Article I: On the Unity of Matrimony

S. Th., Suppl. q. 65, 66 and 63; C. Gent. IV, 124.

810. State of the question. - The unity of matrimony consists in the conjugal union of one man to one woman; whence it is called monogamy. Polygamy is opposed to it, both improperly so called or successive, when one man successively takes several wives, or conversely; and properly so called and simultaneous, when it happens at the same time. This therefore is twofold: polyandry, or the marital conjunction of one wife with several men at the same time; and polygyny, or the conjunction of one man at the same time with several wives.

A. Simultaneous polygyny, before Christ, flourished among most peoples, and now still exists among certain unbelievers, as among Mohammedans, especially the richer, who can support several women. Polyandry existed only rarely or exceptionally among certain tribes, especially where there are fewer women than men. Sometimes, when a woman had married the firstborn, his younger brothers approached her successively according to certain predefined rules or customs; sometimes two or three men married one wife or even lived together with her: thus on account of poverty, or for security while, being absent successively, they returned to the same woman. Yet these cases were exceptional, so that among those tribes monogamy for the most part prevailed.¹

¹ Cf. Westermarck, op. cit., c. 20-22.

But in the Christian law, only monogamy is legitimate. Nevertheless Luther taught that polygyny, even under the new law, is licit, and permitted Philip of Hesse to have another wife. The Anabaptists propagated the same error, and for a long time the Mormons also. Conversely, Calvin contended that polygamy even under the Old Law had been illicit, and he held the ancient patriarchs who had married several wives at the same time guilty of adultery. To refute this, certain Catholics spoke more benignly, saying that polygyny is not opposed to natural law, nor before the evangelical law was it prohibited by divine law.

B. Successive polygamy, with the dissolution of the preceding marriage posited, is not against the natural or divine law.

Nevertheless the Montanists, to whom Tertullian and the Novatians adhered, condemned second and further nuptials as illicit by divine law; several Fathers held them as hateful and spoke more harshly about them. And among the Greeks, from the tenth century, by ecclesiastical law, fourth nuptials are held invalid.

811. Thesis I. Simultaneous polygamy is repugnant to natural law, and indeed in such a way that polyandry is opposed to the primary precepts of the natural law, but polygyny to the secondary precepts.

It is declared by St. Thomas, q. 65, a. 1:

"Everything which renders an action unfitting to the end which nature intends from some work is said to be against the law of nature. But an action can be unfitting to an end, either principal or secondary; and... this... in two ways. In one way from something which wholly impedes the end... In another way from something which makes difficult, or less fitting, arrival at the principal or secondary end... If therefore an action is unfitting to the end, as though wholly prohibiting the principal end, it is directly prohibited by the law of nature by the first precepts of the law of nature, which are in practical matters as the common conceptions of the mind in speculative matters. But if it is incompetent to the secondary end in whatever way, or even to the principal end as making arrival at it difficult or less suitable, it is prohibited not indeed by the first precepts of the law of nature, but by the second, which are derived from the first, just as in speculative matters conclusions have their faith from principles known through themselves..."

It is proved. A. First part: Polyandry is repugnant to the first precepts of the natural law. For it is opposed: a) to the procreation of offspring; although it does not render this absolutely impossible, nevertheless it impedes it much, since the fecundity of the woman from commerce with several men is greatly diminished, so that she even for the most part becomes sterile, as is clear from experience in prostitutes; b) to the good education of offspring, which it impedes, because it renders the father uncertain, and therefore his obligation of educating the children uncertain; c) moreover to the subjection by which it is necessary that the woman be naturally subject to the man.

Whence St. Thomas: "For one man to have several wives is not against the first precepts of the law of nature... but for one wife to have several husbands is against the first precepts of the law of nature, because through this, as to one thing, the good of offspring, which is the principal end of matrimony, is wholly taken away, and, as to another thing, impeded. For in the good of offspring not only procreation is understood, but also education. For the procreation itself of offspring, although it is not wholly taken away, because it can happen after a first impregnation that the woman be again impregnated, ... nevertheless it is much impeded... But education is wholly taken away, because from this, that one woman would have several husbands, there would follow uncertainty of the offspring with respect to the father, whose care is necessary in educating. And therefore by no law or custom has it been permitted for one woman to marry several men, as conversely" (ad 8).

Polyandry is also repugnant to the secondary precepts, as will be clear from the other part.

B. Second part: Polygyny is repugnant not indeed to the first, but to the secondary precepts of the law of nature.

1° It is not repugnant to the first precepts, because it does not impede the primary end of matrimony, since one man suffices for fecundating several women and for educating the children born therefrom.

2° It is repugnant to the secondary precepts:

a) Because it greatly impedes the secondary end: mutual consolation and assistance and love, since one man generally cannot satisfy several women according to desire, whence peace is easily disturbed and quarrels arise: both if he loves all equally, on account of jealousy by which each one strives to draw the affection of the man to herself; and if he loves unequally, on account of envy and enmity stirred up in them; and because the communication of several in the same beloved thing is accustomed to cause jealousy and quarrels.

Indeed: 1. Perfect conjugal love tends toward total donation; but total donation is only between two, otherwise there will not be true equality of what is given and accepted: for since the wife totally hands over her body and her whole individual life, natural equity demands that the man also totally hand over himself and his own.

2. Conjugal love is of the greatest friendship. But intimate and perfect friendship intends exclusive love.

3. Friendship, just as also the dignity of the wife, demands that she be of equal condition with the man; but plurality of wives reduces them to an inferior condition.

b) Because it impedes also the other secondary end: the calming of concupiscence, for plurality of wives is rather an incitement of concupiscence for the man, and an insufficient remedy for the women, since one cannot satisfy several wives.

c) Because it renders the attainment of the principal end difficult and harms the education of offspring, since it disturbs peace, renders cohabitation arduous, and impedes the complete union of souls which is suitable for the perfect education of children; nor will it rarely have to be feared lest the husband, being chiefly intent on the children of the preferred wife, neglect the others.

It is confirmed from this, that the number of men and women is approximately equal; whence nature itself indicates monogamy.

Let St. Thomas be heard, in the corpus:

"Matrimony has for its principal end the procreation and education of offspring... and thus the good of matrimony is assigned as offspring. But for its secondary end... in men alone it has the communication of works which are necessary in life... and according to this they owe fidelity to one another, which is one of the goods of matrimony. It has further another end (from positive ordination)... namely, the signification of Christ and the Church, and thus the good of matrimony is called sacrament... Therefore plurality of wives neither wholly takes away, nor in any way impedes, the first end of matrimony, since one man suffices for fecundating several wives and educating the children born from them. But the secondary end, although it does not wholly take it away, nevertheless it greatly impedes, because peace cannot easily exist in a family where several wives are joined to one man, since one man cannot suffice to satisfy several wives according to desire, and also because the communication of several in one office causes strife, as potters quarrel with one another, and similarly several wives of one man. But the third end it wholly takes away, because as Christ is one, so also the Church is one. And therefore it is clear from what has been said that plurality of wives in one way is against the law of nature, and in another way not."

"For matrimony does not require that the man render the debt to the wife asking at any time whatever, as to that for which matrimony is principally instituted, namely, for the good of offspring, but as much as suffices for impregnation. But matrimony does require this, insofar as it was instituted as a remedy (which is its secondary end), that the debt be rendered at any time whatever to one asking. And thus it is clear that one receiving several wives does not obligate himself to the impossible, considered as to the principal end of matrimony, and therefore plurality of wives is not against the first precepts of the law of nature" (ad 7).

But how plurality of wives is opposed to the secondary precepts is more declared in Summa contra Gentiles IV, 124:

"Friendship consists in a certain equality. Therefore it is not lawful for the woman to have several husbands, because this is against the certitude of offspring; but it would be lawful for the man to have several wives if the friendship of the wife to the husband were not liberal, but as it were servile; and this is also proved by experience: because among men having several wives, the wives are held as handmaids.

"Besides, intense friendship is not had toward many... If therefore the wife has only one husband, but the husband has several wives, friendship will not be equal on each side. Therefore it will not be a liberal friendship, but in some way servile.

"Further, as has been said, matrimony among men must be ordered according to that which is suitable to good morals. But it is against good morals that one have several wives, because from this follows discord in the domestic family, as is clear by experience. Therefore it is not fitting that one man have several wives."

812. Thesis II. By divine law the unity of matrimony is established, and although in the Old Testament polygyny was conceded for a certain time, nevertheless in the evangelical law unity in every way is urged, just as in the state of innocence. - It is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 24, can. 2, that in Christian matrimony unity is required from divine law; the rest is certain.

It is proved: 1° From the Scriptures, Mt. XIX, 3 sq.: Have you not read that he who made man made them male and female? And he said: For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined, let not man separate.

Here three things must be noted: a) that the unity of matrimony pertains to the primitive institution, which is from God creating man; b) that it is required from the nature of the thing, namely, that two only be in one flesh; whence Innocent III: "He did not say three or more, but two; nor did he say: he shall cleave to wives, but to his wife"; c) that Christ from the cited words concludes to the law of unity to be observed in matrimony: Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh, and to its firmness, so that thereafter the unity which is established by God cannot be dissolved by man: What therefore God has joined, let not man separate. Thus, the Council of Trent, sess. 24, notes, he taught unity more openly and recalled matrimony to its primitive institution.

From these things he then concludes, XIX, 9 (Mk. X, 11; Lk. XVI, 18): I say to you that whoever shall dismiss his wife and shall marry another commits adultery; therefore a fortiori, he who, while retaining the former, marries another, commits adultery. For he who marries another commits adultery for this reason, that the former does not cease to be his wife; but when she has not been dismissed, a fortiori she remains his wife; therefore union with another is true adultery.

2° From the perpetual doctrine and practice of the Church, so constant that no testimony can be produced on the contrary, that there is no Christian people which has not reproved polygamy, nor has an attempt been made by the powerful of marrying another wife without the Pontiffs protesting.

The doctrine is clear from Athenagoras, Leg. pro Chr. 33; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autol. III, 5; Minucius Felix, Oct. 31; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, 12; Ambrose, De Abraham I, 7; Nicholas I, resp. ad Bulg. 51; Innocent III, ad ep. Tiber.; the Second Council of Lyons in the profession of faith; the Council of Trent, sess. 24; Instr. S. O., March 28, 1860, and June 20, 1866.

3° From theological reason: Christian matrimony, according to the Apostle to the Ephesians V, 32, is a representative sign of the union of Christ and the Church. But it would not represent this union unless it were the union of one man to one woman, just as the union of Christ is to one Church. Therefore.

In the Old Law, nevertheless, plurality of wives was conceded, as is clear from the examples of the saints, who would not have married several wives unless they had judged this licit; nor are they reproved in this by the Scriptures; indeed, these suppose that liceity, for example, Deut. XXI, 15; XXV, 5; Gen. XXI, 12, and the common opinion of the Fathers understood it thus. Nor does it stand in the way that secondary wives are for the most part called concubines: they are not called this because they are illegitimate, but because they were admitted only for lying together, not for community of goods, nor their children to the inheritance of the father.

When the concession was made cannot be accurately determined; several think a little after the flood, when, on account of the small number of men, the people of God had to be multiplied. The concession was made directly to the Hebrews through internal inspiration; only indirectly to others. It was not mere toleration, but positive permission, as is also asserted in the documents; indeed Pius XI says: the primeval law God relaxed for a time, but the evangelical law abrogated every dispensation.

Nor does the fact that that law is natural stand in the way. For as we explained (I, n. 258-259), the natural law, as to the most universal principles or as to those things which are essentially good or evil, cannot at all be changed or abrogated; as to those things which are only regularly good or evil, in the primary precepts it cannot be abrogated by God except at most exceptionally in a particular case, but in the secondary precepts for a time even commonly and for all on account of a greater good. Whence St. Thomas, q. 65, a. 2:

"The law concerning the unity of a wife is instituted not humanly, but divinely; nor was it ever handed down by word or writing, but impressed on the heart, just as also other things which in whatever way pertain to the law of nature. And therefore in this a dispensation could be made by God alone through internal inspiration, which indeed was made principally to the holy fathers; and through their example it was derived to others, at the time when it was fitting that the aforesaid precept of nature be passed over, so that there might be a greater multiplication of offspring to be educated for the worship of God. For the more principal end must always be observed more than the secondary. Whence, since the good of offspring is the principal end of matrimony, where the multiplication of offspring was necessary, the impediment which could occur in the secondary ends had to be neglected for a time; and the precept prohibiting plurality of wives is ordered to removing this."

813. Thesis III. Successive polygamy, although less approved by the Church, nevertheless by divine law, even under the evangelical law, is licit, with the dissolution of the preceding marriage supposed, nor was it ever universally prohibited; and among Christians it is a true sacrament. - It is certain from the Council of Florence, in which Eugene IV declared that "not only second nuptials, but even third and fourth and further, if some canonical impediment does not stand in the way, can be licitly contracted."

It is proved: 1° From the Scriptures, where the Apostle explicitly says that second nuptials are licit, indeed sometimes exhorts to them: I Cor. VII, 8, 39; Rom. VII, 3; I Tim. V, 14.

2° From the doctrine of the Church, which is clear from the Fathers and Councils.

Thus, for example, Hermas, Mand. IV, 4; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. III, 12; Ambrose, De vid. 11; Epiphanius, haer. 59; Jerome, ep. 48 ad Pam. 9; Augustine, De bono vid. 12 and 15; Council of Nicaea I, can. 8; Council of Lyons in the profession of faith; Instr. S. C. P. F., September 8, 1869.

But if certain Fathers spoke more harshly about second nuptials, they must be understood concerning the affection by which those twice-married are presumed to contract not from intention of offspring but on account of pleasure, or on account of suspicion of incontinence. But they never decreed that these spouses were to be separated.

Nor should it be said that in second nuptials the signification of the sacrament is not preserved, namely, of the conjunction of one Christ with one Church. For even a second or further matrimony, if it is considered according to itself, retains the essential signification of the sacrament: for it is the conjunction of one to one; the defect is only accidental, from the fact that one had previously belonged to another, but is purely extrinsic, since it is only in extrinsic respect to the prior matrimony, which in fact has now ceased to be. Yet on account of that accidental defect, the subsequent matrimony does not have in the Church the same honor as the first; and the blessing is withdrawn when the nuptials are second at least on the part of the woman.

Hence can. 1142: "Although chaste widowhood is more honorable, nevertheless second and further nuptials are valid and licit, with the prescription of can. 1069, § 2 remaining firm," by which it is established that it is not licit to contract another matrimony "before the nullity or dissolution of the prior has legitimately and certainly been established."

And can. 1143: "A woman to whom the solemn blessing has once been given cannot receive it again in subsequent nuptials."

814. Corollaries. - 1. On unbelievers after Christ, equally as on the faithful, the law of monogamy is imposed, and polygamy is prohibited. For a) Christ said without limitation: whoever shall dismiss his wife and marry another commits adultery; b) the non-baptized are subject to the law of nature by the same reason as the baptized, and therefore, once the dispensation by which polygamy had been indulged is taken away, by that very fact the full force of the law of nature is restored for all; c) moreover, the dispensation had been directly conceded in the Old Law to the faithful alone, to others only by concomitance. Whence the Church does not admit unbelievers to Baptism unless they wish to retain one wife, whom they had married first, all the others having been dismissed. Cf. Holy Office, March 28, 1860.

2. The natural and divine law not only prohibits several simultaneous matrimonial conjunctions, but also invalidates them: for the prohibition would be ineffective unless it were invalidating. Namely, invalidation is necessary to the end. Thus explicitly the Holy Office, June 20, 1866.