A History of Matrimonial Institutions, and from Leroy, La Religion des primitifs. Also from Durkheim, who nevertheless does not derive the origin of family life from matrimony as it is now conceived, but from the totem, in which the family group and matrimony were gradually formed. But ethnologists have shown that the theory of totemism contradicts the facts. - Cf. Dehove, Les theories de la religion chez Durkheim, in Rev. Ap., 1930.

² Thus, for example, sacred prostitution in temples, and also the right of the first night, or the practice of handing over one's own wife to guests, and other things of this kind, are abuses which arise from innate lust and a false concept of hospitality; but they cannot be called vestiges of pristine promiscuity. Thus the right of the first night, by which a prince, indeed, they say, in certain places a priest, could abuse a newly married wife during the first night, if it existed anywhere, would have to be reduced to a merely local and transient abuse, but it was never admitted as legally approved, neither among pagans nor among Christians. But what comes under this name can be understood in other true ways. 1. Among pagans, the virgin's chastity was considered consecrated to the divinity, and therefore the right of violating chastity, even by conjugal intercourse, had to be obtained from the divinity, from God's legate, namely, from the prince or from a priest, for example, by paying a price which was called the right of the first night. Sometimes the wife herself received some gift as the price of lost virginity, which again was called the right of the first night. 2. Among Christians, the right of the first night was understood in a threefold sense: a) the right of consummating matrimony in a certain determined place; b) a mere symbol of subjection toward the prince on the occasion of matrimony contracted by vassals; c) a license arising from dispensation to consummate matrimony from the first night, without observing the triduum which in the middle ages had to be passed in continence after the example of Tobias. Cf. Schmidt, Ius primae noctis; Eine geschichtliche Untersuchung.

Among the moderns, the more moderate admit that monogamy is more perfect than the other forms, and therefore is to be retained, but that divorce nevertheless is to be admitted more easily, so that, the spouses having been separated, access to new nuptials may lie open to them.

Naturalists, on the contrary, and Communists and many Socialists favor free union. They hold human nature as naturally good; whence man must follow natural inclinations in order that he may exist happily. Matrimony has mutual pleasure as its end, for which mutual love is required and suffices: if it cannot procure this, or if it ceases, it is to be dissolved by divorce; offspring also, if it obstructs pleasure or happiness, can be suppressed, but once born, with civil society taking care, it is to be nourished and educated without the intervention of parents.

Against all these, with Catholic doctrine, it must be affirmed that the stable union of matrimony has its origin in human nature itself, and that monogamy and indissolubility have been established by God.

753. Thesis I. Matrimony is not only of positive divine institution, but it is also natural to man and therefore of natural right. - It is certain from the encyclical of Pius XI Casti connubii, asserting: "Matrimony was not instituted or restored by man, but divinely; not by men, but by God himself, the author of nature"; whence, afterward speaking of the evil errors of today, he says: "their chief root is in this, that they vociferate that matrimony was not instituted by the author of nature... but invented by men."

It is said: a) matrimony, by which name is understood a union of the moral order, obligatorily stable and of itself perpetual, between man and woman.

b) is of positive divine institution. Genesis being witness, God instituted matrimony when after the creation of Adam he formed Eve for the consortium and help of the man: "It is not good," he says, II, 18, "for man to be alone; let us make him a help like unto himself"; and he instituted the diversity of sexes so that he might provide for the multiplication of the species, for as is said I, 27: "Male and female he created them, and God blessed them, and said: Increase and multiply and fill the earth." - Moreover the truly stable bond of matrimony in the unity and perpetuity of the conjugal bond is proposed in the words of Adam: "This now is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; wherefore a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh." - But that the union is to be constituted through a contract or convention of wills is clear from this, that that cleaving is not understood except as voluntary and free.

Wherefore the Council of Trent, sess. 24, teaches: the first parent of the human race, by the instinct of the divine Spirit, pronounced the perpetual and indissoluble bond of matrimony when he said: "This now is bone..." Therefore since Adam could say this only with God inspiring, Christ attributes those words to God himself and from them infers, Mt. XIX, 6: "Therefore now they are not two but one flesh; what therefore God has joined together, let not man separate."

c) it is also natural to man, not as if it were caused from the principles of nature by necessity, but because nature inclines to it, although it is to be completed by free will; whence human reason understands its necessity, and therefore it is of natural right. Hence Aristotle, Eth. VIII, c. 12: "man is more naturally a conjugal animal than a political one."

It is proved: God, by creating men endowed with reason, to his image and likeness, and at the same time diverse in sex and apt for generation, by that very fact, through human nature, showed that he wills that the human race be propagated by generation: not, however, by any generation whatever, but only by that which would have place in circumstances of themselves necessary for the good of offspring, and therefore in the matrimonial conjunction of man and woman. For 1. the good of human offspring of itself requires that parents be bound by a moral and stable bond which cannot be dissolved at pleasure: for offspring of itself needs parents in order that it may be well educated and led to the perfect state; 2. the same is required for the good of the spouses from mutual service in domestic life, since one of them does not suffice for himself in all things which regard life, but certain works are suitable to the man, certain to the woman.

Appositely St. Thomas, q. 41, a. 1: "Matrimony is natural, because natural reason inclines to it in two ways:

as to its principal end, which is the good of offspring. For nature intends not only the generation of offspring, but also the handing on and promotion of it up to the perfect state of man, insofar as he is man, which is the state of virtue. Whence, according to the Philosopher, we have three things from parents, namely, being, nourishment, and discipline. But a son could not be educated and instructed by a parent unless he had determined and certain parents; which would not be unless there were some obligation of the man to a determined woman, which makes matrimony.

as to the secondary end of matrimony, which is the mutual service rendered to each other by the spouses in domestic matters. For just as natural reason dictates that men dwell together, because one does not suffice for himself in all things which pertain to life itself, by reason of which man is said to be naturally political; so also, of those things which are needed for human life, certain works are suitable to men, certain to women. Whence nature moves that there be a certain association of man to woman, in which there is matrimony."

It is confirmed from the Summa contra Gentiles, III, 122:

"a) For it must be considered that in animals in which the female alone suffices for the education of offspring, the male and female do not remain together after intercourse for any time, as is clear in dogs. But whatever animals there are in which the female does not suffice for the education of offspring, the male and female remain together after intercourse so long as is necessary for the education and instruction of the offspring, as is clear in certain birds... But it is manifest that in the human species, the female would by no means suffice alone for the education of offspring, since the necessity of human life requires many things which cannot be procured by one alone. Therefore it is fitting, according to human nature, that a man remain with the woman after intercourse and not immediately depart, approaching indifferently any woman whatsoever, as happens among fornicators. - Nor does it stand against this reason that some woman, powerful by her riches, is able alone to nourish the fetus; because natural rectitude in human acts is not according to those things which happen accidentally in one individual, but according to those things which follow the whole species.

"b) Again, it must be considered that in the human species offspring needs not only nourishment as to the body, as in other animals, but also instruction as to the soul; ... nor are those newly born capable of instruction of this kind, but only after a long time, and especially after they have arrived at the years of discretion. For this instruction also a long time is required; and then also, on account of the impulses of the passions..., they need not only instruction but also repression. But for this the woman alone does not suffice, but rather in this the work of the male is required, in whom there is both a more perfect reason for instructing and a more powerful virtue for chastising. Therefore in the human species it is necessary to attend to the promotion of offspring not for a little time, as in birds, but for a great span of life.

"Whence, since it is necessary that the male remain with the female in all animals so long as the work of the father is necessary to the offspring, it is natural to man that the man have, not for a short time, but a lasting society with a determined woman. But this society we call matrimony. Therefore matrimony is natural to man."³

³ Similarly in II-II, q. 154, a. 2: "We see that in all animals in which the care of the male and female is required for the education of offspring, in them there is not wandering concubitus, but that of a male with a certain female, one or more, as is clear in many birds; but it is otherwise in animals in which the female alone suffices for the education of the fetus, in which there is wandering concubitus, as is clear in dogs... But it is manifest that for the education of man there is required not only the care of the mother, by whom he is nourished, but much more the care of the father, by whom he is to be instructed and defended, and promoted in goods both interior and exterior. And therefore it is contrary to the nature of man that he use wandering concubitus; but it is necessary that there be a male with a determined female with whom he remains not for a little time, but for a long time or for the whole of life... But this determination of a certain female is called matrimony; and therefore it is said to be of natural right."

Briefly, "nature intends not only being in offspring, but also perfect being, for which matrimony is required," q. 41, a. 1, ad 4.

754. It is objected: 1. Therefore celibacy is against nature, as against natural inclination; and therefore it is a sin. - Resp. I deny the consequent: not everything which is against natural inclination is a sin, but that which is against natural inclination obliging from the dictate of reason. But reason dictates that matrimony is not necessary and obligatory for each one, especially on account of a greater good.

"Nor does it follow thence," says Haine, Th. M. IV, de Matr., q. 36, "that virginity and celibacy, as being against the inclination of nature, are therefore sins. For not everything which is against natural inclination is always a sin; but only that which is against natural inclination obliging from the dictate of reason. But now, the human race having been sufficiently multiplied, reason dictates that matrimony is not necessary in each one for this, and consequently natural inclination does not oblige to it. Moreover it is sometimes lawful to act against natural inclination for the sake of a greater good of the soul, as is clear in him who for the sake of mortification abstains from useful food and in some way necessary to the body, to which nevertheless there is a natural inclination."

Natural inclination is common to all; but an inclination to matrimony does not appear in all. - Resp. It is in all, but it does not put itself forth sensibly in all, because conservation of specific nature is sufficiently provided for by many.

Thus also the natural inclination to defend the common good and the republic.

Natural inclination is only to generation and is common to all animals; but this is not to a stable and indissoluble union or matrimony. - Resp. The inclination of nature on the part of the specific difference, insofar as it is rational, is only to generation, I deny; on the part of the genus insofar as it is common to animals, I distinguish: it is common in such a way that it is in all in a diverse way, I concede; so that it is in all in the same way, I deny.

"The nature of man inclines to something in two ways: in one way, because it is fitting to the nature of the genus, and this is common to all animals; in another way because it is fitting to the nature of the difference, by which the human species abounds from the genus insofar as it is rational... And just as the nature of the genus, although it is one in all animals, nevertheless is not in all in the same way, so also it does not incline in the same way in all, but according as it befits each. Therefore the nature of man inclines to matrimony on the part of the difference, as to the second reason assigned (namely, mutual service), whence the Philosopher assigns this reason in men above other animals; but as to the first reason (the good of offspring), it inclines on the part of the genus, whence he says that the procreation of children is common to all animals. Yet nature does not incline to this in the same way in all animals: because there are certain animals whose children, once born, can immediately seek food for themselves sufficiently, or for whose support the mother suffices; and in these there is no determination of male to female; but in those whose children need the support of both, but for a little time, some determination is found as to that time, as is clear in certain birds. But in man, because the son needs the care of parents up to a great time, there is the greatest determination of male to female, to which also the nature of the genus inclines," q. 41, ad 1.

755. Corollaries. - 1. Therefore those systems are false which assert that matrimony is of human institution.

Therefore the fundamental laws of matrimony are not relative and mutable, but absolute and immutable: they are from nature and from God. "Matrimony... by God himself, the author of nature... has been fortified with laws..., which laws therefore can be subject to no decrees of men, to no contrary agreement even of the spouses themselves"; "so that if anyone has once contracted matrimony, he is subject to its divine laws and essential properties." Thus Pius XI in the encyclical Casti connubii.

Therefore "it is essential to the union of male and female that it be ordered and tend, as to a primary end, to the propagation of the species, and not to private good and happiness, as the modern reformers of matrimony will." Thus De Smet, De Sponsalibus et Matrimonii, n. 77.

Therefore every use of the generative faculty, insofar as it does not preserve the due order of generation and education, is illicit by natural right, and indeed in such a way that St. Thomas did not hesitate to say: "after the sin of homicide, by which human nature already existing in act is destroyed, this kind of sin seems to hold the second place, by which the generation (ordered generation) of this nature is impeded," c. Gent. III, 122.

Nevertheless not every act of itself apt for generation is thereby licit and honorable, but only that which has place in matrimony, and therefore not only pollution and onanism, but also fornication is repugnant to natural right. Namely, the use of the generative faculty is reserved to matrimony. Cf. II-II, q. 154, a. 2.

To each capable person there belongs a natural right to matrimony, and indeed prior to every human society. Whence no human authority can prohibit it absolutely, i.e., with every person in perpetuity, to someone against his antecedent will, for this prohibition would be against natural right. "No human law," says Pius XI, "can take away from man the natural and primordial right of marriage, or in any way circumscribe the principal cause of nuptials, constituted in the beginning by the authority of God. Increase and multiply." And therefore he concludes that those are against the right of nature who either prohibit matrimony to those who labor under an infirmity likely to be transmitted to children, or render them sterile by surgical operation. And the Holy Office, to the question: Whether direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of man or of woman, is licit?, on Feb. 24, 1940, responded: In the negative, and it is prohibited by the natural law.

As to the opposed systems, let it be noted that the theory of evolution is a mere hypothesis, not scientifically proved. And indeed: a) primitive promiscuity is not demonstrated, since among the most primitive it is not found; b) for it is false that the peoples called primitive, or the wild tribes of Australia or central Africa, are in the same state as prehistoric man: from their own traditions it is clear that they are not truly primitive but degenerate; c) promiscuity is repugnant psychologically, on account of jealousy, which is the natural effect of love; d) among nations more ancient in culture, matrimony exists without any trace of evolution, as among the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans; e) specifically, matriarchy can be explained otherwise: from the more intimate bond of offspring with the mother, or from polygamy; f) matrimony by abduction is not proved to have been a legal stage in the evolution of marriage, since it is by no means everywhere, and is found only rarely; g) matrimony by purchase is so called because a price was given for the purchase of the house or of dominion, or as compensation or even as a gratuitous donation; but by no means from the purchase of the spouse from the parents against his or her consent.⁴

⁴ Besides the authors alleged, p. 737, n. 1, on this matter there can be consulted De Smet, o. c., n. 80-82; Tanquerey, o. c., n. 674 sq.; Dict. de Theol., art. Mariage; v. Scherer, Handbuch des Kirchenrechts; Leitner, Lehrbuch des Kath. Eherechtes; Schmidt, Der Ursprung der Gottesidee; Lemonnyer, Le Mariage et l'Evolution.