Article I. On The Unity Of Matrimony

659. The unity of matrimony or monogamy is the matrimonial bond between one man and one woman. For this reason, in the definition of matrimony above we said in the singular and not the plural: the marital conjunction of a man and a woman. Simultaneous polygamy and polyandry are opposed to the unity of matrimony; second nuptials after the death of either spouse, however, are by no means opposed to it.

Simultaneous polyandry, which is the marital conjunction of one woman with two or more men, exists very rarely among nations,²¹¹ and is not only contrary to the precept of Sacred Scripture: "They shall be two in one flesh," but also directly contrary to the natural law. For the primary end of matrimony is the generation and education of offspring. Moreover, experience proves that a woman who habitually has intercourse with several men is infertile, as is evident in prostitutes. But even if offspring should perhaps be generated, education would be almost impossible, since there would be no certain father, and consequently the bodily and spiritual care of the offspring would be most difficult.²¹²

²¹¹ Westermarck (History of Human Marriage, cc. 20-22) indeed brings forward several examples of polyandry among wholly depraved nations, but nevertheless one may suspect from his account that it is not simultaneous polyandry.

²¹² Cf. Suppl., q. 65, a. 1, ad 7.

660. Simultaneous polygamy (polygyny), which is the marital conjunction of one man with two²¹³ or more women, flourished before Christ not only among the nations, but also among the Israelites. In our times it still flourishes among pagans, and especially among Mohammedans.²¹⁴

Simultaneous polygamy is indeed contrary to the primeval institution of matrimony in paradise, but it was permitted to the patriarchs in the Old Testament.²¹⁵ That polygamy was not the primeval form of matrimony is a certain opinion. For Adam exclaimed, after Eve had been handed over to him as wife: "They shall be two in one flesh." Innocent III, explaining this text, says: "He did not say three or more, but two; nor did he say he shall cleave to wives, but to his wife."²¹⁶ From the words of Christ also, "But from the beginning it was not so,"²¹⁷ it is clearly inferred that polygamy was not the primeval form of matrimony. Lamech seems to have been the first who had two wives.²¹⁸

There are those who teach that polygamy was never lawful, and consequently that the wives of the patriarchs were called concubines; nevertheless, that the patriarchs did not sin formally by having several wives, because they were in good faith. This explanation, however, does not please, nor is it sufficiently proved. For it seems absurd that most holy men such as Abraham, Jacob, and others, who had miraculous divine revelations, should have erred in a matter of such great moment. Moreover, while David is vehemently reproached and punished because of the adultery committed with Bathsheba, he is never reproved because of the other wives of his own whom he had. The book of Deuteronomy, c. 21, vv. 15-16, seems to suppose the lawfulness of polygamy, decreeing: "If a man have two wives, one beloved and the other hated, and they have begotten children by him, and the son of the hated be the firstborn, and he will divide his substance among his sons: he cannot make the son of the beloved the firstborn and prefer him to the son of the hated." The same is confirmed from the law of the levirate,²¹⁹ by which the wife of a deceased brother (without children) had to be taken in matrimony by the surviving brother (although he was already married). But if women maritally joined to one man are called concubines in Sacred Scripture, it is not yet permissible to conclude from this that they were not legitimate wives, because frequently in Sacred Scripture by the name of concubine is signified a true and legitimate wife who was not married with such great solemnity. Thus Hagar, Keturah, Bilhah, and Zilpah are called now wives, now concubines of Abraham in the book of Genesis.²²⁰

The intrinsic reason, however, why simultaneous polygamy could have been lawful in the Old Testament consists in this, that polygamy is not opposed to the primary end of matrimony, namely, the generation and education of offspring. For one man suffices to fecundate several women and to educate the offspring born from them.²²¹ Nevertheless, it must be admitted that some men of the Old Testament committed excesses in the number of wives, for it is difficult to understand how, for example, Solomon could have had several hundred wives²²² without a mark of intemperance.

Authors commonly teach that the dispensation to have several wives was not granted by God until after the flood. Nothing certain can be said concerning this matter. Authors do not agree whether the same dispensation was granted not only to the Jews but also to other peoples; but there does not seem to be sufficient reason why a stricter discipline should be established for pagans than for Jews, and all the less because pagans, as lacking the Mosaic law, could observe the unity of matrimony with greater difficulty than the Jews.²²³ Thus Esther, a Jewess, was joined to Ahasuerus, who already had several wives; Mordecai, her adoptive father and a man fearing God, would neither have counseled nor approved this union if it had been gravely unlawful.

Simultaneous polygamy from the times of the New Law onward is unlawful and invalid for all, so that neither the faithful nor unbelievers any longer have the faculty of having several wives. For Christ restored matrimony to its primeval unity and called that man an adulterer who married another even after dismissing his first wife.²²⁴ Therefore, a fortiori, he is an adulterer who marries another while retaining his first legitimate wife. Innocent III argues likewise in the celebrated chapter Gaudemus:²²⁵ "If, therefore, after a wife has been dismissed, another cannot lawfully be married, much less while she is retained; from which it plainly appears that plurality concerning matrimony is to be rejected in each sex, since they are not judged according to unequal standards."

Although in the Council of Trent²²⁶ it was defined only: "If anyone says that it is lawful for Christians to have several wives at the same time, and that this is prohibited by no divine law, let him be anathema"; nevertheless it is by no means permissible to conclude from this that it is still lawful for unbelievers to have several wives; for plurality of wives is contrary to the primeval institution of matrimony, and the dispensation granted in ancient times was expressly revoked by Christ. Hence St. Thomas²²⁷ teaches: "To have several wives is contrary to the law of nature, to which unbelievers also are bound; and therefore the matrimony of an unbeliever is not true except with her with whom he first contracted."

Indeed, the Holy Office in an Instruction to the Apostolic Vicar of the Gallas, March 20, 1860,²²⁸ says: "It is most certain that simultaneous polygamy is altogether unlawful by evangelical law; hence, after Jesus Christ²²⁹ restored matrimony to its pristine sanctity, unity, and indissolubility, with the dignity of a sacrament added for the baptized, it was lawful neither for the faithful, nor for Jews, nor for any mortals to join several wives to themselves. Consequently, with monogamy thus divinely restored, that only one can be bound to one by a legitimate and valid marriage is held as an unshaken dogma of faith." If, however, some emperors are reported to have had several wives, as, for example, Constantius, Valentinian, and Lothair, Billuart²³⁰ rightly responds: "No law is established from deeds unjustly done. Constantius was an Arian; Pope Nicholas I (865) excommunicated Lothair with his concubine. Valentinian I, in order to avert from himself the disgrace of a double marriage, unjustly enacted this law."

²¹³ Such polygamy is properly called simultaneous bigamy.

²¹⁴ It is known to all that Luther gave his consent that Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, while his first legitimate wife was living, should marry another, namely Margaret von der Sale.

²¹⁵ Cf. Suppl., q. 65, a. 2.

²¹⁶ C. 8, X 4, 19.

²¹⁷ Matt. 19:5 ff. and Mark 10:2 ff.

²¹⁸ Gen. 4:19.

²¹⁹ Deut. 25:5 ff.

²²⁰ Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 65, a. 5, ad 2.

²²¹ Cf. ibid., a. 1; Billuart, De matrimonio, diss. 5, a. 1.

²²² Cf. 3 Kings 11:3.

²²³ Cf. De Smet, De sponsalibus et matrimonio, n. 306.

²²⁴ Cf. Matt. 19:3-9 and Mark 10:1-12.

²²⁵ C. 8, X 4, 19.

²²⁶ Sess. 24, can. 2, De matrimonio (Denz., n. 972).

²²⁷ Suppl., q. 59, a. 3, ad 3.

²²⁸ Collect. de Prop. Fide, n. 1188.

²²⁹ Cf. Matt. 19:5 f.

²³⁰ Loc. cit., diss. 5, a. 1.

661. Successive polygamy (which by ancient authors is customarily called simply bigamy) is lawful, and consequently among Christians constitutes a true sacrament. The same holds concerning third and further nuptials. Thus the Council of Florence, in the Decree for the Armenians given in 1441,²³¹ declares "that not only second nuptials, but third and fourth and further ones, if no canonical impediment stands in the way, can lawfully be contracted." The Code of Canon Law, c. 1142, decrees: "Although chaste widowhood is more honorable, nevertheless second and further nuptials are valid and lawful."

The lawfulness of successive polygamy is manifestly proved from 1 Cor. 7:39, where St. Paul says: "A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband sleep, she is at liberty; let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord"; and ibid., vv. 8 f.: "But 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 burn."²³²

The Montanists and Novatians taught that second nuptials were unlawful. Nicholas, Patriarch of Constantinople, contended that fourth nuptials were contrary to divine law. Since harm not rarely arises from second nuptials for offspring born in the prior matrimony, and since those contracting also often celebrate second or further nuptials for the sake of pleasure rather than for some other upright motive, some of the Holy Fathers, especially the Greeks, spoke more harshly concerning second nuptials. Thus, for example, St. Basil calls bigamy "chastised fornication," while he calls a third matrimony "a defilement of the Church." St. Gregory Nazianzen²³³ has similar things, saying: "The first [matrimony] is law; the second pardon and indulgence; the third iniquity; but he who exceeds this number is altogether swinish." Some particular Councils also, for example, those of Ancyra and Laodicea, inflicted penances upon those who entered second nuptials. Even in our times the Easterners do not permit second nuptials except after a previous dispensation of the bishop.²³⁴

Scholion. Those who live in notorious simultaneous polygamy are accounted public sinners, and consequently can be admitted neither to the sacraments nor to ecclesiastical burial. Moreover, they are gravely punished by almost all penal Codes in civilized regions.²³⁵

²³¹ Mansi, Ampl. coll. Conc., 31, 1741.

²³² Cf. also Rom. 7:3; 1 Tim. 5:14.

²³³ Orat. 37, 8 (Migne, Patr. graec., 36, 291).

²³⁴ Papp-Szilagyi writes concerning this matter, Enchir. iur. eccl. orient. cath., § 87: "The Easterners also reject successive polygamy.... For second nuptials there is indeed a prescribed rite in the Euchologia, but they reject those very nuptials after the forty-fifth year of age; third nuptials were subjected to ecclesiastical censure; but fourth nuptials were condemned as brutal.... According to modern practice, assistance is supplied through a dispensation of the bishop."

²³⁵ Cf. German Penal Code, § 171; Belgian Penal Code, art. 391.