E

The Catholic University of America
Studies in Sacred Theology
(Second Series)
No. 79

r

Catholic Moral Teaching on the
Nature and Object of Conjugal Love
.

A DISSERTATION

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF SACRED THEOLOGY OF
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF SACRED THEOLOGY

BY THE

REVEREND MICHAEL FRANCIS McAULIFFE,’S.T.L.

I

k

L

This dissertation was directed by The Very Rev. Dr. Francis J.
Connell, C.SS.R., as Major Professor, and was approved by Rev.
Dr. Alfred C. Rush, C.SS.R., and Rev. Eugene M. Burke, C.S.P..
as readers.

The Catholic University of America
Studies in Sacred Theology
(Second Series)
No. 79

Catholic Moral Teaching on the
Nature and Object of Conjugal Love
A DISSERTATION
submitted to the faculty of the school of sacred theology of
the CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF SACRED THEOLOGY

BY THE

REVEREND MICHAEL FRANCIS McAULlFFE, S.T.L.

The Catholic University of America Press
Washington, D. C.
1954

NIHIL OBSTAT:

Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D.

Censor Deputatus
Washington, D. C., April 27, 1953.
I

IMPRIMATUR:
Edwin V. O’Hara, D.D.

Bishop of Kansas City

Kansas City, Mo., May 11, 1953.
i
F

Copyright 1954
by
The Catholic University of America Press, Inc.

Murray and Heister
Washington, D. C.
Printed by
Times and News Publishing Co.
Gettysburg, pa., U.S.A.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

Foreword

vii

Introduction_____________ —--------------------------------------

ix

CHAPTER

Pre-Marital Love

1

II. The Notion of Conjugal Love--------------------------Article
I. The Nature of Conjugal Love________
Article
II. Conjugal Love—Its Specific Difference
Article III. Conjugal Love—Its Broader Aspects _
Article IV. The Qualities of Conjugal Love
Article
V. The Necessity of Conjugal Love
Article VI. Conjugal Love: Its Effects on the
Spouses
Article VII. Conjugal Love and Its Relation to the
Conjugal Act______________________
Article VIII. Conjugal Love and Its Relation to the
Child________ ____________________

28
28
45
50
54
64

I.

The Nature

of

68

72
80

III.

The Object of Conjugal Love—the Mutual
Sanctification of the Spouses 86

IV.

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations_
Article
I. Cohabitation
Article
II. Divorce
Article III. Infidelity
Article IV. Contraception
Article
V. Abortion

113
113
118
124
128
133

Bibliography

137

Abbreviations

143

Biographical Note 144
Index 145

FOREWORD

This is a dissertation which was submitted to the Faculty of
the School of Sacred Theology of the Catholic University of
America. The writer wishes to express his thanks to His Excel­
lency, the Most Rev. Edwin V. O’Hara, Bishop of Kansas City,
who gave him the opportunity of pursuing graduate studies at
the Catholic University. He owes a debt of gratitude to the Fac­
ulty of the School of Sacred Theology whose classes he attended.
In particular he wishes to thank the Very Reverend Francis J.
Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D., under whose direction the thesis was
written, and to the Rev. Alfred C. Rush, C.SS.R.» S.T.D., and
the Rev. Eugene M. Burke, C.S.P., S.T.D., for their reading of
the dissertation and many helpful suggestions.

vii

INTRODUCTION
In this age when the attention of men has been focused prin­
cipally on the material things of the universe, we notice an everincreasing apathy in regard to the supernatural objectives which
Almighty God intended us to pursue as the chief object of our
existence. This state inevitably results when men set aside the things
of God and disregard and ignore the purpose for which they were
created and to which they have been super naturally elevated. It
is to this state of man’s conscience that we can attribute the pres­
ent lack of esteem and regard for the vocation of Christian mar­
riage. It has progressed to such an extent that men such as these
no longer consider marriage as something instituted by God. They
set aside its God-given purposes, and give to it a purpose which
is in accord only with their human desires, and which can be
adapted to fit their likes and dislikes. Thus when their caprice dic­
tates and they have tired of one relationship, they have no diffi­
culty in shifting their affections to another, hoping that in this
new partner they will find the satisfaction their selfishness de­
mands. God’s will means nothing to them ; their own everythingAs our late Holy Father, Pope Pîus XI, has so well stated :
To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic
principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly de­
clared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor
raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacra­
ment, but invented by man. . . . The evil of this teaching
is plainly seen from the consequences which its advo­
cates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions
and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they
take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject
entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed
and abrogated according to human caprice and the shift­
ing circumstances of human affairs ; that the generative
power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred
and has wider range than matrimony—-hence it may be
exercised both outside as well as within the confines of
wedlock, with the ends of matrimony being set aside,

ix

X

Introduction
as though to suggest that the license of a base forni­
cating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste
motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.1

As a direct result of this state of man’s conscience marriage has
been brought to the position wherein every year sees a new record
established for those marriages that end in divorce courts. Statistics
show that the divorce rate, which had maintained an average of
1.7 per 1,000 population during the years 1920-40, has gradually
risen to the point where it now averages 2.0 per 1,000 population,
reached in 1950, the last year for which statistics are available.2
This means that approximately one marriage out of every four
or five in the United States ends in divorce. If the trend con­
tinues, and circumstances indicate that it will, this condition will
become even worse. The tragedy of this situation is that so many
religious bodies fail to consider the condition as an evil, and even
go so far as to allow divorced members to be “remarried” in their
churches as a matter of course. Marriage accepted in this sense
is really not marriage, but a cloak, a screen, behind which such
a class of people pretend to hide decently and legitimately what
is nothing but plain adultery. Our Blessed Saviour clearly taught
that remarriage after divorce was adultery when He said: “Every­
one who puts away his wife and marries another commits adul1 Pope Pius XI, “Casti Connubii,” AAS, 22 (1930), 557 f. : “Ut igitur ab
horum malorum fontibus incipiamus, praecipua eorum radix in eo est quod
matrimonium non ab auctore naturae institutum neque a Christo Domino in
veri Sacramenti dignitatem evectum, sed ab hominibus inventum vocitent. . . .
Perniciosissima vero haec commenta esse, ex consectariis etiam elucet, quae
ipsi illorum defensores inde deducunt : leges, instituta ac mores quibus connubium regatur, cum sola hominum voluntate sint parta, ei soli subesse,
ideoque pro humano lubitu et humanarum rerum vicissitudinibus condi, im­
mutari, abrogari et posse et debere ; generativam autem vim, quippe quae in
ipsa natura nitatur, et sacratiorem esse et latius patere quam matrimonium;
exercere igitur posse tam extra quam intra connubii claustra, etiam
neglectis matrimonii finibus, quasi scilicet impudicae mulieris licentia eisdem
fere gaudeat iuribus, quibus legitimae uxoris casta maternitas.” (PPt, pp.
15-16.)
2Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1952 (Washington: Govern­
ment Printing Office, 1952), p. 59.

Introduction

xi

tery ; and he who marries a woman who has been put away from
her husband commits adultery.”3*
The divorce problem is only
*one
of the problems that this mod­
ern attitude toward marriage has intensified in the lives jf married
people today. There are several that deserve intense consideration.
These are: infidelity, contraception, and not least of all, abortion.
These problems in some degree have been the scourg£ of man­
kind all throughout its history. As a direct answer to these prob­
lems we wish to point to the use of a virtue which occupies a
position of great prominence in the lives of all men. That virtue
is the virtue of love, and, in this instance, it is specifically conjugal
love. It is this virtue that we will discuss in this thesis. By it we
mean that natural love of husband and wife which is perfected
by the grace of the Sacrament of Matrimony. This grace strength­
ens the indissoluble unity of the marriage state and sanctifies the
spouses? This is the love of which St. Paul spoke when he wrote
to the Ephesians: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also
loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her, that he might
sanctify her, cleansing her in the bath of water by means of the
word.”5
It is our thesis that the primary object of conjugal love is the
mutual sanctification of the spouses. We know that: “Saint Paul,
writing to the Christian converts, addresses them as persons called
to be Saints. It is clear from this mode of address that, in the eyes
of the Apostle, the vocation of every Christian, as such, is that
he be a Saint.”6 Besides what we may speak of as this general call
to sanctification for all Christians, we may also speak of a special
vocation to sanctity. One may be called to a particular state of life,
a particular vocation, where, in a specific way, he will seek out his
’Luke 16:18.
* Canones et Decreta Sacrosancti Oecuntenici Concilii Tridenlini (Ratisbonne: G. J. Manz, 1903), pp. 135-136: “Gratiam vero, quae naturalem illum
amorem perficeret, et indissolubilem unitatem confirmaret, coniugesque
sanctificaret, ispe Christus, venerabilium sacramentorum institutor atque
perfector, sua nobis passione promeruit. . .”
3 Ephesians 5 :25.
0 Leen, Edward, C.S.SP., Progress Through Mental Prayer (New York:
Sheed & Ward, 1940), p. 3.

I'

xii

Introduction

sanctification. It is in this manner that we speak of the priesthood,
wherein one seeks sanctity by being a mediator between God and
men. So also we may speak of marriage as a state in which sanc­
tity can be sought. But we must distinguish this type of sanctity,
because here not one but two lives are concerned. Because of the
closeness of their lives, the intimacy in which husband and wife
must live, we describe their search for sanctity as a seeking after
mutual sanctification. Pope Pius XI, speaking of this, says:
This outward expression of love in the home demands
not only mutual help but must go further ; must have as
its primary purpose (immo hoc in primis intendat) that
■man and wife help each other day by day in forming
and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that
through their partnership in life they may advance ever
more and more in virtue, and above all that they may
grow in true love towards God and their neighbor, on
which indeed “dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets.
. . .” This mutual inward moulding of husband and wife,
this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very
real real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said
to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony. . .7

Through their mutual love the spouses not only try to free their
paths from the inroads of sin, but also in a very positive manner
attempt to progress together on the paths of virtue.
We also wish to show in this thesis the proper position of con­
jugal love as one of the ends of marriage. Our reason for doing
this was the inauguration of a new school of thought among a
number of Catholic writers under the leadership of Dr. Dorns.
’ Pope Pius XI, op. cit., p. 548. “Hoc autem opus in domestica societate
non modo mutuum auxilium complectitur, verum etiam ad hoc extendatur
oportet, immo hoc in primis intendat, ut coniuges inter se iuventur ad inter­
iorem hominem plenius in dies conformandum perficiendumque ; ita ut per
mutuam vitae consortionem in virtutibus magis magisque in dies proficiant,
et praecipue in vera erga Deum proximasque charitate crescant, in qua denique
‘universa Lex pendet et Prophetae. . .
Haec mutua coniugum interior
conformatio, hoc assiduum sese invicem perficiendi studium, verissima quadam
ratione, ut docet Catechismus Romanus, etiam primaria matrimonii causa et
ratio dici potest. .
(PPt, p. 8 (italics mine).)

Introduction

xiii

It may be noted that their tenets run counter to the traditional
teaching of the Church on the ends of marriage, as may be evi­
denced in a statement made'by their leader.

/

■
*

j
1
i'

■

1

.
*

The constitution of marriage, the union of two persons,
does not then consist in their subservience to a purpose
outside themselves, for which they marry. It consists
in the constant vital ordination of husband and wife to
each other until they become one. If this is so, there can
no longer be sufficient reason, from this standpoint, for
speaking of procreation as the primary purpose (in the
sense in which St. Thomas used the phrase) and for di­
viding off the other purposes as secondary.8
These men despite their failings can be said to have rendered an
important service to theology. Though they did overemphasize the
position of conjugal love in marriage, yet, that very overemphasis
served to prod theologians generally into the admission of con­
jugal love to its rightful place in marriage. And, moreover, as
Father Francis Connell has observed especially in regard to Dr.
Doms :
it would be unjust to deny that certain features of his
teaching deserve to be given greater emphasis in our
exposition of the Catholic doctrine of matrimony, par­
ticularly the spirit of generosity that should be fostered
by matrimony, the exalted and unselfish love it should
inspire, the spiritual significance of sexual intercourse
which renders it far more sublime than a biological proc­
ess or a source of sensual gratification.®

It will be the work of this thesis to show that a correct understanding of conjugal love, together with a proper application of its
principles to the problems at hand, will go far to remedy the ail­
ments that afflict marriage. We will consider first the nature of
8 Doms, Dr. Herbert, The Meaning of Marriage. Translated by George
Sayer. (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1939), p. 87.
“Connell, Francis J., C.SS.R., “The Catholic Doctrine on the Ends of
Marriage,” Proceedings of the Foundation Meeting of the Catholic Theo­
logical Society of America (New York City, June 25, 26, 1946), pp. 40-41.

I

I

xiv

Introduction

the love that precedes marriage. We do this in order to avoid
confusing it with that romantic notion of love which is so preva­
lent today, and also to set forth the foundation upon which we
will base the distinction of conjugal love itself. We will point out
that, though one may be, what we describe as, “technically in
love,” still this love must conform to the ideals of the Christian
dispensation, or run the risk of failure. In treating the nature of
conjugal love, we will discuss principally its specific difference
from other types of love, especially pre-marital love. Thence we
proceed with a description of the qualities that go to complete its
development. We will propose as the primary object of conjugal
love the “mutual sanctification” of the spouses, and consider it in
relation to the general and primary purpose of marriage. Finally,
in developing our arguments for the malice of the various evils
that afflict marriage, we will give our attention first to the primary
reasons for their gravity, and then apply secondary reasons de­
duced from the nature of conjugal love. It is our belief that the
utilization of this emotion of love, with the prominence, it holds
in human affairs, will prove singularly effective in helping to
restore marriage to its true Christian signification.

CHAPTER I
t

I

j

I

V

1
*

The Nature

of

Pre-Marital Love

Although it is in the nature of things that marriage should be
the normal vocation of human beings, marriage is not of such a
spontaneous nature in man that it will come to him without his
exercising any efforts to bring it about. Man must act upon the
tendencies that have been placed within him by nature, and which
draw him into association with members of the opposite sex. His
voluntary reactions to these tendencies and to the attractions of
the opposite sex, and of course their consequent effect on him,
will then lead him into marriage.1 Of all the charms and attrac­
tions which nature has implanted in man to lead him thus, the
most prominent, the one impelling most people to the married
state, is that of love. It is of the nature of this love that we shall
speak in this chapter. Before doing this, however, we shall take
a brief glance at God’s plan for marriage.
God, the Supreme End of all mankind, was completely happy
in Himself. He contained all perfections; but it was his wish that
his goodness be extended and manifested to others. To accomplish
this he willed that others should share in his glory. Consequently,
he created the human race and installed Adam as its primogenitor.
And the Lord God said : It is not good for man to be alone ;
let us make him a help like unto himself. . . . And the
Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a
woman : and brought her to Adam. . . . Wherefore a
man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to
his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh. . . .2

Those who were to be partakers of God’s glory were not only
1 For a discussion of the attractions of one sex to the other, cf. infra,
p. 8 f.
"Gen. 2:18, 22, 24.

2

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

going to be created by God, but they themselves were going to
have a participation in that creative work, God was granting to
them a “contributory” partnership ; they were to cooperate with
him in bringing into existence human life like their own.3 “For
He had said to them : Increase and multiply and fill the earth. . . .”4
This, then, was the manner in which God instituted marriage.
Moreover, that the purpose for which it was instituted might be
faithfully accomplished, He further endowed it with two most
important properties, unity and indissolubility. When Christ went
forth to preach his Gospel, he confirmed the Creator’s teaching:
“Have you not read that the Creator, from the beginning, made
them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave
his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall
become one flesh’? What therefore God has joined together, let
not man put asunder.”5 Finally, He gave to it its ultimate com­
pleteness and perfection; He elevated Christian Marriage to the
dignity of a Sacrament.6
The necessity for discussing the nature of pre-marital love is
readily seen from the importance it holds in the preparation for
marriage. The question is frequently asked, “What do people seek
in married life?” To which we would reply, they are seeking
chiefly the unique joy and happiness that can only come from
such an intimately close common-life. But if asked how they are
to attain such, we would reply they are to attain it by following
the attraction of love. Love is the motive impelling and inspiring
them to contract marriage. It is true they may have other reasons
for entering the married state, e.g., their primary desire may be
the desire of children. But ultimately it is love which inspires
them to carry out these ends. “It is love that attracts a young man
and young woman towards each other and that later leads them
3 Mersch, Emile, S.J., Morality and the Mystical Body. Trans, by Daniel
Ryan, SJ. (New York: P. J. Kennedy, 1939), p. 209.
4 Gen. 1:28.
5 Mt. 19:4-6.
“Cappello, Felix M., S.J., Tractatus Canonico-Moralis De Sacramentis
(5th ed., Rome: Marietti, 1947), V, p. 23.

f

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

'*

3

to-blend their lives in marriage.”7 Vermeersch also indicates this
when he says :
That amorous union of two persons, to which love as­
pires, indicates another natural cause, not secondary, for
the contracting of marriage. The definition of Roman
Law by which matrimony is described as: “the joining
of man and woman, retaining an undivided mode of life,”
contains the cause.8

And even more clearly has he stated this in his catechism based
on the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI : “The marriage bond sets up
between the spouses an intimacy which no other surpasses or
even equals ; the marriage would never have been entered upon
without the mutual affection which was necessary for the parties
to give themselves to each other.”9 Finally we have the opinion
of Father Thomas Hanley, who writes : “this happiness (arising
from a common life) is the immediate object which a man and
woman seek for in their union. But though love gives them the
desire for such union, this love is not at all something merely
physical.”10 Love is thus seen as the impulse which draws a man
and woman together to seek happiness. Through love the sexes
are enabled in large measure to discover the hazardous but none
the less joyous trials that accompany the state of marriage. Then
again it is upon this love that specifically conjugal love is based.
One is largely dependent upon the other. Pre-marital love pre­
cedes and lays the foundation ; conjugal love then builds on that
foundation. If the one is strong, then it is a good indication that
7 Marriage-Preparation Course, The Catholic Centre (Ottawa: University
of Ottawa, 1946), p. 47.
8 Vermeersch, A., S.J., Theologia Moralis (3rd. ed., Rome: Pontificia Uni­
versitas Gregoriana, 1944), IV, p. 32. “Simul tamen amorosa ista duarum
personarum confusio, ad quam amor aspirat, indicat aliam causam naturalem,
non secundariam, contrahendi, quam continet definitio îuris romani qua
matrimonium describitur ‘viri et mulieris coniunctio, individuam consuetudi­
nem vitae continens’ ...”
’Vermeersch, A. S.J., What Is Marriage? Trans, by T. L. Bouscaren,
SJ. (New York: The America Press, 1932), q. 51, p. 22.
“Thomas R. Hanley, “Natural Law on Marriage,” TER, 108 (1943),
P- 300.

4

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

the other will be strong too. Love, viewed in this manner, cannot
fail to have an importance and value for marriage.
A true conception of the nature of this love will also provide
those intent on marriage with their best protection against the
dangers of that false “romantic” love so prevalent today. This
notion of love has been broadcast widely through the media of
the screen, the radio and the press. Pope Pius XI in warning of
the evils of the movies also warned us of the evils of this false
“romantic” love. He states :

Everyone knows what damage is done to the soul by bad
motion pictures. They are occasions of sin; they seduce
young people along the ways of sin by glorifying the
passions; they show life under a false light; they cloud
ideals ; they destroy pure love, respect for marriage and
affection for the family.11
This warning applies equally to the press and radio. In glorifying
this love they make it something that it is not. For they substitute
a purely physical attraction in place of a love which should em­
brace both mind and heart. This attraction is but for the moment ;
its perdurance is brief ; and in marriage is soon discovered for its
true worth. It thus becomes one of the greatest causes for un­
happiness, forcing those who have been ensnared by it to seek
refuge in separation and even divorce. If people would only real­
ize the risk entailed in entering a marriage founded upon it, the
institution of marriage would not now be undergoing the travail
to which it is subjected.
Before we enter our discussion on the precise nature of this love,
let us first obtain some clear ideas on the notion of love in general.
To these we will add some few definitions around which our thesis
11 Pope Pius XI, "Vigilanti Cura,” AAS, 28 (1936), 255 f. : “In comperto
cuique est quantopere improbae id genus scaenae in spectatorum animos
influant ; ut cupidinum enim libidinumque laudes efferunt, ita vitiorum
occasionem praebent ; iuvenes a recto itinere transversos agunt ; ducendae
vitae rationem fucata lucis specie proponunt; capessandae perfectionis consilia
infuscant atque debilitant; castum denique amorem, matrimonii sanctitatem
atque intimas domestici convictus necessitudines restinguunt.” (N.C.W.C.
translation, 9 f.)

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

5

revolves. First—the notion of “end” or “finis.” An en3 is a good
to be attained or produced.12 In its technical sense it signifies a
good toward whose attainment an agent or action tends either by
inclination of nature (finis operis) or by his own deliberate will
(finis operantis) ,13 The “finis operis” is divided into primary
and secondary. By primary we mean the end or purpose to which
a person or an object or an institution is primarily inclined in
accordance with the law of nature and the intention of God, If
many ends are assigned to an object by nature, there should be
one “primary” and principal with the ratio of a formal cause, in
which the other ends are contained. Upon this primary end the
other ends have a certain dependence and direction.1415
* On the
other hand, the “secondary” end (or ends) is that end to which
an object is secondarily directed by nature and through the attain­
ment of which is accomplished the better, easier, more secure and
fuller attainment of the “primary” end. Without this end the
“primary” end cannot be perfectly realized ; in fact it is almost
morally impossible of attainment. The “secondary” end also be­
speaks a fundamental subordination ; but it may be thought to have
a certain independence if considered in its actual realization, e.g.,
per accidens, circumstances may be such as to preclude the attain­
ment of the primary end. In this case, since the secondary end is
the effect achieved, it can be said to have a certain independence.
Finally, the finis operantis is that end which the agent himself
assigns to his action. This may or may not correspond with the
end which nature herself assigns to that action.18
Love in general can be defined as “an affective union of the will
12John C. Ford, S.J., “Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes,” ThS, 3
(1942), p. 349.
13 The Sacred Roman Rota, AAS, 36 (1944), 184 f. : “Verbum ‘finis’ in
fontibus allegatis sumitur in sensu technico et significat bonum in quod
obtinendum tenditur, sive ex indole naturae sive ex intentione deliberate
agentis.”
14 Ibid., p. 185. “Unde provenit, quod ubi plures unius eiusdemque societatis
assignantur ‘fines operis,’ ex iis unus debeat esse primus et principalis,
rationem causae formalis habens, in quo alii fines contineantur . . .”
15 Cf. also : Ford, op. cii., 368 f. ; and Merkelbach, B., O.P., Summa
Theologiae Moralis (3rd. ed., Paris: Desclee, 1939), III, p. 755 f.

6

i
I

r

I
ί
I

The Nature of Pre-M arital Love

with a known good/
*
It is a union because true love cannot exist
without some manner of union with its object—affective, because
all love carries with it a certain complacency and delectation of
the soul . . . This love can be divided by reason of its subject
into sensual and spiritual ; by reason of the end to which it is
directed into natural and supernatural ; and by reason of its
formal object into love of concupiscence, love of benevolence, and
love of friendship.10 The union of the sensible appetite with some
sensible good and the complacency of the sensitive appetite in
the good sensibly apprehended is called a sensible or sensitive
love; it is concerned with qualities which are pleasing to the
senses, and which are changeable and of slight importance—r
whence the love thus arising is vain and inconstant.17 In this
thesis this love has a special meaning, so, as Leclercq suggests :
“Let us here restrict physical love to the meaning that it usually
has: the movement of the sex instinct which tends toward selfgratification?’18 Rational (spiritual) love consists in the union
of the will with some intelligible good, and the complacency of
the will in the good apprehended by the intellect. It is based on
moral and intellectual qualities, such as . , . wisdom, knowledge,
prudence, etc., . . . This love is worthy of man since it is founded
on qualities truly human, and is more constant since it is dependent
18 P. Brin, A. Farges, and D. Barbedette, Philosophia Scholastica (68th cd.
Paris: Berche and Pagis, 1937), I, p. 418. “Amor in universum est . . .
unio voluntatis affectiva cum bono cognito.—Dicitur unio, quia verus amor
existere nequit sine quadam unione cum objecto: affectiva vero, quia omnis
amor quamdam animae complacentiam et delectationem importat. . . . Amor
autem in genere dividi potest, ratione subjecti, in sensualem et spiritualem ;
ratione finis, in naturalem et supernaturalem ; ratione tandem objecti formalis,
in amorem concupiscentiae, benevolentiae et amicitiae.”
17 Merkelbach, op. cit., I, p. 649. “Similiter coaptatio appetitus sensitivi
ad aliquod bonum sensibile et complacentia appetitus sensitivi in bono
sensibiliter apprehenso dicitur amor sensibilis seu sensitivus, qui versatur
circa qualitates quae sensibus placent quaeque frivolae sunt et mutabiles,
unde amor qui exinde nascitur est vanus et inconstans.”
18 Leclercq, Jacques, Marriage and the Family. Trans, by Thomas R.
Hanley, O.S.B. (New York: Pustet, 1942), p. 120.

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love
7
*
upon properties that are less changeable and more stable.10 We
say love is the principle of the motion by which one tends toward
the thing loved. In a natural appetite the principle of ^Jiis motion
is the connaturality of the one seeking to that towards which
he tends. This is natural love.30 In the supernatural love of
charity a difficulty arises since the object of this love is God Him­
self, who is loved for his own goodness.21 It would be impossible
for a creature by his own unaided powers to achieve this type of
love because of the disproportion between himself and God. To
remove that disproportion which naturally exists, the creature’s
power to love must be elevated, and is so by a divine influx
whereby the natural potency becomes capable of a supernatural
act.22 Before we proceed further we will divide the objects of this
supernatural love, as the secondary object will have particular
importance in this thesis. The primary material object, of course,
is God and God alone.23 The secondary material object is that
which is loved not for its own sake but because of its relation to
the primary object. But to God, super naturally lovable, are or­
dainable all rational creatures. Thus humans may be loved with
a supernatural love as long as this love retains its ordination to
10 Merkelbach, op. cit., I, p, 649. “Coaptatio voluntatis ad aliquod bonum
intelligibile et complacentia voluntatis in bono intellectu apprehenso dicitur
amor rationalis, qui oritur ex dotibus intellectualibus et moralibus uti . . .
sapientia, scientia, prudentia. . . . Amor iste dignus est hominis utpote quali­
tatibus vere humanis fundatus ; estque magis constans utpote dotibus innixus
quae minus mutabiles sunt et magis stabiles."
20 Ibid., pp. 648-49. “amor dicitur illud quod est principium motus tendentis
in finem amatum: a) In appetitu autem naturali principium huiusmodi motus
est connaturalitas appetentis ad id in quod tendit, quae dici potest amor
naturalis . .
a Ibid., p. 677. “Obiectum materiale principale charitatis est ipse Deus
finis supernaturalis qui per se propter bonitatem propriam amatur , .
22Hervé, J. M., Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae (Paris: Berche et Pagis,
1929), III, p. 120. “Juxta omnes supernaturalitas actuum provenit ex prin­
cipio eorum elicitivo, nempe ex divino influxu quo elevatur et completur
potentia naturalis in ratione principii activi actus supernaturalis.”
23 Ibid., p. 349. ‘Objectum materiale primarium . . . est Deus et Deus
tantum.”

8

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

God.34 Finally, to sum up the differences between natural and su­
pernatural love, we refer back to St. Thomas, who says : "God, in
so far as he is the general good from whom all natural good de­
pends, is loved with a natural love by everyone; in so far, how­
ever, as He is the good who makes all happy in supernatural bliss,
he is loved with the love of charity.”25 Viewing the formal ob­
ject of love, we find that the love of concupiscence is a love
whereby we love something because of the good, the advantages,
and the usefulness it brings to us. In the love of benevolence we
love someone or something because of the good in him or it.
Lastly, through the love of friendship we love a friend not only
for the good in him, but also because He returns the love we have
given him.28
God has placed in the two sexes a mutual attraction whereby
they will be drawn to each other, and ultimately prompt them to
assume the duties and the responsibilities imposed upon those
united in the bond of marriage. Sacred Scripture tells us: "The
sons of God seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took
to themselves, wives of all which they chose.”21 And again it re­
counts: "And Jacob being in love with her said: I will serve thee
seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.”28 Treating of
M Ibid., ‘Objectum materiale secundarium char itatis, illud est quod non
ratione sui sed ratione objecti primarii et per ordinem ad illud diligitur.
Atqui ad Deum, supernaturaliter amabilem et amandum, ordinabiles sunt
omnes creaturae rationales, quae vel actu vel potentia participant divinam
beatitudinem. Ergo omnes creaturae rationales (praeter damnatos) diligendae
sunt amore caritatis.”
® St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 60, a. 5, ad 4. “Ad quartum
dicendum, quod Deus, secundum quod est universale bonum, a quo dependet
omne bonum naturale, diligitur naturali dilectione ab unoquoque. Inquantum
vero est bonum beatificans universaliter omnes supernatural! beatitudine, sic
diligitur dilectione charitatis.”
“ Brin, Farges and Barbedette, op. cit., p. 418. “Amor concupiscentiae dici­
tur ille quo appetitus bonum, quatenus est bonum nostrum. . . Per amorem
benevolentiae, bonum amamus quatenus in se bonum et amabile. . . In
amore tandem amicitiae, diligimus amicum, non solum ut bonum in se,
verum etiam quia nos amantes redamat.”
27 Gen. 6:2.
“Gen. 29:18.

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

9

this Father Gerald Kelly, S.J., remarks; “As a member of a
definite sex, each has a natural God-given attraction towards
the other sex which is quite different from the attraction that
we normally experience towards the members of our own sex.”20
Father Kelly classifies this attraction inherent in the members
of each sex as general sex attraction: “(it) may he defined
negatively by stating that it is not directed towards any purely
physical satisfaction and is not centered exclusively on an indi­
vidual. It consists mainly in a somewhat intriguing interest in
the members of the other sex and a peculiar responsiveness to
their distinctive qualities.”30 The reason for this attraction lies
in the differences that exist between the sexes. Each has some­
thing that he can give the other ; each lacks something that he
will find in the other. As Father Kelly points out: “Men for in­
stance are especially attracted by the grace, the emotional sus­
ceptibility, the beauty, the tenderness of women. Women are at­
tracted by the strength, the courage, the energy, the calm delibera­
tion of men.”31 Father Bakcwell Morrison, S.J., in treating of
these distinguishing characteristics attributes them to a difference
in their physical constitution as given them by nature herself :
There is a physiological foundation for the differences
in feeling between boy and girl. Nature has given them a
different make-up and with it a different degree of sus­
ceptibility. It is commonly said that the woman is more
soul than the man, that in woman love will begin in the
soul and will descend by its own steps to the body while
in man it begins rather in the body and makes its way
to the soul,82

Because of these qualities and distinguishing features we say
that/the sexes are mutually complementary. It is in this “mutual
complementariness” that one feels the need of the other; and28
28 Kelly, Gerald, S.J., Modern Youth and Chastity (St. Louis: The
Queen’s Work, 1943), p. 13.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid.
88Morrison, Bakewell, S.J., Character Formation in College (Milwaukee:
Bruce, 1938), p. 128.

10

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

from this general need will arise a particular attachment. From
such an attraction, small though it may be in the beginning, but
fostered and nourished, come the associations that culminate in
love and marriage. Thus we can see a picture of the general means
that God has provided for attracting men and women to each
other. They are a universal endowment to the human race, even
to the celibate who will never use them for the purpose for which
they were primarily intended.
From this general attraction of the sexes, which as it were sets
the stage, is begun the attraction of a particular person of one sex
for an individual of the other. We speak here of the immediate
and specific qualities leading to marriage. When this takes place,
we can recognize the beginning of the emotional state of love,
which is the predecessor of marriage. It serves a very particular
purpose in ascertaining the suitability of the parties to each other.
Upon its strength will depend to a great extent the possi­
bility of reconciling those differences, however small, which are
found in the character of every man and woman. For if true
love is to exist, it must be strong enough to compensate for the
faults they will find in each other. In treating the nature of this
love, it must be noted that we are speaking of it as it happens to
two ordinary people. We are not, as yet, concerned as to whether
they are proper and fit subjects of love, or whether their love has
received its proper direction in accordance with the decrees of
God. But we are concerned about its nature and characteristics.
One of the simplest, yet one of the best treatments we have seen
of this subject, is the one by Father Kelly, from which we have
previously quoted. He describes it thus:
Personal sex attraction has this in common with all
friendship that it is an attraction to a person, a definite
person, and not a mere general interest or a physical at­
traction to the body. . . Perhaps the most distinctive
characteristic of personal sex attraction is its exclusive­
ness. A person thus attracted wants complete possession
of the beloved. The mere presence of a third party is
resented. . . . Definitely, it is an emotional fascination ....
it is generally found that the attachment is based on
one or more of the characteristics that attract one sex

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

11

to the other, only now these attractions have suddenly
acquired a sort of personification in this one wonderful
boy or' girl, as the case may be. Absence, e\Vn for a
short period, is hard on this exclusive love. It creates an
absorbing feeling of dissatisfaction, a yearning for the
other’s presence. ... If personal sex attraction is mutual,
then the natural result of its absorbing exclusiveness and
intensity is a complete mutual assimilation of interests in
the two parties . . . this type of mutual attraction locks
the hearts together . . . each craves a complete oneness
with the other ; they want to blend and share their entire
lives. What a perfect psychological inducement to mar­
riage I38

This, then, is the nature of this love. A notable distinguishing
mark is its exclusiveness. It is directed toward a certain definite
person. Nothing too much nor too good can be done for the other.
Each strives with heart and mind to please. They are united heart
and soul, in much the same manner as two endowed with con­
jugal love. Although this love partakes somewhat of the spiritual
character of conjugal love, in no way does it give the right to
partake of the physical qualities of this love. And for this very
good reason as evidenced by Father A. Vermeersch, S.J,,: “There
is no surrender of bodily rights made in betrothals ; these prepare
for marriage solely through a union of souls. Although they may
permit a certain venereal pleasure, the engaged couple cannot
deliberately seek it or consent to it.”84 This does not mean that
things of a sensible nature, such as kisses moderately performed,
may not be a part of this love. They are, even as Vermeersch again
tells us:

Honorable manifestations of love in accordance with
custom are lawful between the engaged, e.g., kisses mod­
erately performed. And too the sensible but not physical
pleasure which normally accompanies this manifestation
“ Kelly, op. cit., pp. 18-20.
“Vermeersch, A., S.J., Theologia Moralis, IV, p. 16. “Sed' quia nulla
corporum traditio sponsalibus facta est, et sponsalia per solam animarum
unionem praeparant matrimonium, delectationem veneream permittere quidem
possunt, non autem deliberate quaerere vel admittere.”

12

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love
of love is permitted. For it is an altogether praiseworthy
end to nourish and foster that love which leads to mar­
riage.35

However, remembering the distinction that Vermeersch makes
between sensible and carnal delectation, and also the restriction
made by Leclercq,36 we wish to point out that we do not consider
these manifestations as strictly physical love, at least in the sense
in which that type of love is used in this thesis. Again, we don’t
wish to exclude in this love a certain physical attraction that
usually accompanies it, i.e., the quality of physical beauty which
exerts a certain attraction serving to draw the sexes together. In
conclusion, we may say that this love is essentially a union of mind
and heart which tends toward exclusiveness. It is physical only
in the sense that it may be said to cause a slight sensible delecta­
tion in those who partake of it.
In view of what we have already stated concerning the nature
of this love, we may now say that this love has no other purpose but
to lead people to marriage. Pursuant to this, Father Kelly declares :
No two people can cultivate a companionship like this and
assure themselves that they will not want to get married.
Countless others have tried that and failed. As a matter
of fact, if this attraction is not intended to lead to mar­
riage, why should it have the effect of so completely
locking the heart of one person to the exclusion of others ?
Marriage is the only state of life that requires such a
loveN

This love then serves the purpose of immediately attracting two
people to the state of marriage. It is the special plan that God has
provided for marriage. It is for this reason that this man will
choose this woman ; this individual will select that individual and
Ibid., “Omnino licitae sunt inter sponsos honestae amoris significationes
secundum morem patriae, puta oscula, moderate adhibitae. Nec repudianda
est delectatio sensibilis, non carnalis, quae huiusmodi demonstrationem com­
itatur. Honestus enim est finis conciliandi et fovendi mutuum amorem in
ordine ad matrimonium. . .”
38 Leclercq, op. cit., p. 120.
37 Kelly, op. cit., p. 20. (Italics mine.)

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

13

so on. However, we do not mean to infer that/this will happen
always and inevitably. Frequently the expected marriage will not
take place. But, in the ordinary course of events, love will take its
natural course by resulting in marriage.
In continuing our treatment of this subject, it will be necessary
to change our manner of approach somewhat. This stems from
the fact that we must not only know what love is but also what
safeguards should surround it. These will center their attention
chiefly on the direction this love should take, because certain per­
sons are rendered ineligible as objects of love, while others,
through their inability to meet the required standards, are deemed
unworthy associates in the task of love. Our late Holy Father,
Pope Pius XI, as he approached the end of his celebrated Ency­
clical on Christian Marriage, “Casti Connubii,” paused to state
that the success of his teaching on marriage, “depend(s) in large
measure on the due preparation, remote and proximate, of the
parties for marriage.”38 He, therefore, admonished those selfsame
parties :

Let then, those who are about to enter on married life,
approach that state well disposed and well prepared,
so that they will be able, as far as they can, to help each
other in sustaining the vicissitudes of life, and yet more
in attending to their eternal salvation and in forming the
inner man unto the fullness of the age of Christ.39
He thus points out a most important lesson for those who are
about to enter marriage ; he holds out a norm by which one can
judge whether he himself is fit to enter the married state, and
whether the one to whom he has directed his attentions is a worthy
choice. This norm is “Shall we be able to help each other to attain
38 Pope Pius XI, “Casti Connubii,” AAS, 22 (1930), 584 f. : “magnam
partem a debita coniugum pendent tam remota quam proxima ad matrimonium
praeparatione.” (PPt, p. 37.)
30 Ibid., 585 f. : “Bene igitur animati paratique, sponsi ad statum coniugii
in eundem accedant, ut possint ea qua par est ope se mutuo iuvare in
adversis vitae vicibus subeundis, multoque magis in aeterna salute procuranda
et in interiore homine ad plentitudinem aetatis Christi (Eph. 4:13) con­
formando. .
(PPt, p. 37.)

14

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

our eternal salvation in this state?” The measure of success one
attains in living up to this norm, the answer to the question it
asks, are dependent to a great extent on the amount of energy one
expends in preparation for it. The Pope speaks first of the proxi­
mate preparation for marriage. He says :
To the proximate preparation of a good married life
belongs very specially the care in choosing a partner ; on
that depends a great deal whether the forthcoming mar­
riage will be happy or not, since one may be to the other
either a great help in leading a Christian life, or a great
danger and hindrance. And so that they may not deplore
for the rest of their lives the sorrows arising from an in­
discreet marriage, those about to enter wedlock should
carefully deliberate in choosing the person with whom
henceforward they must live continually ; they should,
in so deliberating, keep before their minds the thought
first of God and of the true religion of Christ, then of
themselves, of their partner. . .40

The thought of God is to be foremost in their considerations. It
should be their desire not only to ascertain their mutual love, but
also to discover if this love will lead them to God. God, the Source
of all love, must be one’s first choice in the things that appertain
to love. For love, to be true love, must always be directed towards
God. As St. Augustine says: “We cannot love one another with
true love, unless in turn we love God. For each one will love his
neighbor as himself, if he loves God.”41 Thus to direct love to a
*° Ibid., 586 f. : “ad proximam vero boni matrimonii praeparationem maximopere pertinet eligendi coniugis studium ; nam plurimum inde pendet utrum
matrimonium felix futurum sit necne, cum alter coniux alteri aut magno
adiutorio ad vitam Christiano modo in coniugio ducendam, aut magno periculo
atque impedimento esse queat. Ne ergo inconsultae electionis poenas per totam
vitam luere debeant, maturam sponsi deliberationem instituant antequam
personam seligant, quacum deinde perpetuo sibi degendum erit ; in hac vero
deliberatione in primis rationem habeant Dei veraeque Christi religionis,
deinde sui ipsius, alterius sponsi. . .” (PPt, p. 38.)
“ St. Augustine, Tractatus LXXXVII in Joannis Evangelium, Cap. 15:1719 P.L. 35, 1852) : Neque enim vera dilectione diligeremus invicem, nisi
diligentis Deum. Diligit enim unusquisque proximum suum tamquam seipsum,
si diligit Deum.

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

15

person, or to a thing, without at the same time directing it to God,
would be a contradiction.

God willed all things, and particularly the intelligent
creature man, for no other end than that they might par­
take of His glory and His beatitude. That is as much to
say that all created activity is essentially and necessarily
referred to God as to its end. A thing that is made for
God, by the mere fact that it acts, tends of its own spon­
taneity to God in virtue of a law written in the substance
of its very being.42
Therefore, if love is not directed to God, or deflects a person
from him, it cannot be said to be true. One great example of an
untrue love in modern times is the love professed by a Catholic
for one who is divorced. An investigation has shown that a mar­
riage cannot take place. When the answer has been carried to
the interested parties, frequently the reply is : “But we love each
other, and since we are meant for each other, we know that God
would want this marriage to go through,” Obviously this is not
God’s wish, since such a marriage comes into conflict with one of
God’s laws : “He who marries a woman who has been put away
from her husband commits adultery.”43 Since laws are the expres­
sion of the will of the lawmaker, it must be God’s will that there
be no marriage between the two people concerned. Therefore,
the love that they perforce express for one another cannot be a
true love.
If the two prospective partners wish to assure themselves of
this direction to God, it would be well for them to keep in mind
that which we have proposed as the object of conjugal love, i.e.,
the mutual sanctification of the spouses. It should be one of their
chief considerations when making their choice. Was not this the
mind of the Holy Father when he advised those about to enter
the married state to attend more to their eternal salvation by form­
ing the inner man unto the fulness of the age of Christ? Cath42 Gilson, Etienne, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy. Trans, by A. H.
C. Downes (New York: Scribner’s, 1940), p. 273. (Italics mine.)
43 Luke 16:18.

16

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

olics, jealous of their heritage, striving to gain some measure 01
success and happiness in this world, cannot but heed this salu­
tary advice.
Besides this direction of their lives to God, the Holy Father
advises them in the choice of a marriage partner to consider the
true religion of Christ. No doubt he was referring to the neces­
sity of choosing someone of the same religious beliefs and ideals,
i.e., a Catholic. This advice cannot be taken lightly in view of the
Church’s prohibition of mixed marriages. This is a grave prohi­
bition : “The Church most solemnly and everywhere forbids mar­
riages between Catholics and persons in heretical or schismatic
sects. If there is danger of perversion for the Catholic party and
the offspring, such marriages are also forbidden by the divine
law.”44 This logically leads to the question of the moral fitness of
the actions of Catholics who are keeping company with non­
Catholics, The question is well-asked ; “Is it correct to assert that
a Catholic girl is guilty of grave sin if she begins to keep com­
pany with a non-Catholic, cherishing the hope that one day she
will marry him?”45 Summing up the answer we find that: “com­
pany-keeping with a view to marriage is gravely sinful unless it
can be foreseen, at least with solid probability, that when the time
of the marriage comes there will be a sufficient reason to justify
the Catholic in taking the non-Catholic as his or her partner for
life.”46*48Therefore, those persons are guilty of grave sin unless
they can foresee that reasons sufficient to allow the marriage to
take place will be present. As Father F. Ter Haar expresses it:
“With regard to the obligation of the penitent in this matter, it
is certainly a grievous sin to begin company-keeping with a view
to a future marriage with a non-Catholic if the Catholic has no
weighty reason for it, and the only motive is a blind love and a
44 Codex Iuris Canonici, Canon 1060 : “Severissime Ecclesia ubique prohibet
ne matrimonium ineatur inter duas personas baptizatas, quarum altera sit
catholica, altera vero sectae haereticae seu schismaticae adscripta ; quod si
adsit perversionis periculum coniugis catholici et prolis, coniugium ipsa etiam
lege divina vetatur,”
4B Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., “The Problem of Mixed Marriages,”
TAER, 115 (1946), p. 386.
48 Ibid.

The Nature ef Pre-Marital Nbve

17

strong mutual affection/'47. The reasons must be grave. What
may,be a grave reason? Father Connell proposes a case where
such a grave reason would exist, he., where such a marriage offers
a widow the only means of keeping her children with her and
rearing them as Catholics.48 Another reason, one more commonly
proposed, is the well-founded hope that the non-Catholic party
will be converted. Having foreseen this with some probability,
the Catholic is allowed per se to keep company with the non­
Catholic. But how often is this condition actually borne out at
the time the company-keeping starts? Rather it would seem that
the well-founded hope, if it would arise at all, would arise late
in courtship, when the example of the Catholic has had sufficient
time to take its effect. So rarely will a Catholic be able to take
advantage of this condition. It is important to note that the Church
may have a sufficient reason for granting a dispensation, which
does not constitute a sufficient reason for the Catholic party to
contract the marriage. Such, for example, is the reason (so often
alleged in petitions for a dispensation), “danger of a civil mar­
riage” or “danger of apostasy.”40 Thus it would not be permitted
a Catholic to keep company with a non-Catholic, if in so doing he
would place himself in the position where he would say: “I am
going to take a chance on arriving at a state of mind (or heart)
where I shall leave the Church if what I want to do is not allowed
me.”50 For such an attitude would be gravely sinful.
Several minor causes are also advanced to justify company­
keeping. Among these the one most often advanced is the lack of
sufficient Catholics who would qualify as prospective mates. In
seeking to determine if this could be classified as a valid and suf­
ficiently grave reason for company-keeping, our only hope is re­
course to the Church herself. Our precedent is the canonical causes
which the Church advances as reasons for granting dispensations.
47 Ter Haar, Francis, C.SS.R., Mixed Marriages and Their Remedies.
Trans, by A. Walter, C.SS.R.; ed. by F. J. Connell, C.SS.R.; (New York:
Pustet, 1933), p. 129.
4S Connell, op cit., p. 387.
48 Ibid.
®° Ernest F. Miller, C.SS.R., “Mixed Company Keeping,” HPR, 41 (1941),
p. 1075.

18

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

We can note these pertinent statements of Father Joseph A.
Quigley :

The following Canonical Causes are of a private nature
which affect the good of individuals, and they, therefore,
do not suffice of themselves for dispensations from
Mixed Religion and Disparity of Cult. . . . They are
nevertheless placed here under the general heading of
primary causes because they can be grave reasons for
some dispensations.6162
*
Among these causes he then lists the one of which we are speak­
ing, Angustia Loci. Basing our judgment upon this statement, it
is our opinion that mixed company-keeping would have to be
forbidden if lack of sufficient Catholics is the only reason that can
be alleged for carrying it on. However, if circumstances or other
reasons would combine with it to render it sufficiently grave, the
practice may be permitted.
It is interesting to note, in connection with what we have said
above, the statement of Father Miller that: “The Church does
not consider ‘love’ a grave and sufficient reason for granting a
dispensation. ‘Love’ then cannot be considered a grave and suf­
ficient reason in itself for continuing the courtship.”52 The foun­
dation on which he bases his stand is the fact that “love as a mere
physical attraction is too unstable a foundation on which to build
such a home as Christ intended.”53 We may notice that here he
limits love to the meaning of mere physical attraction. It is in
this sense that Ter Haar also rejects love as a reason for granting
a dispensation : “Still less could one regard as a sufficient reason :
that blind, passionate love, with which two persons are inordi­
nately fond of each other, that type of affection that is uncon­
trolled by faith and reason, and gives no guarantee for its future
stability.”64 However, it may be said that even true love, one in
61 Quigley, Joseph A., Matrimonial Impediments and Dispensations (2nd
ed. Philadelphia: The Dolphin Press, 1942), pp, 11-12.
62 Miller, op. cit., p. 1076.
“ Ibid., p. 1077.
64 Ter Haar, op. cit., p. 65.

The Nature o^Pre-Marital Lovç

19

which the spiritual qualities predominate, has a certain instability
about it, which could cause it to be rejected as a sufficient reason
of itself for the granting of a dispensation. Father Ivo Zeiger, S.J.,
pointed this out only too clearly when he declared that the es­
sence of marriage is not to be placed in conjugal love alone;
Thence it is clear that the essence of marriage is not
to be placed in conjugal love alone, but there is required
over and above another element, a certain guard of fluc­
tuating affection, firm and stable, independent of the
wavering movement of the senses, by which the giving of
the spouses may be estabished and strengthened. It is,
namely, the juridical, matrimonial bond.65

Finally, it must be pointed out in this instance that this love,
though strengthened by the bond of marriage, will not have the
total stability of which it is capable. For it will not be strength­
ened by a bond which will produce its effects at full capacity due
to the presence of the non-Catholic party.
A final consideration on this point for the Catholic would be
the prospective losses to which he would be exposing himself in
marrying a non-Catholic. These are losses in the supernatural
order. For the Catholic these should evoke special consideration
since the object of Christian conjugal love is the sanctification of
one’s partner. Apropos of this Vermeersch warns of the dangers
of this type of marriage because of “the greater difficulty of ful­
filling the task of mutual sanctification. . ,”50 There would also
be the loss of a great number of graces. If the non-Catholic
chanced to be unbaptized, there would be the loss, first of all, of
those graces usually attached to a sacramental marriage. This55
55 Ivo Zeiger, S.J., “Nova Definitio Matrimonii," Periodica De Re Morali,
Canonica, Liturgica, 20 (1931), p, 45*: “Inde patet essentiam matrimonii
reponendam non esse in solo amore coniugali, sed requiri aliud insuper ele­
mentum, praesidium quoddam fluctuantis affectus, firmum et stabile, a labili
sensuum motu independens, quo traditio coniugum roboretur atque con­
firmetur, Quod est vinculum iuridicum matrimoniale"; cf. also: Farrell,
Walter, O.P., J Companion to the Summa (New York: Sheed & Ward,
1945), IV, p. 397.
“ Vermeersch, M'hat Is Marriage? p, 63.

20

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

would mean not only a loss of sacramental grace, but also a loss
of those graces given in sacramental matrimony in view of the par­
ticular difficulties attached to marriage.57 Secondly, there would be
the loss of those actual graces given especially for the fulfillment k
of the marital duties, but given only at the specific request of the
spouses.58 Even if the non-Catholic were baptized, undoubtedly
there would still be the loss of a great number of graces due to
the fact that opportunities of this kind will not be seized as quickly
or as readily as when one has a Catholic for a spouse. There will
be other losses besides the losses in the spiritual order. For ex­
ample, there will be wanting that harmony which is attainable in
a much greater degree in a strictly Catholic marriage. As Pope
Pius XI warned: “Where there exists diversity of mind, truth
and feeling, the bond of union of mind and heart is wont to be
broken, or at least weakened. From this comes the danger lest the
love of man and wife grow cold and the peace and happiness of
family life, resting as it does on the union of hearts be destroyed.”39
And as Ter Haar even more emphatically points out: “Now this
intimate union and harmony of souls, which is necessary in the
daily intercourse of life, is greatly impaired and in fact can hardly
exist, especially between Christians, unless they are united by the
bond of the same religion.”60 Vermeersch commenting upon this
problem adds : “For the parties themselves, a less complete accord
of thought, sentiment and action, flowing from the fundamental
disagreement on the question of religion.”61 So from all sides we
see the Church warning Catholics away from such marriages, and
the conditions that lead to them. Her view of company-keeping67
68
67 Martindale, C. C., S.J., Wedlock (London: Sheed & Ward, 1937), pp.
39-40.
68 Vermeersch, What Is Marriage? p. 29.
6BPope Pius XI, “Casti Connubii,” AAS, 22 (1930), 571 f.: “Nam distrahi
solet aut saltem relaxari animorum vinculum, ubi in rebus ultimis et suminis,
quas homo veneratur, idest in religionis veritatibus et sensibus, dissimilitudo
mentium habetur et voluntatum intercedit diversitas. Ex quo periculum est,
ne langueat inter coniuges caritas, itemque labefactetur domesticae societatis
pax et felicitas, quae ex cordium potissimum unitate proficiscitur.”
60 Ter Haar, op. cit., p. 14.
81 Vermeersch, What Is Marriage? p. 63.

The Nature of Pre-Marital Lovfr

21

is that of tolerance under certain stipulations—prohibition if these
stipulations are not met. It is true that if we view the situation
as it stands, there is a widespread disregard of the Church’s atti­
tude toward mixed company-keeping. This is due not so much to
the disobedience of her subjects, as to their ignorance of her
teachings. This, of course, prevents many courtships, objectively
sinful, from becoming subjectively so. Only when definite meas­
ures are taken to instruct Catholics on the stand they should take
toward this type of friendship, will this ignorance be wiped out.
Perhaps then will mixed marriages, the source of so many defec­
tions from the faith, cease from exacting their heavy toll.
Next to the thought of God and religion in the choice of a part­
ner comes the consideration of the partner. Undoubtedly the
quality which should most influence the selection of one over an­
other should be the moral worth of that person. As a matter of
fact this is proven in practice. Tabulation of the results of a test
in which a group of collegians were asked to rate the qualifications
expected in the one they hoped to marry showed that the men
ranked this qualification first, while the women ranked it second.02
Father H. Noldin, S.J., also points this out when he considers
the reasons underlying the necessity of an engagement period. He
says that this is necessary “in order that each might test the char­
acter and the disposition of the other . . . and if it is shown that
the marriage would result in unhappiness, this would be a suf­
ficient reason for the termination of the engagement.”03 The
determination of moral worth for the most part resolves itself
into a question of chastity. The more deeply such a virtue is em'bedded in a person, the more highly qualified he may be said to
be in so far as true moral worth is concerned. Even such an au­
thority as Alexis Carrel declares : “Before marriage, the ideal
82 Cooper, John M., Religion Outlines For Colleges (2nd ed., rev. Wash­
ington, D. C. : The Catholic Education Press, 1941), IV, pp. 94-96.
83 H. Noldin, S.J., and A. Schmitt, S.J., Summa Theologiae Moralis (26th
ed. Ratisbon : Rauch, 1940), III, p. 533. “(Rationes, ob quas matrimonio
praemitti soleant sponsalia, sunt) ut alter indolem et mores alterius interim
experiatur ... et si inde constaret matrimonium infelicem exitum habiturum
esse, haec praevisio sufficiens ratio esset recedendi a sponsalibus. . .”

22

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

state is chastity. Chastity requires early moral training. It is the
highest expression of self-discipline. Voluntary restraint from
the sex act during youth, more than any other moral and phys­
ical effort, enhances the quality of life.”®4 If chastity is maintained
in such a close association as courtship by its very nature implies,
it not only indicates the true moral fibre of the parties concerned,
but also it points to what their conduct in marriage will be, and,
of course, the resulting happiness that may be expected. Un­
chastity on the part of one, however, lowers the esteem in which
he has been held, and very often leads to his rejection as a suit­
able marriage partner. And, too, as Vermeersch states, it not only
renders present constancy unstable, but also endangers future
felicity and happiness.65 Pope Pius XI remarks : “There is
danger that those who before marriage sought in all things what
is theirs, who indulged even their impure desires, will be in the
married state what they were before, they will reap that which
they have sown.”6® Leclercq reaffirms this when he declares : “How
many marriages are not, as it were, doomed in advance because
the partners, in most cases the husband, have lost their power of
enthusiasm in the quest of pleasure prior to marriage.”®* Inas­
much, therefore, as one’s own happiness in marriage will depend
in large measure on the choice of a satisfactory partner, that
choice should be made to depend largely upon the ability of the
prospective partner to measure up to the standards required of a
good moral character.
Again, in the selection of a partner, those preparing for mar­
riage ought to be warned of the fallacy and danger that lies in
basing their choice on the purely physical charms of their in­
tended spouses. Such a quality is deceiving, and not at all,
“ Alexis Carrel, "Married Love,” The Reader's Digest, 35, No. 207 (1939),
p. 13.
“Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis, IV, p. 17.
“Pope Pius XI, “Casti Connubii,” AAS, 22 (1930), 584 f.: "Nam qui
ante in omnibus seipsos et sua quaesiere, qui suis cupiditatibus indulgebant,
timendum est, ne iîdem in matrimonio taies iuturi sint quales ante matri­
monium fuerint ; item id tandem metere debeant quod seminaverint. . .”
(PPt, p. 37.)
” Leclercq, op. cit., p. 103.

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

23

as some seem to think, an infallible indication of a noble char­
acter. As we have seen previously, “it is concerned with qualities
which are pleasing to the senses, and which are changeable and
of slight importance—whence the love thus arising is vain and
inconstant.”88 To base it on this quality alone is to foredoom
marriage to failure. This is the opinion of Dr. Verner Moore.
After a series of studies made upon this quality, he came to the
conclusion that :
There is a tendency for sexual charm to lead the human
mind to a belief in the value of the personality that ex­
erts the charm. Hence the danger of precipitous mar­
riage based on love at first sight. Mental hygiene points
to the importance of a deep knowledge of the personality
before marriage is seriously contemplated.88

In confirmation of this fact we have but to look and see about
us the emphasis that the world attaches to sex. Then, in turn,
we should consider the number of divorces that are granted in
this country. A great many of them are due to the fact that a
partner was chosen purely on the basis of physical attraction. The
remedy is entrance into marriage on a sound basis. This requires
a love on the part of the man and woman that will embrace their
spiritual as well as their physical qualities. After all they are
human beings endowed with the faculties of intellect and will.
Confronted with a choice upon which will depend much of their
temporal and spiritual happiness, it should become evident to
them not only what use they should make of these faculties in
preparing their selection, but also what importance they should
attach to the presence of these qualities in the partner whom they
are selecting.
Lastly, Pope Pius XI speaks of the remote preparation for
marriage. To this preparation belongs the period of childhood
and adolescence. “For it cannot be denied that the basis of a
happy wedlock, and the ruin of an unhappy one, are prepared and
Supra, p. 6.
* Moore, Thomas V., O.S.B., Personal Mental Hygiene (New York:
Grune & Stratton, 1944), p, 137.

24

The Nature of Pre~Marital Love

set in the souls of boys and girls during the period of childhood
and adolescence/’™ Even in such a far-off period as childhood,
the boy and girl are preparing for marriage, remote though that
preparation may be. For during this period childish whims are
overcome, and the child learns the necessity of obedience. His
actions, trifling as they are, are being carefully directed- Slowly
that will-power is born which is to be the backbone of a young
man’s or young woman’s character. The Holy Father when speak­
ing of this sees fit to recall certain remarks which he had pre­
viously made in his encyclical on Education :

The inclinations of the will, if they are bad, must be re­
pressed from childhood, but such as are good must be
fostered, and the mind, particularly of children, should
be imbued with doctrines which begin with God, while
the heart should be strengthened with the aids of divine
grace, in absence of which, no one can curb evil desires,
nor can his discipline and formation be brought to
complete perfection by the Church.70
71
E. R. Moore, dwelling on much the same thoughts but applying
them to a more advanced period of life, states;

If from childhood the two who are now husband and
wife have accustomed themselves to order their lives
according to fixed and definite standards of right and
wrong, then self-control is already a habit. If they have
always endeavored—though perhaps, indeed, not always
successfully—to do right and avoid wrong, even in the
little things of life, when they come to the big things they
70 Pope Pius XI, “Casti Connubit," AAS, 22 (1930), 584 f. ; “Illud enim
negari non potest, felicis coniugii firmum fundamentum, et infelicis ruinam,
iam pueritiae et iuventutis tempore puerorum puellarumque animis instrui ac
poni.” (PPt, p. 37.)
71 Ibid-, 585 f. : “A pueritia igitur voluntatis inclinationes, si pravae, co­
hibendae, sin autem bonae, promovendae sunt, ac praesertim puerorum mens
imbuatur doctrinis a Deo profectis et animus divinae gratiae auxiliis roboretur
oportet, quae si defuerint, nec suis quisque moderari cupiditatibus poterit
neque ad absolutionem perfectionemque disciplina atque informatio ab Ec­
clesia adduci (Litt. Encyc. Divini Illius Magistri, 31 Dec. 1929)/'

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

25

will be prepared. . . Mastery over self is not readily
won, it is a life-work.72*
Childhood is thus a preparation also. If good habits are formed
during that period, and then are carried into the period of adoles­
cence and beyond, they constitute a certain bulwark for the pro­
tection and success of marriage. We have already seen somewhat
the necessity of chastity prior to marriage. But that takes its be­
ginnings from the child’s earliest days when he is taught the first
rudiments of modesty and purity. Father Edgar Schmiedler,
O.S.B,. declares :
From earliest years children are prepared for the faith­
ful observance of this law. They are consistently taught
that any deliberate violation of the virtue of chastity
in thought, word and deed is seriously wrong. . . The
powerful instinct itself is curbed and given no oppor­
tunity to get the upper hand over the higher and more
spiritual side of life. . . Thus the individual is pre­
pared for the period of storm and stress that normally
comes with the emergence of manhood and womanhood
at adolescence, as well as for the normal hazards of
courtship.74
Childhood thus assumes an important role in marriage, but a
role which may be easily overlooked. It is only when one is forced
to seek out the reasons for success in marriage that the prominence
that childhood plays is brought to light. It is then revealed as the
basis for the spirit of chastity that is so vital if such success is to
be achieved.
In concluding this chapter we cannot but stress the need for
heeding the words of the Holy Father on the great necessity of
preparation for marriage. It imposes on those who would embark
upon such a task a grave responsibility. Leclercq states that: “he
who marries thoughtlessly runs the great risk of founding a home
nMoore, Edward R., The Case Against Birth Control (New York: Ap­
pleton-Century, 1931), p. 314.
M Schmiedler, Edgar, O S.B., An Introductory Study of the Family (New
York : Century, 1930, p. 314.

26

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

that will turn out to be a failure, and he is guilty of an imprudent
act which may, unless it be justified on other grounds, amount to
a grave sin.”74*We are primarily inclined to adopt the views of
this author because of the attention which Pope Pius XI devoted
to this subject in his Encyclical. We think it a wise choice in view
of the failure of numerous wartime marriages—marriages which
failed because they were entered without sufficient knowledge
or thought of the duties of this noble state of life. Our present
Pontiff, Pope Pius XII, in an allocution addressed to a Women’s
Catholic Action Group, alluded to this problem. He lamented the
fact that so many young men and young women rushed into mar­
riage without a thought of preparation for their task as educators.
It seems to us that it would not be inappropriate to extend this
idea to the whole field of preparation for marriage. Thus he
declares :
It is a curious circumstance and, as Pope Pius XI re­
marked in his Encyclical, a lamentable one, that whereas
no one would dream of suddenly becoming a mechanic
or an engineer, a doctor or a lawyer, without any ap­
prenticeship or preparation, yet every day there are
numbers of young men and women who marry without
having given an instant’s thought to preparing them­
selves. . .7e

A very great help to these young people in their preparation will
be the stimulus afforded by the institution of proper courses on
marriage in the schools, especially in the high-schools. 78 These
74 Leclercq, op. cit., p. 52.
v’ Pope Pius XII, “Allocutio mulieribus ab Actione Catholica earumque
adiutricibus,,> AAS, 33 (1941), 451 f. : “Ora—vedete cosa strana, che anche
Pio XI lamentava nella sua Enciclica—, mentre non verrebbe in mente a
nessuno di farsi subito li per li, senza tirocinio nè preparazione, operaio
meccanico o ingegnere, medico o awocato, ogni giorno non pochi giovani
uomini e giovani donne si spasano e uniscono senza aver pensato un instante
a prepararsi agli ardui doveri che ei attendono nell’educazione du figli.” ; cf.
also, Naughton, James W., S.J., Pius XII On World Problems (New York:
The America Press, 1943), pp. 89-90.
7e Schiniedler, Edgar, O.S.B., Marriage and the Family (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1946), viii.

The Nature of Pre-Marital Love

27

would serve to instill in them a sense of responsibility for the
offices they will have to undertake, and afford them a knowledge
of the foundations on which they should build their marriage. In
a more detailed explanation than we have attempted, they could
be instructed on the nature of love, the necessity for its proper
direction, the rights and duties, the purposes of marriage, and
finally upon the nature of conjugal love itself. The knowledge
obtained, plus the increased awareness to the duties and the re­
sponsibilities that are entailed in marriage, will serve to temper
youth’s impetuosity and arouse him to the necessity of under­
taking the proper preparation for marriage.
Having considered the nature of pre-marital love and its impor­
tance in the preparation for marriage, we proceed now to the
actual consideration of this love’s proper term, Le., conjugal love.
In studying the notion of conjugal love we will discuss in our
first article its nature, and in succeeding articles, its qualities, its
necessity, its effects on the spouses, its relation to the conjugal
act, and finally its relation to the child.

CHAPTER II

The Notion of Conjugal Love
ARTICLE I. THE NATURE OF CONJUGAL LOVE

This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly called by
St. Augustine the “faith of chastity” blooms more freely,
more beautifully and more nobly, when it is rooted in that
more excellent soil, the love of husband and wife which
pervades all the duties of married life and holds pride of
place in Christian marriage?

In these words our late Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, assigned to
conjugal love its importance in the constitution of marriage. It is
worthy of note that he gives to it the “pride of place” in Christian
marriage. He does not make it the primary purpose of marriage,
but rather he pronounces it the fundamental principle or spirit
which should pervade all the duties of married life. In other words
it should be the quality which characterizes all the actions of the
spouses toward each other. They ought not to be motivated in their
relations by a blind selfishness, wherein each will seek as much as
he can for himself. Rather, with a proper appreciation of the mean­
ing of love, they ought to surrender themselves to the task of
loving the other for the good that will benefit the beloved. In
striving to accomplish this, almost without realization of what
they have done, they will regain a hundred-fold the love they have
given. As Father M. C. D’Arcy, S.J., has expressed it:
Love is in being disinterested most perfect humanly. A
lover is living at the highest pitch of his selfhood when
1 Pope Pius XI, “Casti Connubii," AAS, 22 (1930), 547 f.: “Haec autem,
quae a Sancto Augustino aptissime appellatur castitatis fides, et facilior et
multo etiam iucundior ac nobilior efflorescet ex altero capite praestanti ssimo :
ex coniugali scilicet amore, qui omnia coniugalis vitae officia pervadit et
quemdam tenet in Christiano coniugio principatum nobilitatis.” (PPt, pp. 7-8.)

28

I
|
]

;

T Ne Notion of Conjugal Love

29

he forgets himself to think only of the beloved. As
Gilson finely says : “Love seeks no recompense ; did it
do so it would at once cease to be love. But neither should
it be asked to renounce joy in the possession of the thing
loved; love would no longer be love if it renounced its
accompanying joy. Thus all true love is at once disinter­
ested and rewarded, or let us say rather that it could not
be rewarded unless it were disinterested, because disin­
terestedness is its very essence.”2
Their love should be a surrender of self in the interest of the
one loved. Having accomplished this the reward will come as a
natural result. If this spirit characterizes their lives, an ensuing
harmony will be developed which will best tide them over the
trials and difficulties which are the lot of even the most happilymarried. It is for this reason that the Holy Father sees fit to give
love the “pride of place” in Christian marriage. For as it per­
meates the fulfillment of their cares and duties, it likewise con­
tributes to their mutual enrichment and happiness.
The standard for the love of husbands and wives is found in
Sacred Scripture in the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles
to the Ephesians:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved
the Church, and delivered himself up for her, that he
might sanctify her. . . Even thus ought husbands to love
their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own
wife, loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh ;
on the contrary he nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ
also does the Church. . ?
Husbands and wives are given a model—the Divine Master Him­
self. He who is the model of meekness, patience, humility, kind­
ness and sanctity, is also the model of human love. As Christ has
loved his Church, so also is a husband to love his wife. But Christ
loved his Church with an especially pure and holy love. A lofty
example is thus set for the husband, but the achievement of such3*
3M. C. D’Arcy, S.J., The Mind and Heart of Love (New York: Henry
Holt & Co., 1947), p. 99.
a Eph. 5:25-26; 28-29.

30

The Notion of Conjugal Love

a goal is placed within his grasp. “Christ Himself the institutor
and perfecter of the venerable sacraments, merited by his Passion
on our behalf the grace which should perfect the natural love of
marriage, render the union indissoluble, and sanctify the married pair.”4 Christ, in this sense, is not merely the Model, but the
Channel who affords the help necessary that the husband may
attain this new level of love, upon which his eyes are now set.
Love, when conceived in this light, as an elevation to a super­
natural status, assumes a position of surpassing importance. Be­
cause of its function as the spirit characterizing the fulfillment of
the marital rights and duties, its newly-found vitality gives to
marriage a help sorely needed.
Before we attempt a treatment of the notion of conjugal love,
it is necessary first to locate it in its position in the structure of
marriage. In speaking of marriage here, we are referring to it
as matrimonium in facto esse, i.e., as the perpetual and exclusive
union of a man and woman, which has arisen from their mutual
consent (matrimonium in fieri) and is ordained primarily to the
procreation and education of offspring.® This in turn necessitates
an understanding of the terms primary and secondary end as
they refer to marriage (we have already defined these terms as
they apply generally*6). The primary and secondary ends are divi­
sions of the “finis opens.” In marriage the “finis operis” is made
up of those goods towards whose attainment matrimony tends of
of its nature, this having been given to it when God the author of
* Concilium Tridentinum, Sessio 24. “Gratiam vero, quae naturalem illum
amorem perficeret, et indissolubilem unitatem confirmaret, coniugesque
sanctificaret, ipse Christus, venerabilium sacramentorum institutor atque
perfector, sua nobis passione promeruit.” Canones et Decreta Sacrosancti
Oecumenici Concilii Tridentini (Ratisbonne: G. J. Manz, 1903), pp. 135-136.
6 Cappello, Felix M., S.J., Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, V,
p. 3 : “Unio legitima viri ac mulieris perpetua et exclusiva, ex mutuo ipsorum
consensu orta, ad sobolem procreandam atque educandam ordinata.” Cappello
distinguishes the matrimonium w» fieri in this manner : Consideratum in fieri
seu active aut causaliter, est contractus quo initur et constituitur coniugalis
societas; consideratum in facto esse, seu passive aut formaliter, est ipsa unio
coniugalis, i.e., status seu vinculum matrimonii tamquam effectus e coniugali
contractu dimanans.”
° Supra, p. 5.

j
|
1
,

’

;

The Notion of Conjugal Love

31

nature instituted it? Of these goods or ends, the end toward
which matrimony is primarily directed and to which the other
“fines operis” are subordinate, is the procreation and education
of children. In confirmation of this we have the statement of
Pope Pius XI as expressed in his encyclical on Christian Mar­
riage. In his statement he makes his own the words of the Code
of Canon Law. We quote it in its context:

Since, however, We have spoken fully elsewhere on the
Christian education of youth, let Us sum it all up by
quoting once more the words of St. Augustine : “As re­
gards the offspring it is provided that they should be be­
gotten lovingly and educated religiously,”—and this is
also expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law—
“The primary end of marriage is the procreation and
education of children.”7
8
The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, declares : “The essen­
tial cause of marriage is the end to which it is by its very nature
ordained. And this is always good, namely the begetting of chil­
dren. . .”9 The secondary ends are mutual help and the remedy
of concupiscence.10 The relation of primary to secondary is not
decided by the “essentialness” of the ends, for all three are essen­
tial to marriage11 ; but the one is primary because it is more funda­
mental than the others.12 By God’s intention procreation has the
greatest importance. In its concept procreation and education of
children contains the concept of mutual help, whereas the reverse
7 The Sacred Roman Rota, AAS, 36 (1944), 184 f. : "‘Finis operis’ in
matrimonio est illud bonum in quod obtinendum matrimonium tendit ex
natura sua, quam Deus Creator instituto matrimonio indidit.’’
8 Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 546 f. : “Cum autem de Christiana iuventutis educa­
tione alias copiose egerimus, haec omnia nunc iteratis Sancti Augustini verbis
complectamur: "In prole (attenditur), ut amanter suscipiatur . . . religiose
educetur” ; quod quidem ipsum in Codice iuris canonici quoque nervose
edicitur: “Matrimonii finis primarius est procreatio atque educatio prolis.”
(PPt, p. 6.)
®St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III (Suppi.), q. 48, a. 2. "Per
se quidem causa matrimonii est, ad quam matrimonium est de se ordinatum:
et haec semper bona est, scilicet procreatio prolis. . .”
10 Cappello, op. cit., p. 8.
“John C. Ford, S.J., “Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes,” p. 369.
“ Ibid., p. 370.

32

The Notion of Conjugal Love

is not true.13 Mutual help, if considered in se, i.e., between any
two persons, is not confined to marriage. It only becomes proper
to marriage—it only becomes specified—when it becomes dis­
tinguished by its internal relation to the primary end of procrea­
tion and education of children. In certain instances, where pro­
creation is or cannot be realized, mutual help takes on a certain
independence inasmuch as it is the end which is actually real­
ized.14 It might be well to note in this connection that those who
are about to enter marriage do not have to intend explicitly the
primary end in order to make their marriage valid. As long as
they do not exclude this end explicitly, they may intend either
of the secondary ends or for that matter any other honest end
that is compatible with the essential notion of marriage.15 This
does not mean either that all of the ends of marriage will be
realized, e.g., the realization of the primary end that children
will be born. For as Ford says : “They are not bound ordinarily,
in individual cases, to realize the primary end of marriage. This
is another way of saying that the use of marriage must be sub­
ordinated to the primary end per se only in the sense that no
positive interference with the primary end is permitted.’’16 If, as
in the ordinary case, they accept marriage as it stands, accepting
whatever obligations or privileges it may bring, then by this gen­
eral intention they are implicitly choosing the primary end, and
thus fulfill the requirements for a valid marriage.
In classifying conjugal love we place it under the secondary
end of mutual help. Certain authors when they treat of mutual
help say nothing explicitly of the place of conjugal love. This is
not to say that they do not make conjugal love a secondary end or
13 Ibid.
M The Sacred Roman Rota, op. cit., 193 f. : “Finis secundarius habet quandam independentiam, eatenus videlicet quatenus in personis coniugum verificari
et ad effectum perduci potest iis quoque in casibus, in quibus assecutio finis
primarii impeditur, sive ad tempus sive in perpetuum.’’
15 Merkelbach, B., O.P., Summa Theologiae Moralis, III, p. 757.
“Ford, op. cit., p. 369. (This statement of Father Ford must be adapted
to the doctrine of Pope Pius XII. In an address to the Italian Catholic Union
of Midwives on Oct. 29, 1951, Pius XII stated in reference to the practice
of “Rhythm” that those married couples who make use of their marriage
rights must contribute towards the conservation of the human race unless
they have a serious reason to the contrary.)

The Notion of Conjugal Love

33

part of a secondary end of marriage. But we are to understand
by this that they include the notion of conjugal love implicitly.17
On the other hand, however, we have authors who explicitly in­
clude conjugal love in the notion of mutual help or place it in
apposition with it.1·8 Ford reports the common opinion when he
states :
Now, although there may be some doubt of the extent
of the concept “mutual help,” there is no doubt that it
includes the idea of conjugal love. Both theologians and
canonists explain mutual love as a part of mutual help,
or mutual help as a part of mutual love. Cappello, for
instance, says that the secondary end of marriage, essen­
tial and intrinsic to it, is mutual help, “not only in the
care of the household but especially in mutual love.” And
thus the authors generally.19
At the least then, we can say that conjugal love is such that it be­
longs to the nature of a secondary end. Aertnys-Damen indicate this
when they say: “This union, this conjugal love inasmuch as it
is to be nourished in accordance with the intention of nature, is
also an end but not the ultimate end of marriage.”20 Personally
we would include it in the concept of mutual help, since we be­
lieve that mutual help is the more generic term in its connotation.
The statement of the Sacred Roman Rota of June 26, 1944,
would be a confirmation of our view. It mentions explicitly that
the secondary end of matrimony is “mutual help.”21 This term em17 St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., q. 41, a. 1, corp.; Payen, G., S.J., De Matri­
monio (ZI-KA-WEI: T’OU-SE WE, 1935), I, p. 62; Gasparri, P.,
Tractatus Canonicus De Matrimonio (9th ed., Rome: Vatican, 1932), I, p.
18 ; Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill, p. 742 ; H. Noldin, S.J., and A, Schmitt, S.J.,
Summa Theologicae Moralis, I Π, p. 511.
“Thus: P. Wernz, S.J., and P. Vidal, S.J., Jus Canonicum (3rd ed. by
A. Aguiree, S.J. (Rome: Gregorian University, 1946), V, p. 31; Cappello,
op. cit., p. 8.
w Ford, op. cit., pp. 362-363.
20 J. Aertnys, C.SS.R., and C. A. Damen, C.SS.R., Theologia Moralis (14th
ed., Turin: Marietti, 1944), II, p. 470: “Haec unio, hic amor conjugalis
quatenus ex naturae intentione fovendus est, etiam finis sed non ultimus
matrimonii est. .
21 The Sacred Roman Rota, op. cit., 187 f.

34

The Notion of Conjugal Lave

braces many things. Among others it speaks of this as being ex­
pressed as “help in psychic and somatic exigencies.”22 Possibly love
would be included under the term “psychic.” At any rate we would
never attempt to make conjugal love the primary end of marriage, as
certain theologians have recently attempted to do. Speaking of
these in a recent decree on the ends of marriage, the Holy Office
declared : “In their treatises a distinct primary end of matrimony
is designated by them, e.g.......... the mutual love and union of
the spouses which is to be strengthened and perfected through the
psychic and somatic surrender of their persons. . .”23 To bring
us to a realization of the possible evils inherent in the doctrine
of these theologians, the Congregation, in continuing its state­
ment, warned: “This new manner of thinking and speaking is
naturally constituted for the nurturing of errors and uncer­
tainties,”24 Finally, to correct this mistaken notion, it states in a
declaration that takes the form of an answer to a doubt, that
the opinion of recent writers could not be admitted, which either
denies that the primary end of matrimony is the procreation and
education of children, or teaches that the secondary ends are not
essentially subordinate, but equally principal and independent.25
The notion of conjugal love is also connected with the blessing
of conjugal fidelity. Pope Pius XI expresses their inter-relation
when he says :
This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly called
by St. Augustine the “faith of chastity” blooms more
“Ibid.
“Congregatio S. Officii, AAS, 36 (1944), 103 f.: “Hisce in elucubrationibus
primarius coniugii finis alius ab aliis designatur, ut, e.g. : ... coniugum mutuus
amor atque unio fovenda ac perficienda per psychicam et somaticam propriae
personae traditionem. .
“Novatus hic cogitandi et loquendi modus natus est ad errores et
incertitudines fovendas. . .
albid.: “quibus avertendis prospicientes Emi ac Revmi Patres huius Su­
premae Sacrae Congregationis . . . proposito sibi dubio : ‘An admitti possit
quorundam recentiorum sententia, qui vel negant finem primarium matrimonii
esse prolis generationem et educationem, vel docent fines secundarios non
esse essentialiter subordinates, sed esse aeque principales et independentes’ ;
respondendum decreverunt: Negative”

The Notion of Conjugal Love

35

i

freely, more beautifully and more nobly, when it is
rooted in that more excellent soil, the love of hus­
band and wife which pervades all the duties of married
life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage.20
In this statement the Holy Father sets forth the effect of love on
fidelity. Its effect is this: Unless fidelity is rooted in love, unless
fidelity is penetrated by the spirit which love connotes, it will
not attain that full-flowering or full perfection of which it is
capable. In other words, fidelity, being the more fundamental
notion, can be achieved without love. But as the Holy Father
declares, it will “bloom more freely and more beautifully” when
it is rooted in love. On the other hand, the effect of fidelity on
love will be this, as the Pontiff declares in his very next sentence.
"(It) demands that husband and wife be joined in an especially
pure and holy love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ
loved the Church.”*27 Fidelity thus acts as a control or check on
love, directing it to its proper end, and preventing it from being
affected by anything that might deter it from that end. It seems
rather evident then, that for the attainment of the best results,
both for fidelity and for love, there should be the greatest pos­
sible inter-relation between the two. For the perfection which
they hope to attain will depend upon the degree of cooperation
that is actually achieved between them.
We begin our treatment proper of the nature of conjugal love
by turning first to an examination of those definitions of it al­
ready proferred. The first definition is that given by Franz Walter:

The Church sees in married love the mutual attraction
of the two sexes implanted by the Creator in human
nature, and the foundation of and indispensable condi­
tion for the most intimate and the indissoluble comM Pope Pius XI, op, cit., 547 f. : “Haec autem, quae a Sancto Augustino
aptissime appellatur castitatis fides, et facilior et multo etiam iucundior ac
nobilior efflorescet ex altero capite praestantissimo : ex coniugali scilicet
amore, qui omnia coniugalis vitae officia pervadit et quemdam tenet in
christiano coniugio principatum nobilitatis.” (PPt, pp. 7-8.)
27Ibid.: “Postulat praeterea matrimonii fides ut vîr et uxor singulari quo­
dam sanctoque ac puro amore coniuncti sint ; neque ut adulteri inter se ament,
sed ut Christus dilexit Ecclesiam. .

36

The Notion of Conjugal Love
munity of life between human beings of different sex,
and as such gives it her blessing.28

We do not believe that this is an accurate definition of conjugal
love. It is true enough as far as it goes, but it does not go far
enough. It is an incomplete definition. Conjugal love is much
more than a mere attraction between the sexes. It is a love which
effects a union between husband and wife. Dietrich Von Hilde­
brand, from whose work the definition of Franz Walter was
taken, does not give a specific definition of conjugal love; how­
ever, he describes it sufficiently to enable us to grasp the mean­
ing he intends :

But the specific quality not only of love as such, but of
wedded love in particular, is independent of the physical
aspect of sex. What distinguishes wedded love from
other kinds of love—for example, love of parents or
children or the love between two friends—is the quality of
the love itself, the distinctive correlation between two
persons, the completion of both parties, which only this
kind of love affects, and that unique splendour which
invests “being in love” in the noble sense. It is impos­
sible to reduce all this to so-called sex instinct.29

We think this statement indicates a fundamental disagreement
with our own position on the specific difference of conjugal love.
We wish here merely to call attention to the disagreement, and
will leave further consideration to the body of the thesis.
The definition given by Ford is at once the clearest and yet
the simplest. He states that: “Conjugal love is the virtue by which
man and wife wish to communicate to one another the benefits
proper to marriage,’’30 Zeiger expands and develops this defi­
nition. He states :
We understand conjugal love as a virtue by which one
spouse sincerely adheres to the other, showing rever• Waiter, Franz, "Dcr Leib und sein Hecht in Christentum (Donauworth,
1910), Part 1, c. 2, iii, p. 154, quoted in Dietrich Von Hildebrand, In Defense
of Purity (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1935), p. 19.
wVon Hildebrand, op. cit., pp. 18-19.
80 Ford, op. cit., p. 356.

The Notion ofeConjugal Love

37

ence for him and preserving fidelity, cherishes him, aids
him, so that joined in mutual charity and patience they
form a new principle, morally one, upon which the whole
conjugal life, the most grave duties of procreation and
education of offspring can be securely built.81

To these definitions we wish to add our own; we think it may
express more clearly the nature of conjugal love. It is this : “Con­
jugal love is that virtue which effects a union of husband and
wife by which they wish to give to each other the marital bene­
fits.” We will consider this definition in each of its parts. First,
it is a virtue, i.e., an essentially good operative habit, that gives
both the power and the impulse to do readily that which benefits
a rational nature so as to achieve true happiness.82
Which effects a union; “Love is a union. Conjugal love is the
union of the man and the woman.”33 The union to which we
refer here is not the union or the juridical bond {matrimonium in
facto esse} which results from the consent mutually given and
accepted by the interested parties, but the union which constitutes
one of the advantages of matrimony, once it has been effected.34
It is the union of which St. Thomas speaks when he says : “Love
is nothing more than a transformation of affections into the thing
loved. And because everything which is made a form of something
becomes one with it, therefore, through love, the one loving be­
comes one with the beloved, in that he is made the form of the

“ Ivo Zeiger, S.J., “Nova Definitio Matrimonii,” p, 48* : 'Tntelligimus
sensu pleniore amorem conjugalem virtutem, qua coniux sincere alteri ad­
haeret, reverentiam ei exhibens et fidem servans, eum fovet, adiuvat, ita ut
in mutua caritate et patientia iuncti e fi orment principium novum, mor aliter
unum, cui tota vita coniugalis, officia gravissima procreationis atque educa­
tionis sobolis secure superstrui queant.”
wDavis, Henry, S.J., Moral and Pastoral Theology (4th ed., London:
S heed & Ward, 1945), I, p. 253.
“ Mersch, Emile, S.J., Morality and the Mystical Body, p, 216.
** St. Thomas Aquinas, op. cit., “coniunctio autem corporum et animorum
ad matrimonium consequitur.”

38

The Notion of Conjugal Love

one loving.”35 Scheeben expresses this idea most clearly when
he says:

Love among creatures does not really contain in itself
the good that pleases it in the beloved or the good that
it would present to the beloved, any more than the cog­
nition of creatures really contains its object or is iden­
tical' with it. We say indeed that lovers would like to
give themselves, their very being, to each other in their
love. But this mutual giving is a donation only accord­
ing to affection, it is a mere affection without a real
union, just as the representation of an object in us is
no more than a thought.35
The union thus effected is not a physical union but a moral one.8’
In it we see the joining of two complete human personalities in
the manner explained. In each personality this love should imply
by its very nature a combination of both appetites which go into
the composition of the human being: "(we) see quite clearly
that there are heavenly desires as well as earthly ones, that love
has two mansions, one in the spirit and the other in the viscera,
that the two mingle in most human acts. . .”SB The married per­
son owes it to himself and to his partner to give himself com­
pletely, i.e., both his spiritual and physical nature will have their
part. If he fails to do this, he allows to lie fallow one of those
ingredients of his nature with which he has been endowed by
God. His failure, then, is a failure to use the talents given him
by God. But accepting the provision that man will act in accord­
ance with his nature, he will give himself completely, i.e., his
spiritual and physical (we specifically include in this instance
* St. Thomas Aquinas, HI Sent., d. 27, q. I, a. I : "unde amor nihil aliud
est quam quaedam transformatio affectus in rem amatam. Et quia omne
quod efficitur forma alicius efficitur unum cum illo, ideo per amorem, amans
fit unum cum amato, quod est factum forma amantis." Cf. also : I-II, q. 25,
a. 2, ad 2 ; q. 28, a. 1. corp, ad 2 ; Ford, op. cit., p. 357.
•° Scheeben, Matthias J., The Mysteries of Christianity, Trans, by Cyril
Vollert, SJ. (St. Louis: Herder, 1946), p. 67; cf. also p. 99.
K Ibid., p. 597.
•D'Arcy, op. cit., p. 153.

The Notion of Conjugal Love

39

sexual) natures will take their part in the degree of their impor­
tance in man’s constitution.
It is not surprising that man’s spiritual nature will assume the
role of greatest importance when the appetites are brought into
play. This befits man’s dignity as a human personality, inasmuch
as his spirituality constitutes his essential difference from the
brute animal. Pope Pius XI indicated the importance of this
appetite when he declared: “By matrimony, therefore, the souls
of the contracting parties are joined and knit together prior to
and more intimately than are their bodies. . ,”as Leclercq also
voiced these sentiments when he said:
But if physical love is one of the normal components of
married love, it does not follow that it must be allowed
to become the dominant one. ... It (the Church) has
never ceased to teach that the main thing in all love, its
nobleness, its purity—even in the case of married love—
is the union of souls, spiritual love. . .4®

Mersch probably has the clearest statement on this point. He
*.states "Human love is something other than a sentiment; it is
essentially—though not exclusively—a procedure of the soul and
a willed giving of oneself.”41 While the spiritual appetite plays
the chief role, we cannot forget that the physical and sexual ap­
petites will have their part in this love. Zeiger goes so far as to
say that: "Conjugal love is essentially founded on the human
sexual tendency,”42 However, in making this assertion, he does
not cease to give the spiritual appetite its position of superiority
in this type of love. For concluding his explanation, he declares:
"The sexual tendency, by which men are led to enter marriage,
implies not only a union of bodies but especially a union of their
souls.”43 The inclusion of the sexual appetite is no more than
• Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 542 f. : "Coniugio igitur animi iunguntur et
coalescunt, hique prius et arctius quam corpora. . .”
“Leclercq, Jacques, Marriage and the Family, p. 124.
11 Mersch, op. cit., p, 218.
“Zeiger, op. cit., p. 42*.
°Ibid., p. 44*.

40

The Notion of Conjugal Love

right, for the human body is an essential part of thé human being.
Conjugal love would risk being imperfect were it to lack this
necessary bodily element. This is not to say that the inclusion
of this element in actual use is absolutely necessary. We know
that for the essence of marriage it is necessary only that the right
to the conjugal act be given; the use or the exercise of this right
is not necessary.4445We may say the same of conjugal love. Ordi­
narily, however, this physical element will be present. For if the
primary end of marriage is to be attained (and it is the purpose
of the secondary end to help bring this about), the physical union
of the husband and wife is necessary. This is an ordination of
nature. The right to this act is the central part of the marriage
contract, wherein each party receives and accepts the jusjn.eorpus
alterius.
The importance which the Church attaches to sexual rela­
tions in marriage—an importance evidenced by the fact
that the impotency of either party constitutes grounds
for a declaration of nullity—is one more proof of its
realism. Marriage is a human institution. Man is both
body and spirit, and the human race is divided into two
sexes whose reason for existence is physical union with a
view to continuing the species.48

If conjugal love, then, has a real relation to the primary end of
marriage, it must be necessarily connected with man’s sexual or
physical tendencies. And it does have a real relation to the primary
end. We have already seen that conjugal love is a part of the
secondary end of mutual help. Bearing this in mind, we must
correlate it with this recent statement of the Rota: "(Mutual help
and community of life) are distinguished by their internal relation
to the primary end; and by this end the conjugal union is dis­
tinguished from every other association of men.”46*The only con­
clusion that we can draw from this comparison is that conjugal
44 Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill, p. 734,
45 Leclercq, op. cit., p. 124.
“The Sacred Roman Rota, op. cit., 188 f.: ‘“Distinguuntur autem interna
sua relatione ad finem primarium, quo fine coniunctio coniugalis a qualibet
alia hominum associatione discernitur.”

r

The Notion of Conjugal Love

41

love itself is also distinguished by its internal relation to the pri­
mary end. Thus there is no reason to doubt its connection with
the sexual sphere. Conjugal love, then, implies a love in which both
of man’s appetites (spiritual and physical) will have their part.
A union oj husband and wife : it almost seems needless to dis­
cuss why conjugal love should be the union of two persons who
are husband and wife and only of husband and wife. The very
meaning of the word, the joining of two under the same yoke,
indicates this. It was to this joining that St. Thomas referred when
he said : “the joining of husband and wife by matrimony is the
greatest of all joinings, since it is a joining of soul and body,
wherefore it is called a conjugal union.”47 We find still graver
reasons, fomth is _when we inquire into the essence of marriage. It
cannot be doubted that most theologians hold the conjugal bond,
the vinculum matrimonii, to be the essence of marriage in facto
esse. Thus no action can be properly called “conjugal” unless it
has been performed by one under the subjection of that bond.
Moreover, it is required that the action itself have some definite
connection with that bond. Ford expressly declares:
It (marriage) is the juridical bond (with its end and
properties) created by the consent of the partners. That
is the one thing that is found wherever marriage is found
and without which marriage cannot exist. And all these
acts of conjugal life and love by which the partners achieve
community of life (two-in-oneship), and procreation, and
the remedy for concupiscence, are conjugal only because
they are performed by persons linked together by such a
juridical bond.48

Applying this to conjugal love, we find one real reason why con­
jugal love differs from every other form of love, specifically from
pre-marital love. Conjugal love by its nature involves two people
under this juridical bond which is the essence of marriage; it is
vitally concerned with those actions which have a proper relation
47 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III (Suppl.), q. 44, a. 2, ad 3.
“coniunctio viri ad mulierem per matrimonium est maxima, cum sit et
animarum et corporum. Et ideo coniugium nominatur.”
48 Ford, op. cit., p. 366.

42

The Notion of Conjugal Love

to or flow from this bond. It is properly then a love of husband
and wife.
A union by which the spouses wish to give to each other the
marital benefits·, we wish to restrict the goods which the spouses
desire to give each other through conjugal love to those that
spring from the
hnnd Foro<î?Clai es. "conjugal love must
be distinguished from other love not only in the persons loving
and loved, but also by the kind of good or benefit which through
love they desire to give one another.”49 When we stated that
conjugal love was a love of husband and wife, we also indicated
that conjugal love should be concerned with those actions which
have a relation to or flow from the marital bond. jrhis^ means that
not all of jhe actions which the husband and wife perform are
conjugalnor are all the benefits or
they desire
for one another conjugal goods. Placed in this category would be
the fictions and benefits which have no_ intrinsic relation to marriaggoFto the marital bontÇand hence mayTe prcrperlvnerformed
nt HesireH pvpn_hy nr fQ^singlc oorGong^n view ofjhis^A'e might
say
the highest,temporal happiness of anothéi^without having conjugal Joye-forJaim. To be properly con­
jugal love it" is^iecessary that the good desired Jiave.a certain
connection whlj
marriage h^nd- or the ends that are essential
to it/Vviiat-Tfien are these marital, or conjugal benefits? No one
states precisely what they are. In enumerating them we believe
that most authors would include the marriage act itself. Besides
that we might list those mutual gifts or duties stated by the Rota
as being under the classification “mutual help” : e.g., “cohabitation,
thejzommon table, the use of material goods, the government of
the family, more personal aid in the various conditions of their
life, aid in their mental and physical needs. . ?,st> Undoubtedly
we could list many more acts of mutual help which could be classed
Ibid., p. 358.
’“The Sacred Roman Rota, op. cit., 187 f.: “Alius finis secundarius est
‘mutuum adiutorium,’ quod sat varias coniugum mutuas praestationes seu
officia comprehendit, v.g., cohabitationem, communionem mensae, usum
bonorum materialium, victus acquisitionem et administrationem, auxilium
magis personale in variis vitae condicionibus, in exigentiis psychicis et
somaticis. . .”

j

The Notion of Conjugal Love

43

as conjugal benefits. It would not be to our purpose to mention
all of them. But we would like to reduce them, as many as there
are, to the tria bona, i.e., bonum prolis, bonum fidei and bonum
sacramenti, as St. Augustine seems to do when he says: “In matri­
mony, however, let these nuptial blessings be the object^of. our
love—offspring, fidelity, and the '.sacrament.'Jt>1~This may be the
meaning of Ford when he declares: 1'hey can be nothing else
than the acts of conjugal life ; that is, the marriage act and the acts
of mutual help. These are the benefits that marriage is calculated
to produce (the bona producenda} ; these are the ends for which
marriage was instituted.’"51
52 But whether it is or is not his meaning,
we are of the hope that an analysis of these goods, i.e., the tria
bona, will show that they implicitly or explicitly contain within
their concepts these acts of mutual help or in other words the
conjugal benefits. First, the bonum prolis. This good has a direct
relation to the primary end of marriage, the procreation and edu­
cation of children. Payen states : “It pertains principally to the
primary end of matrimony. For it rests on the power and obliga­
tion of using matrimony so that children might be generated ; in
addition it has a similar basis in the duty of educating children
that have already been begotten.”53 It thus must include within
its concept the marriage act itself. Jt also pertains to the secondary
ends ; for the love betwccn jhe spouses is singularly nourished by
the_ righteous generation and education of children.54 Finally, it
serves a real need to the partners. The same act which serves as a
means of procreation accomplishes the remedying of concupiscence
and satisfies the craving for love. Secondly, the bonum fidei. This
good also has a relation to the marital act, since it commands that
51 St. Augustine, De Nuptiis et Concupiscentiis, I, 16, 19 (CSEL 42, p.
231): ‘“In nuptiis tamen bona nuptialia diligantur: proles, fides, sacra­
mentum.”
“Ford, op. cit., p. 358,
“Payen, op. cit., I, p. 81: “(Bonum prolis) refertur praecipue ad finem
primanum matrimonii. Situm enim est in potestate et obligatione ita utendi
matrimonio ut proles generari possit. Situm est pariter in officio prolem
susceptam educandi.”
aIbid.; “At pertinet etiam ad fines secundarios. . . Recta enim prolis
generatione et educatione mutuus inter coniuges amor singulariter fovetur. .

44

The Notion of Conjugal Love

the debituni be rendered to one’s spouse, and is not to be granted
to a third party. It also pertains to the secondary ends of mar­
riage. As Griese states: "Considered particularly in its negative
aspect, conjugal fidelity is associated also with the secondary end
of marriage which is known as mutual help and Avith the element
of conjugal love.”ss Likewise in its positive aspect it is related
to this end, inasmuch as it demands a mutual love of charity
which is expressed in deeds of mutual help.58 Any number of
conjugal benefits would be indicated here, for included would be
all those actions which contribute directly or indirectly to The
allaying of suspicion and the increase ofTnutual faith. BeTtrrc con­
tinuing to the bonum sacramenti, let us noteTere~a most appro­
priate statement of Merkelbach, in which he sums up the relation­
ship we were attempting to express between conjugal love and
the first two goods of marriage: “To which two ends can be re­
duced conjugal love and the remedy of concupiscence, which
implicitly tend towards the bonum prolis and the bonum fidei.”61
Finally, the bonum sacramenti. This concerns itself with both the
primary and secondary ends of marriage. Speaking of this good
in its relation to matrimony as an office of nature, St. Thomas
says : “the sacrament here does not mean matrimony itself, but its
.indissolubility, which^is a sign.of the same thing as matrimony
* ’58 In this signification the good implies the duty of the spouses
is.
to live together in an unbroken community of life. Since it is
relative to the primary end which is concerned strictly with the
good of offspring, we can see its effects when we consider the evils
of that to which it is directly opposed, i.e., divorce. If divorce were
allowed, the interests of the child would be wholly disregarded.
“Griese, N. Orville, The Marriage Contract and the Procreation of Off­
spring (C.U.A. Canon Law Studies, No. 226, Washington: Catholic Uni­
versity Press, 1946), p. 12, note 30.
“A. Vermeersch, S.J., “Encyc. ‘Casti Conubii,’ Annotationes,” Periodica,
20 (1931), p. 47 : “In primis et tamquam principatum nobilitatis tenens, (fides
coniugalis) postulat veram, mutuam dilectionem caritatis . . . operosam,
idque non tantum per mutuum auxilium. .
07 Merkelbach, III, p. 942.
“St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III (Suppi.), q. 49, a. 2, ad 7.
"Sacramentum non dicitur hic ipsum matrimonium, sed inseparabilitas eius,
quae eiusdem est rei signum cuius est matrimonium.”

The Notion of Conjugal Love

45

That which would bring a solution of the problems of the parents
would at the same time deprive the child of that which is its
strict due. It has a strict right, generally speaking, to the care of
both parents : the^’Itm^gHone" indicts a"severe injury" Inasmuch
as it puts-ajialter on the child's tutu re development·^ With regard
to the secondary ends of THiirnage, it has an even more cardinal
concern. As Griese asserts: “Likewise the boon of sacramental
stability (indi^nlnbilitv)· if considered "as a contributing factor
to security in maritalme7 is associated particularly with the sec­
ondary end of marriage which is known as mutual help. . .”st>
Without this good it would be relatively impossible to attain these
ends. However, when the spouses live together in harmony with
an assurance of permanency, they are able to realize a great num­
ber of acts of mutual help. We would certainly state that this
good would include within its scope those acts of mutual help
specifically mentioned by the Rota.ex It thus seems that the tria
bona would explicitly or· implicitly include all the acts of mutual
help or all the marital benefits that the spouses desire for one an­
other. If this statement is true, it is correct to state that the
marital benefits which the spouses wish to give one another—
that is to say, the_-ppqUPT~"tilrre6ts_,of conjugal Jove—are nothing
more than the three goods of marriage.
''"‘"x-------- --ARTICLE II. CONJUGAL LOVE—ITS SPECIFIC DIFFERENCE

We hope that the explanation we have-just completed of our
definition contains within itself the reasons that will justify the
use of that definition. We recognize that there are a number of
implications which could be given more adequate treatment, but
since it is impossible to develop all of these, we will turn to one
which deserves special consideration. That is the specific difference
of conjugal love. What special quality does it contain or what
relation does it have 'that specifically distinguishes it from other
fornis or types oTThye ·"
* Joyce, Geo. H., S.J., Christian Marriage (London: Sheed & Ward, 1933),
pp. 21-22.
TO Griese, op. cit., p. 12.
81 Supra, p. 42.

4&

The Notion of Conjugal Love

In searching for the specific difference οί-XQnjugal love, it is
evident that we begin that search by an analysis of the status
of conjugal love in marriage. It belongs Jxujj^rriage j^s part of
its secondary end of mutual help.62 This sentence has two im­
portant implications. First? in that it does belong to marriage,
we find the remote cause of its difference from other types of
love. To be eligible to perforin such an act of love or to become
its object, it is necessary that one be in the mjjxieH^sÎàte. It is
essential to the notion of conjugal love'that those who are to be
considered its principles—in whom lie the potencies to perform
acts of conjugal love—and those who are its objects must be bound
together as husband and wife by the bond of marriage.63 The sec­
ond implication of this sentence is that, as conjugal love is part of
the secondary end of mutual help, so herein lies the proximate
reason for its specific difference. In its recent statement on the
ends of marriage the Rota declared that mutual help and the lifepartnersh’ip between tweb persons’ of ditterent sexes could exist
even outside of marriage. It therefore stated:

Mutual help and community of life inasmuch as they are
called and are proper to matrimony and to its secondary
end, must be considered according to a certain special
propriety, by which they are distinguished from any other
community of life or mutual help. In truth they are dis­
tinguished by their internal relation^to the primary end,
by which end the conjugal union is distingtiished fromall
other associations of men 7^
”

Cappello arrives at the same conclusion, although he is considering
not one of the ends, but the association of marriage itself and its
Supra, p. 32.
63 Supra, p. 41.
04 The Sacred Roman Rota, op. cit., 188 f. : “Ideo mutuum adiutorium
vitaeque communio, inquantum dicuntur et sunt matrimonii propria eiusque
secundarius finis operis, considerari debent secundum proprietatem quandam
specialem, qua distinguuntur a qualibet alia communione vitae, cum mutua
adiutorio coniuncta. Distinguuntur autem interna sua relatione ad finem
primarium, quo fine coniunctio coniugalis a qualibet alia hominum asso­
ciatione discernitur.”

Λ
The Notion of Conjugal Love

47

specific difference from all similar contracts. He states: “In the
notion of matrimony those elements must be considered which are
so proper and exclusive of it that they specifically distinguish it
from all other similar association and contracts. That specific ele­
ment—altogether proper and, exclusive ot matrimony—is the lawful
procreation and education of offspring.”65 In order to confirm this
statement of Cappello we return once again to the declaration of
the Rota. In this instance, unlike the previous, it speaks of matri­
mony as a whole. The conclusion is the same however. “It is
necessary, therefore, that there be a determined order amongst the
ends of matrimony, according to which the other ends (fines
operis) are subordinate to the principal end, which determines the
specific nature of matrimony.”™ With the weight of such authority,
we have no hesitation in stating that the primary end of marriage
is that which distinguishes it from any other association of men.
Similarly, we can state that the secondary end of marriage, mutual
help, is distinguished by its internal relation to this same primary
end. Applying these statements to the notion of conjugal love,
we cannot but conclude that this love, as a part of mutual help,
will take upon itself the same specifying character. The specific
difference of conjugal love then lies in its internal relation to the
primary end of matrimony.
The ultimate basis for this conclusion must lie in the very nature
of marriage.67 Previously we have discussed pre-marital love. We
have learned its nature and characteristics. We have seen that it
consists in a union of the souls of the two parties, which is so
intense and so exclusive that we can see no other reason for it
except that it is destined to lead them to marriage.68 But we do
“ Cappello, op. cit., p. 4 : “In notione matrimonii ea elementa spectanda sunt,
quae sunt ita ipsius propria et exclusi va, ut illud specifice distinguant a ceteris
quibuscumque negotiis et contractibus. Elementum autem specificum—omnino
proprium et exclusivum matrimonii—est legitima sobolis procreatio et edu­
catio.”
“The Sacred Roman Rota, op. cit., 185 f.: “Necesse igitur est ut inter
matrimonii fines determinatus sit ordo, secundum quem fini principali, qui
naturam specificam matrimonii determinat, alii fines operis subordinentur.”
(Italics mine.)
97 Ibid., 188 f.
™ Supra, p. 12.

48

The Notion of Conjugal Love

not believe that it will continue unchanged once the marriage
takes place. The nature of marriage—the rights and duties it
confers—will have their effect upon it. They will change it and
make it different. That right most fundamental to the nature of
marriage and from which these other rights have their source is
that which is the center of the marriage contract. Jt is stated
thus in the Code of Canon Law: Yhe matrimonial consent is an
act of the will by which each party gives and accepts the perpetual^
and exclusive right to the body for the performance of actions
that of their nature pertain to the procreation of children.”80 From
this Lavaud concludes : "Therefore, whatever may be the place
and importance of other aspects in the life of married couples it
is the sexual act that specifies conjugal society and life in that
which is jrreducibly proper and peculiar to it. The right to this
act is the precise object of matrimonial consent.”*
70 We do not
believe that Lavaud is here giving too much stress to the physical
aspect of conjugal love. He is merely stating that the sexual act
is~tnat which specifies marriage, and allows for other thing·; which
may have more importance. Zeiger speaking of matrimonial con­
sent states that it differs from other contracts in its object : “Matri­
monial consent differs from other contracts chiefly in its object.
The man and woman deliberately and freely give themselves to
one another for the greatest intimacy of their whole life, both bodily
and interior, and this for always and exclusively.”71 If we put
aside for a moment the reference to the matrimonium in fieri, and
instead apply it to matrimonium in facto esse, we have a precise
and well-balanced statement or summation of our whole viewpoint
on conjugal love. It is a union of souls—as such it bears a
w Codex luris Canonici, Canon 1081, 2 : “Consensus matrimonialis est actus
voluntatis quo utraque pars tradit et acceptat ius in corpus, perpetuum et
exclusivum, in ordine ad actus per se aptos ad prolis generationem.”
70 B. Lavaud, O.P., “The Interpretation of the Conjugal Act and the
Theology of Marriage,” The Thotnist, 1 (1939), p. 360; cf. also: Karl Adam,
“Sanctification of Marriage,” Orate Fraires, 9 (1935), p. 172.
71 Zeiger, op. cit., p. 47*: “Nam consensus matrimonialis ab aliis con­
tractibus maxime differt obiecto. Vir et femina deliberate et libere se ipsos
sibi invicem tradunt, ad totius vitae maximam întimitatem, tam corporalem
quam interiorem, et hoc pro semper, et exclusive.”

L»
The Notion of Conjugal Love

49

resemblance to pre-marîtal love—that is specified by that which
is the object of the matrimonial contract, the jus tn corpus, for the
performance of actions that by their nature are ordained to the
procreation of children. Once the matrimonial consent is given and
the bond comes into existence, pre-marital love ipso facto ceases
to exist. That which makes marriage marriage, i.e·, the sexual relationship, changes it unalterably.
In 'the light of the foregoing one can surmise why we do not
agree with the statement of Von Hildebrand when he declares that
“the speci fi co unlity not only of love as such, hut of wedded love
in pa7ticular7 is independent of the physical aspect of sex.”72 Nor
do tve”agree with Ins following statement :

The bond between wedded love and physical sex can, of
course, be also regarded as a means to procreation. But
from this point of view it is impossible to discover the
significance of sex for man in quantum homo, or give an
account of what constitutes the special intrinsic meaning
of the bond. This, on the contrary, must be sought in the
significance of sex as expression and fulfillment.73

We wonder how he would reconcile these statements with the re­
cent declaration of the Nota when it states that the primary end
of marriage is that which determines its specific nature, and that
mutual help in marriage is distinguished by its internal relation
to that same primary end. We do not believe that we have over­
emphasized the role of the physical in conjugal love, nor again have
we underestimated the part that man’s spiritual nature plays in it.
We have stated that the spiritual plays the more vital part, but
not the whole part. The physical too must be considered. It is not
to be relegated merely to a point where it is to be an expression
of a higKer form of love, buFit is to be looked upon also as a
means to the fulfillment of the primary end of matrimony. More­
over, it must be remembered that man exercises his sex instincts
at the direction of his will. There is thus a direct connection be­
tween man’s rational nature and his physical nature. This must
73 Von Hildebrand, op. cit., p. 18; supra, p. 36.
n Ibid., p. 21.

50

The Notion of Conjugal Love

be taken into consideration in any inquiry into the nature of
conjugal love.
I

ARTICLE in. CONJUGAL LOVE---- ITS BROADER ASPECTS

Returning to our definition, we must state that we have been
discussing conjugal love in its subjective sense, i.e., as it exists
in the minds of the spouses. This is essentially what conjugal love
is, and when one speaks of it, ordinarily he is speaking of it in
this sense. We can, however, speak of it in a wide sense. In this
improper sense we can speak of the contractual consent, the
rendering of the debitum ex justitia and marriage for one’s own
material enrichment, as manifestations of conjugal love.
“Conjugal love we understand in an imperfect sense as the
matrimonial consent by which the spouses mutually grant to each
other the right, perpetual and exclusive to the acts of conjugal
life, considered in all its fulness.”74 Here Zeiger states that the
matrimonial consent is an act of conjugal love, but this is an im­
perfect use of the term. “Such a surrender (of the conjugal rights),
if it is fully considered in se, must suppose at least some imperfect,
inchoate love ; the free consent to such a surrender is not only an
external expression of that internal love, but it is the love itself.”Te
Ford admits such a meaning of conjugal love.

u

The essential marriage bond is a benefit undoubtedly, and
a conjugal benefit. The elements that make it up are the
bona constituentia of marriage. But as a good thing lov­
ingly given it pertains to the marriage in fieri. When the
partners gave their consent _to the bond, that indeed was
' '
------------- -

I

1

T< Zeiger, op. cit., p. 4ό
* : “Amorem coniugalem intelligimus in sensu imper­
fecto ipsum consensum matrimonialem, quo coniuges sibi mutuo ius tradunt
perpetuum et exclusivum ad actus et vitam coniugalem in tota sua amplitudine
sumptam”; cf. also: Vermeersch, Theologiae Moralis, IV, p. 31; "J. A.
McHugh, O.P., "The Meaning of Marriage,” HPR, 41 (1941), p. 973.
711 Zeiger, o/>, cit., p. 47
:
*
“Talis traditio, si in se plene consideratur, non
potest non supponere amorem saltem aliqualem, inchoatum, imperfectum;
consensus vero liber in istam traditionem expressio est externa amoris istius
interni, est ipse amor.”
m Ford, op. cit., p. 358.

The Notion of Conjugal Love

51

Ford in admitting that the consent pertains to the matrimonium in
fieri also gives us the reason why we consider such a consent an
act of conjugal love only in an imperfect sense. Properly speaking
conjugal love pertains to the matrimonium in facto esse. To use
the term in any other context then is to use it in an imperfect
sense. In proof of this we adduce the following facts. First, when
we speak of matrimony, we generally refer to it as a union which
is already in existence. For example, this is the manner in which
St. Thomas speaks of it. “Matrimony is not the_£onsent itself, but
the ynion of persons directed to one purpose . . . and this jinion
is~The effect of the consent.”77 This is matrimony in its proper
sense. Secondly, viewing the relationship of conjugal love to
matrimony, we can come to no other conclusion than that it be­
longs to matrimonium in facto esse. Previously we have seen that
conjugal love is distinguished from other types of love by its
internal relation to the primary end of matrimony.78 This primary
end is achieved in cooperation with nature through the performance
of the conj ugal act. The right to this act, however, the jus in corpus,
since it is the object of the matrimonial contract, is properly a part
of matrimonium in facto esse. If we consider Payen’s definition,
we will see that this is true. “It is the exclusive and perpetual
union for generating offspring; it is the conjugal bond; considered
in its source, the marital union, it is the exclusive and perpetual
right to the conjugal acts. . .”ΐα We can therefore conclude that
the source of the relationship of conjugal love to matrimony is the
matrimonium in facto esse. If this is true, any use of the term
“conjugal love” outside of this context, is an improper or im­
perfect use of that term. This means that when the contractual
consent is spoken of as conjugal love, it is in an imperfect sense
that it is meant.
77St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III (Suppl.), q. 45, a. 1, ad 2:
“Matrimonium non est ipse consensus, sed quaedam unio ordinatorum ad
unum . . . quam consensus facit.”
™ Supra, p. 47.
w Payen, op, cit., I, p. 60 : “Sed est exclusiva et perpetua, ad prolem gener­
andam, conjunctio; vinculum conjugale; jus, exclusivum et perpetuum, ad
actus conjugales, in sua radice, quae est conjunctio maritalis, consideratum.

i

52

I
1
I

1

•

■

*

ί

The Notion of Conjugal Love

In connection with the contractual consent as a form of conjugal
love, Zeiger cites the case of a young man who marries an elderly
woman with the avowed and hopeful intention of thereby gaining
her wealth.80 Now, although this intention is uppermost in his
mind, he, nevertheless, wishes to accept all the duties and obliga­
tions that accompany the marital state. The marriage, therefore, is
valid, and the consent expressed is a true matrimonial consent. In
thus granting the conjugal rights, we may say that no matter how
reluctantly he may have done so he shows a certain conjugal love.
"As long as he has truly and not fictitiously consented, there is
present that love, widely imperfect even, but still a true union
of souls.”31
That it pertains to conjugal love to grant the debitum when it
is demanded ex justitia seems a strange assertion. But a strong
indication that one may attach such a signification to this act may
be derived from the words of the Holy Father: “By this same
love it is necessary that all the other rights and duties of the mar­
riage state be regulated as the words of the Apostle : ‘Let the
husband render the debt to the wife, and the wife also in like
manner to the husband,’ express not only a law of justice but of
charity.”32 Although primarily the virtue of justice is involved
here, we may say that by the same act by which one renders the
debitum ex justitia one may be expressing at least an incipient
form of conjugal love. It is much the same idea as that expressed
in the contractual consent. Vermeersch states : “In the surrender
(of the conjugal rights) there is actuated that giving of oneself
by which mutual love is shown.”83 This concept has as its basis
the notion that love is based on justice. It is so expressed by
Farrell ;

When the Church insists that the marriage contract is a
matter of strict justice, she is not replacing love by a

;

w Zeiger, op. cit., p. 47
*.
w Ibid., "Sed dummodo vere et non ficte consentit, adest ille amor valde
imperfectus quidem, sed vera animorum unio.”
63 Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 549 f. ; “cum hoc eadem caritate reliqua coniugii
tam iura quam officia componantur necesse est; ita ut non solum iustitiae lex,
sed etiam caritatis norma sit illud Apostoli : 'Uxori vir debitum reddat ;
similiter autem et uxor viro (1 Cor. 7:3).’” (PPt, p. 8.)
“ Vermeersch, Theologiae Moralis, IV, p. 31 : “In ista traditione actuatur
donatio sui quo fert mutuus amor.”

1

The Notion of Conjugal Love

53

heartless commercialism ; she is merely insisting on a
guarantee of the absolute «ninimum necessary for love.
Surely the man who refuses the demands of justice to an­
other cannot pretend to be wishing this other good.8*

Continuing his explanation he says : “Christ Himself made justice
the minimum of love when He said: 'If you love me, keep my
commandments/ for the commandments are the minimum of love
for God and are all commands of justice.”85 Similarly one cannot
truly say that he has fulfilled the commandment to love his neigh­
bor, until his actions have reached the degree or standard by which
they can be considered as acts of love. It is in view of the above
explanation that we speak of the debitum. Although one is bound
to render it in justice, still in granting that right there is a certain
conjugal love expressed.
To complete our treatment of the definitions of conjugal love,
we now consider conjugal love in its fullest sense, i.e., as supernaturally elevated. It is our intention here to cite Zeiger’s defini­
tion, and leave further consideration of this type of love to our
chapter on “mutual sanctification.” By citing the definition at this
time, our picture of conjugal love, at least in so far as definitions
are concerned, will be complete. It follows:
Supernaturally elevated, conjugal love is that love in
which the spouses, united by the Sacrament and aided
by sacramental grace, by common effort and zeal are in­
formed, both themselves and their children, with heavenly
virtues, tend to a supernatural end, and so in a more
perfect manner than is otherwise possible, represent that
most chaste and most holy love, with which Christ
embraces the Church.86
“Farrell, Walter, O.P., A Companion to the Summa, III, p. 439.
* Ibid., IV, p. 398.
85 Zeiger, op. cit., p. 48
:
*
“Cui in connubio christiano accedere debet amor
sensu plenissimo sumptus, sci., super naturali ter elevatus, quo coniuges Sacra­
mento coniuncti, gratia sacramentali adiuti, conatu communi atque studio
et ipsi et filii virtutibus coelestibus informentur, tendant ad finem supernaturalem, et sic perfectiori quo fien potest modo repraesentent amorem illum
castissimum atque sanctissimum, quo Christus Ecclesiam amplectitur.”

54

The Notion of Conjugal Love
ARTICLE IV. THE QUALITIES OF CONJUGAL LOVE

Previously we have spoken of those parts of man’s nature which
must be brought into play in order to have a true conjugal love, i.e.,
man’s rational, sensitive and sexual tendencies. Now we must con­
sider the quality of the love itself. Is it a love of concupiscence,
or does it partake of a higher classification? What special prop­
erties does it show ? What may we include as characteristics of this
type of love ? These and other questions we will attempt to answer
in this article.
At the very least we will say that conjugal love includes the
love of concupiscence, i.e,, the love whereby one loves someone
because of the good he himself will attain through his act of love.87
The reason for this is quite evident since it must be said that all
love, at least insofar as human beings are concerned, has a motive
of selfishness in it. This selfishness, however, can be reduced to its
proper minimum in conjugal love, if we say that it should not be
considered as the chief constituent of conjugal love, but only the
source or beginning of a love that will finally attain to a love of
true friendship. In a certain manner, Gilson indicates this when
he says :

Man born of carnal desire, needs to live, and cannot live
without setting up himself as the object of his own desire,
and since he could not desire himself without desiring all
he needs as well, we must say that he loves himself in the
first place, and then all the rest for pure self-love.88
Probably this is what Mersch had in mind when he said : “It (love)
leads the man and woman, by a movement sensible and exacting,
from preoccupations egoistic enough in the beginning, to a splendid
life of devotion and forgetfulness of self.”88 True conjugal love
would thus start from self-love, and building upon that, would
advance to a love of true friendship, which we consider to be the
true and proper type of conjugal love.
Supra, p. 8.
88 Gilson, Etienne, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, p. 270.
“Mersch, op. cit., p. 212. (Italics mine.)

The Notion of Conjugal Love

55

In line with our considerations above, we would also include
the love of benevolence as pffrt of conjugal love. One spouse may
love the other for the good which he sees in him or her. He may
be attracted purely by the good he finds in the other, and hence no
trace of selfishness may be found in his love. Farrell expresses
this idea very clearly when he says : “Unselfish love means no more
than the constant, effective desire to do good to another. Briefly,
it means that we have identified ourselves with another; his will
is our will so that his good is our good, his happiness our happi­
ness.”00 These facts are quite evident. Properly speaking, however,
conjugal love is a mutual benevolent love, a love of true friend­
ship wherein the spouses return the love which they show for each
other. St. Thomas treating of this says: “Between the husband
and wife there is seen in existence the greatest friendship ; for they
are united not only in the act of carnal intercourse, which makes
for a certain pleasant friendship even amongst beasts, but also for
the community of their whole domestic life.”01 The very notion of
friendship requires that there be a return of love. Hence between
the spouses where the greatest friendship exists, each should return
the love of the other. St. Thomas warns: “Although the force of
the lover’s act may reach the one who does not love, yet there can
be no union between them, unless there be a mutual love. And
therefore the Philosopher says for friendship, which consists in a
certain union, there is required a return of love.”02 In insisting
upon this Mersch states: “Love, we repeat, is a union. It is im­
possible without a reciprocal donation of self, by which each
partner renounces his life as an isolated individual, in order to
become one with the other.”03 We have already seen how conjugal
’’Farrell, op. cit., Ill, p. 61.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, Liber III, C. 123 : “Inter virum
autem et uxorem maxima amicitia esse videtur. Adunantur enim non solum
in actu carnalis copulae, quae etiam inter bestias quamdam suavem amicitiam
facit, sed ad totius domesticae conversationis consortium. . .”
ea St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, III (Suppi.), q. 47, a. 4, ad 1 :
“Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod quamvis actus amantis possit transire in
non amantem, tamen unio inter eos non potest esse, nisi sit mutua amatio. Et
ideo dicit Philosophus quod ad amicitiam, quae in quadam unione consistit,
requiritur redamatio.”
03 Mersch, op. cit., p. 217.

56

The Notion of Conjugal Love

love results in the union of husband and wife. If this union is to
be secured, then the love out of which conjugal love will be con­
stituted will lead to this union. Since only the love of friendship
meets this demand, conjugal love will consist primarily in this.
As such, the reciprocal love of the spouses will be required. To
sum up, that love which best meets the requirements of conjugal
love, the one which will result in the union of souls demanded by
this love, is a mutual benevolent love, a love of true friendship.84
From love conceived in this light we are led to make several
important deductions. First, this type of love must exclude selfish­
ness. Farrell says : “Friendship is a mutual benevolent love on a
common ground, and has as its normal rule, unselfishness ; or, in
more simple terms, generosity.”85 Bonnar speaks in a very practical
manner : “Selfishness is a moral fault, though not (when it stands
alone) a grievously sinful one; but a married life which, even by
mutual consent, abstains from full sexual life solely from selfish
motives, will generally be guilty of other moral faults also, often
grievous ones.”00 Bonnar speaks here of a particular phase of
married life. If selfishness were to dominate the lives of the mar­
ried couple, we could imagine how serious its effects would be.
To combat selfishness in married life, Gerald Vann points out that
the virtue of temperance is necessary for the spouses.

It is temperateness which makes us reverent. . . If you
lack temperateness you lack reverence, and therefore you
cannot love. . . .You cannot love, you are restricted to a
partial, because selfish and sensual, pleasure; whereas love
is a total enhancement of being, a glorifying of the whole
body-spirit, because it is essentially a vital oneness with
what is good and lovely.07
Conjugal love thus must tend towards unselfishness; it will attain
this end more easily if it is imbued with the virtue of temperate­
ness.
“ Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill, p. 799.
" Farrell, op. cit., Ill, p. 84.
“Bonnar, A., O.F.M., The Catholic Doctor (2nd ed., New York; P. J.
Kenedy, 1939), p. 68.
07 Vann, Gerald, O.P., The Divine Pity (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1946),
p. 166. (Italics mine.)

The Notion of Conjugal Love

57

More important thapjthe first deduction is the one that follows:
true conjugal friendship implies that conjugal love will be endowed
with the notes of permanency and exclusiveness. It seems to us
that this notion flows from or is connected with the properties of
marriage. We have already seen that conjugal love has an intrinsic
relation to the fundamental right given in marriage, and that from
this right it takes its specific difference. In much the same manner
this love will take upon itself the properties of marriage, its unity
and indissolubility. In terms that pertain to love we say that this
love takes upon itself the exclusiveness and permanency of marriage.
That conjugal love should be permanent is indicated from many
sources. Because of its place in marriage, conjugal love takes upon
itself the permanency of marriage. It is meant to be permanent.
Pre-marital love, on the other hand, is fleeting and transient.
Pre-marital love is only properly fulfilled by conjugal love, and
therefore is transient, since its object when possessed does away
with it. Even more, it does not have the juridical bond of marriage
to strengthen and consolidate it.08 Love in marriage differs precisely
because it is fortified by the permanency of this bond. Our late
Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, alluded to this fact when stating the
benefits which flow from the indissolubility of matrimony. "First
of all, both husband and wife possess a positive guarantee of the
endurance of this stability which that generous yielding of their
persons and the intimate fellowship of their hearts by their nature
strongly require, since true love never falls away.”09 A number
of authors support this view. In answering the question, “How do
you prove the natural law of perpetuity?” Vermeersch states:
We prove it by the natural aspiration of the sentiment of
love which desires to last forever ; by the irrevocable char­
acter of mutual self-surrender, which rakes away from the
woman her integrity ; by the duty of education, which by
* Supra, p. 19.
*Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 553 f. : “Et primum quidem coniuges in hac
firmitate certum habent perennitatis signaculum, quod generosa propriae
personae traditio et intima suorum animorum consociatio suapte natura
tantopere exigit, cum vera caritas finem nesciat.”

58

The Notion oj Conjugal Love

its nature requires years, and which goes on indefinitely,
being renewed at every birth ; finally by the duties of
mutual help and mutual upbuilding which are implied in
marriage and which do not cease until death.100
Again in his Theologia Moralis, he declares: “Nor is the perpetual
and indissoluble durability of matrimony well explained without
the necessity of human offspring, although love itself tends toward
a perpetual and complete giving or communication of self.”101
Merkelbach’s thoughts follow much the same pattern: “But love
tends to perpetuity, since the total giving of self is irrevocable, and
if otherwise, it would be unfair since it takes away the integrity
of the woman.”102 Hanley is of the same opinion : “of itself, more­
over, conjugal love tends to be permanent. . .”103 Statements of
others though not specifically applicable to this point bear out this
fact. E.g., Gilson : “human love, in spite of all its ignorance, blind­
ness and even downright error, is never anything but a finite
participation in God’s own love for Himself.”104 This being true,
we must conclude that human love will partake in some measure
of the permanency of God’s own eternal love. As expressed by
Farrell: “Like all love, this love was made to last forever; an
element of temporality, of caution, some means of escape is a
frank statement of the absence of love.”103 It thus seems, from the
statements we have quoted above, that we are able to infer that
conjugal love by its nature tends to be a permanent love. This
is not to state, nor do we mean to imply, that conjugal love cannot
I

i

1
I

100 Vermeersch, What Is Marriage? p. 11.
M1 Vermeersch, Theologiae Moralis, IV, p. 31: “Nec perpetua et indis­
solubilis firmitas matrimonii bene explicaretur sine illa humanae prolis
necessitate, quamquam ipse amor in perpetuam et completam sui donationem
seu communicationem propendet.”
“· Merkelbach, op. cit., III, p. 806 : “atque amor tendit ad perpetuitatem,
cum donatio totalis sit irrevocabilis, et si secus, esset inaequalis, cum integrita­
tem mulieris auferat.”
1<B Hanley, Thomas R., O.S.B., ‘“Natural Law on Marriage," p. 300; cf.
also : Mersch, op. cit., p. 217.
101 Gilson, op. cit., p. 274.
106 Farrell, op. cit., Ill, p. 76.

ί
!

The Notion of Conjugal Love

59

perish. At a matter of fact it often does, as we may infer from the
divorces that have resumed because of its death.108*
ill
We wish to add here that the chief argument for the permanence
of conjugal love is drawn from the primary end of marriage. The
primary end demands that the marriage be permanent; otherwise
its attainment becomes impossible. Merkelbach states :

(Dissolubility) destroys conjugal society and renders at­
tainment of the primary end impossible, namely the prop­
agation and due education of the children to a suitable
age ; for to obtain that end requires a period of long duraation and the constant care of both spouses. This would be
rendered impossible if the separation of the spouses could
take place at their desire and at any moment.107
Conjugal love, inasmuch as it is ordained to the attainment of
the primary end, will take upon itself the permanency required
to bring about the attainment of that end. The practical manner
in which conjugal love works to do this bears out our assertion.
By its very nature it tends towards the union of the spouses. It
keeps the spouses united and together in order that generation of
the children might take place; it actually inclines the spouses
toward the performance of the conjugal act, through which chil­
dren are begotten. And finally, after the children have been born,
it maintains the unity of the spouses so that these same children
might be properly reared and educated. Truly, it is designed to
be permanent.
In the same manner in which we stated that conjugal love
demands permanence, we also contend it is endowed with the
quality of exclusiveness. In the words of Merkelbach : “Conjugal
108 We do not wish to state here that every divorce takes place because of
the death of conjugal love. In many divorces conjugal love never existed
in the first place.
10T Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill, p. 805: “(Dissolubilitas) Destruit enim ipsam
societatem coniugalem, et reddit impossibilem finem eius principalem:
propagationem et debitam educationem prolis usque ad perfectam aetatem ; ad
ill im finem requiritur diuturnum tempus et concors cura utriusque coniugis,
et ideo ipse redderetur impossibilis, si pro libitu et omni momento separatio
coniugum fieri posset.”

E

I
60

The Notion of Conjugal Love

love consists in the deepest friendship. But an intimate and perfect
friendship bespeaks an exclusive love.”108 Supporting this view is
Vermeersch :

The sentiment of love, quite a different thing from that of
quiet friendship, is jealous and exclusive. “Conjugal love,”
says Abbè Dermine, “must be exclusive under the pain
of dissolving itself. Conjugal love shared with another
excites jealousy and divides the heart. . . .” Besides how
could the mutual total self-surrender which the conjugal
union implies be realized between more than two peo­
ple ?109

Joyce in confirming these statements adds :

There is a deep-rooted desire to possess'the heart of the
person loved, not merely the body. It is a consequence of
this that human love is intensely exclusive, that it can
tolerate no sharing of the affections. And it is note­
worthy that this jealousy of all intrusion is most marked
in woman, in whom the instinctive side of affection is most
strong.110
Lavaud’s remarks follow much the same vein : “but the giving of
self that is consummated in the union of bodies is not human and
complete unless it is reserved exclusively to only one partner. A
man cannot give himself wholly—mind, soul and body, to several
women, nor can a woman give herself in like manner to several
men.”111 To further strengthen their position the authors speak of
the harmful effects of a divided love. Mersch begins, saying : “The
fact is that the love of which we are speaking cannot, like charity,
multiply its objects without dividing and lacerating itself. Because
it is material, it must be limited, under pain of mutilation.”112
109Ibid., Ill, p. 799: “Amor conjugalis est maximae amicitiae. Sed amicitia
intima et perfecta intendit amorem exclusivum."
100 Vermeersch, ÏVhat Is Marriage? p. 10; Abbè Dermine, Les Lois du
Mariage Chretien, p. 103.
110 Joyce, op. cit., p. 18.
U1 Lavaud, op. cit., p. 365 ; cf. also : Bonnar, op. cit., p. 47.
113 Mersch, op. cit,, p. 18.

The Notion of Conjugal Love

61

Referring back to Joyce who this time directs his remarks partic­
ularly to the harmful effects of polygamy, we see that :

Polygamy is gravely detrimental to the reciprocal attach­
ment which should be found in marriage. The wife will
assuredly not give her whole heart to a husband who offers
her but a share in his divided affections. Physical union
there may be ; but the moral union can never be realized.113
In much the same way Poland states :
Nature has ordained that there be love between two, and
the man who gives his love to one woman must abide by it.
Nature has ordained a single intense love, to the end of
the formation of a stable society. . . Plurality of wives
dividés the love, destroys the love.11411
*

St. Thomas argues that since friendship consists in a certain
equality, for a man to have many wives would be to reduce this
friendship, at least on the part, of the wife, to a state of servility.11·5
From every side then, on the part of the love itself which tends
to be exclusive, and from the evil effects which a divided love would
have on the parties concerned, conjugal love tends to be exclusive—
it is directed towards one individual and one only. Thus from con­
jugal love that is first of all a love of true friendship, we have
learned two important facts that are to have a profound effect on
the lives of all married people. Conjugal love is at once both per­
manent and exclusive ; hence it will exert itself mightily in preserv­
ing the stability of the marriage bond.
As a corollary, we note that it is within God’s power to dis­
pense from these qualities of permanency and exclusiveness.
Merkelbach testifies to this fact when he says that although “Mar­
riage cannot be dissolved by any earthly power, yet it can be dis­
solved by divine power, because any legislator de se can dissolve
113 Joyce, op cit., p. 19.
“‘William Poland, S.J., “The Natural Law in Marriage,” TER, 22
<(1900), p. 347.
11S St. Thomas Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, Liber III, C. 124 ; Summa
Theologiae, III (Suppl.), q. 65, a. 1.

62

The Notion of Conjugal Love

a law which he has proposed by his own authority.”118 As a matter
of fact it has happened in the past, and happens even now through
the power communicated to the Church (as regards permanence)
that God has actually dispensed from these qualities in some cases.
For example, Christ witnesses the fact that divorce was permitted
the Jews: “Moses, by reason of the hardness of your heart, per­
mitted you to put away your wives. . .”117 Polygamy was likewise
permitted this people. In evidence of this we have the case of
Abraham. It is noted of Abraham’s wife that: “She took Agar
the Egyptian her handmaid, and gave her to her husband to wife.”118
Finally, we have the case of the Pauline Privilege. God, working
through the Church, grants it power to break a non-sacramental
union under certain conditions which He has stipulated.119
In so far as the intensity of the love is concerned, it will be
found that the higher the object of love the more ennobling it will
be. This is in accord with the principle advanced by St. Thomas
Aquinas that: “Love of the good that is truly a good for the being
that loves, tends to perfect that being and bring it to a better con­
dition. It is for this reason that man is in the highest measure
perfected and elevated by the love of God.”120 The reason for this lies
in the fact that the will, the faculty from which love proceeds, is
determined by its object, as St. Thomas says.121*Farrell comments
upon this in this way:
The will . . . does not take things into itself; it goes out
to things. We become what we desire. If that be infinitely
119 Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill, p. 811: “Matrimonium quod nulla potestate
terrestri dissolvi valet, solvi tamen potest potestate divina, quia unusquisque
legislator de se solvere potest legem quam propria tulit auctoritate. . .”
11T Mt. 19:8.
118 Gen. 16:3.
1101 Cor. 7:12.
120 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 28, a. 5, corp.: “Amor
ergo boni convenientis est perfectivus et melîorativus amantis. . . Unde
maxime homo perficitur et melioratur per amorem Dei . .
cf. Leen,
Edward, C.S.Sp., The Holy Ghost and His Work in Souls (New York:
Sheed & Ward, 1939), pp. 44-48.
121 Ibid., I, q. 16, a. 1, corp. : “Sicut autem bonum est in re, in quantum
habet ordinem ad appetitum, et propter hoc ratio bonitatis derivatur a re
appetibili in appetitum, secundum quod appetitus dicitur bonus, prout est
boni. . .”

I
.J

4

The Notion of Conjugal Love

63

above us, we^are lifted out of ourselves to that superior
height ; if it be beneath us, we are dragged down to the
level of what we crave. If we place our goal in God, we
soar to divine heights ; if we revel in the pleasures of the
animals, we are dragged down to the mire of animal
existence.122

The lesson or moral that lies behind these statements is quite evi­
dent. It is incumbent upon each of the spouses to make himself a
worthy object of love. The more worthy he is, the more will he
ennoble his partner, of whose love he is the object. Each spouse
necessarily affects the nature of the love of his partner. The quality
of the love of each depends to a great extent on the other. There­
fore, upon each rests the responsibility of making himself a worthy
object of love. It is something they cannot escape. And the situa­
tion becomes more critical in the realization that any event, inas­
much as it affects one or the other for good or for evil, cannot but
have a similar effect for good or evil upon the remaining spouse.
Our final consideration in this article is the question whether
a man’s love for his father and mother should take precedence over
his love for his wife. St. Thomas answers this question by saying
that in view of the good which is the object of love, the parents
are to be loved more than the wife. However, in reference to rela­
tionship, the wife is to be loved more. We love our parents because
they are the principles of our lives ; hence we love them more
objectively (appreciative'). A husband loves his wife because the
wife is joined to him in “one flesh.” Therefore the wife is loved
more intensely, while more reverence is shown to the parents.123
These norms are given in the supposition that an equal necessity
prevails in a given case. A real test of their practicality would take
place in a case of extreme necessity. In this case it would seem
that the parents would be preferred before all others, since they
have given life to their children.124 In the case which is so often
123 Farrell, op. cit., I, p. 316.
128 St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 26, a. 11; cf. also:
Farrelt, op. cit., Ill, p. 82 sq.; Ostheimer, Anthony L., The Family: A
<jThomistic Study in Social Philosophy (Washington, D. C. : Catholic Uni­
versity Press, 1939), p. 79.
124 Merkelbach, op. cit., I, p. 699.

I

64

The Notion of Conjugal Love

presented as an example, that of the capsized boat, it is a general
rule that the husband should rescue his mother in preference to
his wife, all other conditions being equal. In a case of grave ne­
cessity, however, it would seem that the husband’s love for his wife
would take precedence. For example, if both his wife and his mother
were gravely ill, he would be bound first to care for his wife.*120
There are many other qualities that we could add to the notion
of conjugal love, but that is not to our purpose to consider them,
nor, moreover, would it serve any vital need. Most of the theo­
logical treatises enumerate these qualities, and they are readily
applied by anyone in light of the nature of conjugal love. And,
too, any enumeration that we might attempt would necessarily be
inadequate. We believe that we have treated those qualities which
flow most proximately from the nature of conjugal love, and with­
out which our treatment would have been incomplete. With the
termination of this question, we may now proceed to the con­
siderations embodied in the topic of our next article, the necessity
of conjugal love.
ARTICLE V. THE NECESSITY OF CONJUGAL LOVE

In treating the necessity of conjugal love, we will inquire
whether it is necessary in the sense that it is essential to the notion
of marriage, or whether it must remain outside this essential
notion as a condition promoting the smooth operation of marriage.
First of all, let us state that conjugal love is not essential in the
sense that once it has ceased to exist, the marriage itself can be
considered as having been dissolved.128 This is conjugal love con­
sidered as a virtue. It is only when we view conjugal love as an end
towards which marriage of its nature tends, that we can state that
conjugal love is essential or necessary to marriage. Ford proves this
rather conclusively, so we feel there is no need to repeat his argu­
ments.121 We would, however, repeat a caution which he advances
in regard to this matter: “In a marriage in which for one reason

:

™Ibid.
120 Cf. Zeiger, op. cit., p. 45*, for a complete inquiry on this question : cf.,
also: Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., II, p. 470.
121 Ford, op. cit., pp. 362-64.

The Notion of Conjugal Love

65

or another one of the ends (or all of them) is unattainable, it still
remains
that marriage is related to that end, inasmuch as the
marriage bond always consists in a right to the acts by which that
end is attainable.”J-8 In stating this caution, we thus avoid the ne­
cessity of refuting anyone who might contend that conjugal love is
not essential, adducing as proof the numerous divorces and separa­
tions which have occurred because of its death. The statement of
Zeiger that (i matrimonium in facto esse in its essential concept does
not contain conjugal love, as long as it is considered juridically,”129
might also appear to go against our contention, were it not that
a clear investigation of the context of Zeiger’s statements proves
otherwise. He does not say that conjugal love is excluded as an
essential end of marriage. What he actually says is that marriage
considered as the contractual consent does not contain conjugal
love as the natural virtue and as the supernatural virtue.130 As his
statement stands, it is neither for nor against our contention. Thus
our original contention remains unchanged: conjugal love, as an
end towards which marriage tends, is essential to the notion of
marriage.
Related closely to its consideration as an end of marriage is its
consideration as a virtue. There is no doubt that in this light
conjugal love is not essential to marriage. Both Zeiger and Ford,
who treat this topic at somewhat greater length than other authors,
hold this view. Ford clearly states that the actual virtue of conjugal
love is not essential to marriage.131 Zeiger demonstrates his view
by presenting for our consideration two cases ; in each a valid
marriage is contracted. One is successful, lasting until the death
of one of the spouses. The other terminates after a few short
months. The latter marriage failed, Zeiger says: “Because there
is lacking an altogether necessary element : the harmony of hearts,
the union of love. . .”132 Conjugal love thus can die. It was for
^Ibid., p. 349.
Zeiger, op. cit., p. 49* : “matrimonium in facto esse in suo conceptu
essentiali amorem conjugalem non continet, dummodo mere juridice con­
sideratur.”
130 Ibid.
Ford, op. cit., p. 360.
w Zeiger, op. cit., p. 50*: "Quia deerat elementum omnino necessarium:
concordia animorum, unio amoris. .

I

66

The Notion of Conjugal Love

this reason that in the preceding article we qualified our state­
ments on the permanency of conjugal love, by stating only that it
tends to be permanent. To have stated without qualification that
the virtue of conjugal love was permanent, would have been a
denial of human nature itself. It would be like stating that there
is no hate in the world, when as a matter of fact it surrounds us
on all sides. The virtue of conjugal love then is not essential, inas­
much as it resides in man’s subjective faculties, which are subject
to change and instability, and hence can exist or not, dependent
upon man’s dispositions.
Although we are presented with a picture which reveals to us
that conjugal love can die in particular cases, this does not belie
the fact that this virtue is most necessary if marriage is to succeed.
We believe no stronger statement on the necessity of conjugal love
can be found than that of Pope Pius XI : “On the other hand, the
house built upon a rock, that is to say on mutual conjugal charity
and strengthened by a deliberate and constant union of spirit, will
not only never fall away but will never be shaken by adversity.”183
Zeiger also speaks of this necessity when he says: “From the char­
acter of human nature and hence from the will of God, the founder
of nature and especially of the Christian order, there arises the
greatest appositeness, nay even a certain necessity of conjugal
love.”184 Gasparri indicates the particular type of necessity to which
Zeiger refers when he says : “The union of souls and goods is not
an object of the matrimonial contract, but is a necessary condition
in order that the marriage might obtain happy results, along with
the endurance of the burden it contains. . .”X3“ Wernz-Vidal in
183 Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 569 f. ; “At contra, quae supra petram constituta
fuerit domus, mutua nempe inter coniuges caritate, et deliberata ac con­
stanti animorum coniunctione solidata, nulla concutietur adversitate, nedum
evertetur.” (PPt, p. 24) ; cf. also Vermeersch, IVhat Is Marriage? pp. 58-59.
Zeiger, op. cit., p. 53
* : “Simul ex indole naturae humanae et proin ex
voluntate Dei, conditoris naturae et praesertim ordinis christiani eruitur
maxima convenientia, immo necessitas quaedam amoris coniugalis.”
135 Gasparri, op. cit., I, p. 16: “Unio autem animorum et bonorum non est
obiectum matrimonialis contractus, sed est conditio necessaria ut matri­
monium felices sortiatur exitus, et ad illius onera sustinenda. . .” (Italics
mine.)

The Notion of Conjugal Love

67

lending their approbation to this statement almost repeat Gasparri’s
words.136
*138* Furthermore, Gasparri adds : “matrimony, as the most
intimate of all societies, requires mutual love more than any other
factor, in order that it may flourish abundantly.”187 Probably the
most conclusive statement on the necessity of conjugal love, how­
ever, is the following, which is also taken from Zeiger: “Nor can a
society be considered truly conjugal without the consideration, at
the same time, of that most necessary element, the foundation on
which this society is built, conjugal love.”188 What these theologians
teach concerning the necessity of conjugal love is borne out in the
lives of all married couples. There are countless incidents which
happen in their lives to show its need. In the first months of
married life their love is strong, and consequently it easily sweeps
aside anything that threatens to destroy it. But as time passes love
seems to wane because of its continual battle to overcome obstacles.
Troubles once lightly passed by loom ever larger each succeeding
time they are faced. For this reason the spouses should strive al­
ways to keep their love strong and healthy, ever strengthening it.
In this manner they will never have to worry that the trials they
face will become obstacles to their happiness. Instead their love
continually renewed and strengthened will convert these trials
into so many aids through which the success of their married life
will be best insured and guaranteed. Gerald Vann speaks ap­
propriately on this subject. He says on the one hand : “the stuff
of married life is the daily work, the daily drudgery; all the bur­
dens which the care of children involves; the economic anxieties;
the responsibilities. . ,”159 But, on the other hand, he says: “There
is the deep, underlying joy, there is the long happiness of comrade­
ship, there are the moments of glory; these, too, are essential, for
they are love, and it is love which turns drudgery into joy.”140
136 Wernz-Vidal, op. cit., V, p. 44.
187 Gasparri, op. cit., I, p. 16: “matrimonium esse societatem inter omnes,
quae excogitari possunt, summe intimam, quae, ut bene vergat, mutuum
amorem prae ceteris omnibus requirit.”
138 Zeiger, op. cit., p. 50*: “Nec potest cogitari societas vere coniugalis per
totjm vitam producta, quin simul cogitetur elementum illud maxime neces­
sarium, fundamentum, cui superstruitur, sci., amor coniugalis.”
Vann, op. cit., p. 185.
J“ Ibid.

[

68

The Notion of Conjugal Love

Conjugal love, then, is a necessity. With it the trials of marriage
become so many occasions of joy and happiness ; without it they
become as so many weapons which seek to destroy the institution
in which they are found. It is essential in the sense that in by far
the greater number of cases, those ends, to which marriage by its
nature tends, cannot be attained without it.
ARTICLE VI, CONJUGAL LOVE: ITS EFFECTS ON THE SPOUSES

The first effect of conjugal love on the spouses is the union of
mind and heart into which they are drawn. As we have already
seen, it is of the nature of this love that such a union be accom­
plished.141 A union is necessary if the purposes for which mar­
riage exists are to be accomplished. In the attainment of the ends
toward which marriage of itself tends, and of those personal
benefits which the spouses themselves intend, one cannot fail to
insert in the picture this important element. In speaking of the
part that true marriage plays in providing for the proper multi­
plication of mankind, Vermeersch declares that in advance of
the corporal union there is required in the spouses a sincere af­
fection uniting their souls.142 And in so far as personal consider­
ations are concerned, a stalemate would certainly exist if there
were to be disagreement on all of the issues which the spouses
must necessarily face in their married life. Vann speaking in this
vein states :
In the sphere of mind there is the long and laborious
process, not indeed of coming to agree on every conceiv­
able issue, but of reaching a real and stable sympathy
of mind, a real unity on great issues, a real mutual com­
plementing of the two different ways of thought; fi­
nally there has to be the unity of the deep personal will,
not again that there can ever be a complete agreement
of desire in every superficial and transient issue, but that
beneath the .surface-differences there may be a solid core
of unity which nothing can shake.143
™ Supra, p. 37.
14* Vermeersch, FFAat Is Marriage? p. 17.
14i Vann, op. cit., pp. 184-85.

The Notion of Conjugal Love

69

This is the *
unity which conjugal love effects ; through it the
spouses will find a most efficacious means of meeting and solv­
ing their problems. Ultimately they will find it to be their most
effective contribution to the success and happiness of their
marriage.
The second effect of conjugal love is the order that it sets up
between the spouses. Pope Pius XI states :

Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this
bond of love, there should flourish in it that “order of
love/’ as St. Augustine calls it. This order includes both
the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and
children, the ready subjection of the wife and her will­
ing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these
words : “Let women be subject to their husbands as to
the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife,
as Christ is the head of the Church.”14*

The husband is the head of the wife and the family, and, there­
fore, to him belongs the power of governing not only the children
and familial affairs, but also his wife, who, however, is to be
treated not as a slave, but as a worthy companion.144
*146* De Smet
expresses this idea very pointedly when he says: “The wife ought
to be subject to her husband . . . however, the headship of the
husband is formed most excellently with mutual love, nay rather
it is tempered by mutual love : the wife is not to be considered as
a handmaid, but as a loving companion.”148 The wife ought to
revere her husband, as her head and governor, and should bestow
144 Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 549 f. : “Firmata denique huius caritatis vinculo
domestica societate, floreat in ea necesse est ille, qui ab Augustino vocatur
ordo amoris. Qui quidem ordo et viri primatum in uxorem et liberos, et
uxoris promptam nec invitam subiectionem obtemperationemque complectitur,
quam commendat Apostolus his verbis : 'Mulieres viris suis subditae sint sicut
Domino; quoniam vir caput est mulieris, sicut Christus caput est Ecclesiae’
(Eph. 5:22).”
146 Merkelbach, op. cit., II, p. 809.
148 De Smet, AI., De Sponsalibus Et Matrimonio (4th ed., Belgium :
'rJeyaert, 1927), p. 233: “Uxor debet esse subdita marito . . . principatus
autem viri optime consistit cum amore mutuo, imo mutua dilectione tem­
peratur : non est habenda uxor ut ancilla, sed ut dilecta socia. . .”

70

The Notion of Conjugal Love

on him due obedience. She should also expend sedulous care in
domestic affairs, according as conditions warrant; she should
obey her husband in the government of the household and in
matters that pertain to good morals.147 It might be well to note
here a regrettable tendency that seems to have crept in to disturb
this natural and harmonious ‘relationship of husband and wife.
This is the demand of many women to be set on an equal foot­
ing with their husbands—the so-called equality of rights between
the sexes. It must be remembered that we are not speaking here
of that rightful equality which must be in existence between the
spouses, and which Vermeersch so marvelously sums up in these
words :

The wife keeps the independence of a human person;
she remains free in her personal conduct, in her prac­
tices of piety, in her goings and comings, with due con­
sideration of the conjugal pact and the order of the house
and family ; she preserves the right to demand of the
husband whatever her quality as wife and mother en­
titles her to, for she, too, has charge of the education of
the children. Finally, as the husband and wife were equal
in giving themselves each to the other, so they remain
equal in regard to the right which flows from this mu­
tual self-surrender.148

Our present Holy Father, Pope Pius XII, points out that this
so-called “equality of rights” entails on the part of the wife the
“depreciation of her true dignity and the solid foundation of all
her rights which is her characteristic feminine role, and the inti­
mate coordination of the sexes.”149 He thus declares the jeopardy
into which this union is placed when the wife trespasses her legal
bounds and infringes upon the rights, naturally bestowed, of her
husband. When this happens, frictions arise, and instead of union
there is disagreement. To remove these difficulties the first step
is to find their source. Most probably it lies in the fear of the wife
117 Merkelbach, op. cit., II, p. 810.
118 Vermeersch, What Is Marriage? pp. 23-24.
149 Pope Pius XII, “Woman’s Duties in Social and Political Life,” An Ad­
dress delivered on Oct. 21, 1945; N.C.W.C. trans., p. 6.

The Notion of Conjugal Love

71

that she wifi be considered inferior, or even degraded by her posi­
tion of subjection. Such a fear would be removed if the true
implications of her position were made known to her. The author
of the book, “Life Together,” asks: “Is the Church humiliated
in her subjection to Christ, her Head? Or is she not on the con­
trary ennobled by her subjection, and able by it to achieve perfect
unity with Him, which would otherwise be quite impossible?”150
The wife’s role, then, in natural subjection to her husband, in no
way implies degradation ; the contrary is true. On the other hand,
however, she may assure herself that any abandonment of her
natural role and the consequent assumption of the rights of a false
equality with her husband will almost certainly lead to that deg­
radation which she fears, a situation of w’hich our Holy Father
was well aware. His predecessor, Pope Pius XI, had been suffi­
ciently alarmed to warn that:

this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband
is to the detriment of the woman herself ; for if the woman
descends from the truly regal throne to which she has
been raised within the walls of the home by means of the
Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of
slavery (if not in appearance, certainly in reality) and be­
come as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of
man.*
181

Thus the wife should always be careful to accept this state of sub­
jection, if she really desires to safeguard her own best interests.
In this way only, will the unity of souls which this love achieves
be effectively preserved. St. Alphonsus goes so far as to say that
this subjection is actually a means of fostering love. He declares:
“The reason for the subjection is this: it is most expedient for
the peace of the family, for fostering mutual love, that the wife
185Hope, Wingfield, Life Together (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1944),
p. 93.
181 Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 567 i. : "Quin immo in ipsius mulieris perniciem
vertitur haec falsa libertas et non naturalis cum viro aequalitas ; nam si
jrmulier ab regia illa descendit sede, ad quam per Evangelium intra domesticos
parietes evecta est, brevi in veterem servitutem (sin minus specie, re tamen
vera) redigetur, fietque, ut apud ethnicos erat, merum viri instrumentum.”

72

The Notion of Conjugal Love

desire to be totally dependent upon her husband.”152 In connec­
tion with her position of subjection, it might be well to note at this
time, somewhat as a corollary, these words of Pope Pius XI : “For
if the man is head, the woman is the heart, and as he occupies the
chief place in ruling, so she may and ought to claim for herself
the chief place in love.”163 The woman because of the virtues with
which God has endowed her is naturally fitted for the task of love.
So she, rather than her husband, should take the lead in seeing
that an atmosphere of love prevails over the household. Leclercq
remarks appropriately :

I
I
I
'

i

j

i

'

I

I

A being of passion, clinging to the concrete, woman has
a quite understandable tendency to put her life in love.
, . . Accordingly, she gives herself up to love more than
man does. Love takes up the whole of the woman’s life;
it transcends the simple problem of carnal satisfactions ; it
completely overruns the psychical sphere. Moral union,
sentimental and spiritual, with the one whom she loves
takes the chief place in her love.161

The woman in doing this is in no way usurping a right of her
husband, but in complete accord with the principles by which she
is subject to him, she fulfills a task that naturally belongs to her.
ARTICLE VII. CONJUGAL LOVE AND ITS RELATION TO

THE CONJUGAL ACT

I

i

i
I

J

'i

Since the conjugal act, the right to which is the central object
of the matrimonial contract, plays such an important role in marriage, it becomes necessary in virtue of that role to discuss it in its
relationship to the virtue of conjugal love. We have already seen
that this love consists principally in the union of the souls of the
161 St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis (Lib. Ill, Tract. II, 9th ed. Rome:
Vatican, 1905), I, p. 522, Gaudè; “Et ratio (subjectionis) est: quia expedit
valde ad pacem familiae, ad mutuum amorem fovendum, quod uxor voluntatem
totaliter a viro dependentem habeat. . .”
Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 549 f. : “Si enim vir est caput, mulier est cor,
et sicut ille principatum tenet regiminis, haec amoris principatum sibi ut
proprium vindicare potest et debet.” (PPt, p. 9.)
^Leclercq, op, cit., p. 295.

The potion oj Conjugal Love

73

spouses. We can best state its relationship to the conjugal act if
we say that the physical union is the completion and at the same
time the best physical expression of the moral union existing be­
tween the spouses. First of all it is completion. In conjugal love
both appetites which form a part of the human composite have their
function,155 although this does not necessarily imply that both will
be in evidence in every particular act of love. For example, if one
were considering the essential structure of conjugal love, one would
find it consists principally in the union of souls of the spouses, a
union in which only the appetites that pertain to the spiritual
sphere of man have a part. To give conjugal love its integrity the
corporal aspect would also have to be included. This takes place
when the physical act of marriage is consummated. Mersch re­
marks that “the very thing that renders it (the conjugal act)
appetible is that it is the sensible and corporal aspect of love and
that it completes a man in that way.”150 The completion to which
he refers evidently takes place after the inclusion of this appetite.
Man is thus completed in the sense that he has brought into use
both of these appetites in his act of love.
At the same time this physical union is the best physical ex­
pression of the moral union that has already been perfected. The
union of souls is aptly expressed in the union of bodies ; even more
it seems to embody itself in that physical union : “Given the unity
of the human composite and the close connection between our souls
and our bodies, to arouse this activity is to make love itself pass
into act. . . . Whether one wishes it or not, the emotion which
accompanies the activity of which we are speaking is the psycho­
logical bond through which our will is engaged in our organism
and is held there.”151 Bonnar states very clearly that this act is
an expression of mutual love :

As the most complete physical expression of mutual love
that is possible, it (the conjugal act) festers and increases
that love. As all love is a desire for union with the person
loved, so this physical union promotes, and is the comSupra, p. 38.
w Mersch, op. cit., p. 213.
167 Ibid.

74

The Notion of Conjugal Love
plement of, that union of mind and heart which is the
nobler part of love. It is because of the intimate unity
and inter-relation of soul and body that physical sexual
union fosters and increases love.1®8

Ford is somewhat more emphatic in declaring his sentiments:

And what acts can be imagined which could more perfectly
serve the purpose of love than these? In the marriage act
there is a living union of the most intimate and compre­
hensive kind—a union of body and mind, of sense and
heart. When properly performed, it is an act not only
of the rational love of benevolence and concupiscence, but
also of sensitive and sexual love. It is an act of self-sur­
render in which two become one flesh, one principle of
generation. Love desires union with the beloved by a com­
munication of good. Can one discover a more appropriate
act for the expression and fulfillment of love than the
marriage act?169

Leclercq sheds some light on this relationship. His remarks are not
directly ordained to our case here, but take the form of a warning
against the dangers present in intimacies between single persons
of different sex. “People forget. . . that the two sexes were created
for the sake of physical union, and that the attraction which draws
them together tends naturally toward such a union. It is therefore
entirely normal for an intimate union of any kind to turn into a
physical union, unless the greatest vigilance be exercised.”180 The
application is obvious. The spouses united in the bonds of closest
intimacy by conjugal love naturally tend to a physical union. The
view that we are presenting here takes upon itself more credence
in the light of man’s nature, which demands such concrete ex­
pressions as the marital act as a proof of love. If man does not
have these, his love tends to die out. Constant stimulation is
necessary to keep it strong and healthy. Moreover, physical union
bears with it the note of totality. The spouses have now given all
Bonnar, op. cit., p. 57.
“"Ford, op. cit., p. 359; cf. also: Farrell, op. cit., Ill, p. 439; IV, p. 144;
Von Hildebrand, op. cit., p. 16.
100 Leclercq, op. cit., p. 127.

The Notion of Conjugal Love

75

that they can give to each other; they have surrendered them­
selves fully; theirs is a total love, a complete union. In the words
of Leclercq : “it (the union of souls) does not lead to physical
union save in so far as the latter is a sign or expression of the
complete union of the lovers. Physical love is the token of total
intimacy. It is the sign that the lovers have nothing to refuse each
other.”161 All things considered, if one would refuse to admit that
the conjugal act is the best physical expression of conjugal love,
he would at least have to admit that it is a most fitting and most
proper expression of this love.
The physical union, by the very fact that it is a token, an ex­
pression of the moral union of the spouses, also tends to increase
and foster that mutual love. De Smet brings this point out most
clearly when he declares : “That marital union,, by which the
spouses become one flesh, also fosters and nourishes this love.”162
It does this because of the realization on the part of the spouses
of the factors involved in this act. They sense the surrender of a
portion of self which heretofore they have guarded with the greatest
modesty. Their surrender is now total and complete. It is true
that it is a physical union, but it is so completely bound up with
man’s spiritual faculties that it can be said that the whole person
is now absorbed in it. The impression that the physical is to be
completely separated from the spiritual probably stems from the
separate treatment usually accorded this subject by the authors.
The truth is, that in this action man’s spiritual faculties are also
engaged. Their role in directing man’s bodily actions must be con­
sidered as having more importance than the resulting physical
actions themselves. Authors who treat of this characteristic of the
physical union are content merely to confirm what has already been
said. It will be sufficient therefore to mention a few of their names.
They are: Aertnys-Damen,168 Vermeersch/64 and Griese.160 In this
inIbid., p. 9.
lfl3De Smet, op. cit., p. 232: “Hunc etiam amorem fovet et nutrit ipsa mari­
talis copula, qua una caro efficiuntur nupti. . .”
S 108 Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., II, p. 640.
1W Ver meer sch, Theologiae Moralis, IV, p. 71.
iaeGriese, N. Orville, The "Rhythm" in Marriage and Christian Morality
(Westminster, Md.: Newman, 1944), p. 62.

76

The Notion of Conjugal Love

connection it is well to note what Aertnys-Damen say of those acts
which by their nature are accessory to the conjugal act: “The ac­
cessories are said to be all those things which by their nature are
ordained to copula, such as kisses, embraces, etc·, . . . and dispose
the spouses for the act itself. These acts, if they are chasteN’ü are
destined by their nature to signify love.”187 As long as there is no
danger of pollution, it is not necessary that these acts be ordained
to the performance of the marriage act at this particular time.188
Apart from this they may be performed just for the sake of foster­
ing mutual love. If this can be said of the accessory acts, how much
more will it apply to the conjugal act itself. Surely, it must foster
and increase the mutual love of the spouses^
Our thoughts now turn to the question whether the marriage act
is necessary for the expression of mutual love. Is it necessary that
the marriage act be performed at certain times in order that mutual
love be increased or that its diminution may be prevented ? Rela­
tive to this question we are first compelled to note that marriage
itself can exist without the marriage ever being consummated. It is
sufficient for a valid marriage that only the right to the conjugal
act be bestowed by the parties concerned; for they can mutually
agree to refrain from the use of this right which they possess. So
conjugal love can be expressed, can be fostered,without ever re­
sorting to the conjugal act. We think this to be the opinion of
St. Augustine when he says :
And we know many of our brethren bringing forth fruit
through grace, who in the name of Christ by mutual con­
sent keep from one another the concupiscence of the flesh,
but yet who do not keep from one another conjugal
charity. . . . Are there not then spouses who so live, not
seeking from each other the fruit of the flesh nor demand­
ing from each other the debt of bodily concupiscence.180
“•These acts are chaste if they prepare the spouses for the conjugal act.
Aertnys-Damen, op. cit., II, p. 660: "Accessoria dicuntur ea omnia, quae
suapte natura ad concubitum referuntur, uti sunt oscula, amplexus. . . Actus
illi, si pudici sunt, etiam ad amorem significandum a natura destinati sunt.
*
’
168 Ibid.
108 St. Augustine, Sermo LI, In Generationibus Domini, Cap. 13 (P.L. 38,
344) : “Et multos novimus fratres nostros fructificantes in gratia, in nomine
Christi ex consensu ab invicem continere concupiscentiam carnis, non autem

The Notion of Conjugal Love

77

On the other hand St, Paul advises ; “Do not deprive each other,
except perhaps by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves
to prayer ; and return together again lest Satan tempt you because
you lack self-control.”170 In a similar manner conjugal relations
are necessary at times to promote mutual love. Speaking of this
Cappello says : “Neither spouse per se is bound to seek the debitum,
because no one is bound to use a thing which is a right. . . . Per
accidens, however, such an obligation can exist, especially in the
husband ... if the use of matrimony is necessary to foster love
or to avoid disagreements.”171 And he adds: “It is manifest that
an obligation of this kind is per se grave. The object of the
mutual contract is a grave matter ; the generation of offspring,
the avoidance of incontinence, the signification of love for the safe­
guarding of domestic peace.”172 Perhaps a statement more con­
formable to the view we wish to express is the one made by Griese :
“Even among those who experience normal sexual impulses, the
love between man and wife depends at least to some degree, on
normal sexual relations.”173 Bonnar states: “Sexual intercourse
should be exercised, it goes without saying, in moderation and with
charitable consideration. But, taking this for granted, sexual inter­
course is necessary in married life to foster and preserve love be­
tween husband and wife. It is the great act of union and personal
surrender and, without it, married life is incomplete and crippled,
love is undermined.”174 Finally, this necessity is revealed in a
continere ab invicem charitatem conjugalem. . . . Nonne sunt conjuges qui
sic vivunt, non quaerentes ab invicem fructum carnis non exigentes ab in­
vicem debitum concupiscentiae corporalis?”
1701 Cor. 7:5.
171 Cappello, op. cit., p. 805 : “‘Neuter conjux Per se tenetur petere debitum,
quia nemo tenetur uti jure suo. Per accidens autem potest adesse obligatio
petendi, praesertim in viro ... si usus matrimonii necessarius est ad fovendum
amorem vel ad dissidia avertenda.” ; cf. also : H. Noldin, S J., and A. Schmitt,
S.J., De Sexto Praecepto et De Usu Matrimonii (31st ed., Oeniponte; Rauch,
1940), p. 92; Merkelbach, op. cit., III, p. 964.
17a Cappello, op. cit., p. 805: “Hujusmodi obligationem per se esse gravem,
manifestum est. Objectum mutui contractus est res gravis; generatio prolis,
u incontinentia vitanda, significatio amoris pro pace domestica tuenda.”
179 Griese, The “Rhythm” in Marriage and Christian Morality, p. 63.
174 Bonnar, op. cit., p. 49.

78

The Notion of Conjugal Love

warning voiced by theologians about the practice of “Rhythm” in
marriage. It is their opinion that it can lead to a diminution of
love.179 Moreover, we may note two specific facts in regard to
this necessity, one which concerns the man, the other the woman.
Leclercq sums these up admirably in the following statement:
Man is inclined more towards physical love. Taking the
word in its usual meaning, the sex instinct will be said to
be more developed in him; on the other hand, woman’s
affective needs are greater. Where the man wants physical
pleasure, the woman wants tokens of affection and the
acts of endearment that express it. . . . The normal order
requires that man bestow upon the woman the marks of
affection that she needs, in order that she may in turn
accord him the physical gratification which he demands.178
The question now arises, whether the fostering of love as such,
i.e., distinct from the mere desire of pleasure, is a sufficient reason
in itself to justify conjugal intercourse. We think the Holy Father,
Pope Pius XI, answered this question when he said :
Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in
the married state use their right in the proper manner,
although on account of natural reasons either of time
or certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For
in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial
rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid,
the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of con­
cupiscence which the husband and wife are not forbidden
to consider so long as they are subordinated to the pri­
mary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act
is preserved.177
17B Cf. Aertnys-Damen, II, 649; Griese, The "Rhythm" in Marriage and
Christian Morality, pp. 61-63; Bonnar, op, cit., p. 49.
lTe Leclercq, op. cit., p. 123.
177 Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 561 f. : “Neque contra naturae ordinem agere ii
dicendi sunt coniuges, qui iure suo recta et naturali ratione utuntur, etsi ob
naturales sive temporis sive quorundam defectuum causas nova inde vita
oriri non possit. Habentur enim tam in ipso matrimonio quam in coniugalis
iuris usu etiam secundarii fines, ut sunt mutuum adjutorium mutuusque
fovendus amor et concupiscentiae sedatio, quos intendere coniuges minime
vetantur, dummodo salva semper sit intrinseca illius actus natura ideoque
eius ad primarium finem debita ordinatio.” (PPt, p. 18.)

I
I

The Notion of Conjugal Love

79

Among the many authors who would support such a view, we have,
for example, Cappello who states : “There are many ends for which
the conjugal act can be performed. Some are proper and essential,
others improper and accidental. . . . The improper and accidental
are e.g., mutual love to be fostered. . .”178 Father Connell’s opin­
ion is also quite clear : “Certainly there are other ends to which
nature ordains conjugal relations, especially the alleviation of sexual
craving and the fostering of a deep and abiding love between hus­
band and wife.”179 Thus we are able to say that conjugal rela­
tions entered into for the purpose of fostering conjugal love con­
stitute a good and meritorious act, even though there is no explicit
intention of attaining the primary end, as long as this end is not
positively frustrated.
It is useless to state that the physical union of husband and wife
is the best physical expression of mutual love or that it increases
this love, unless by this union is meant a physical union in con­
formity with the laws of God and of nature. Such a condition can­
not be overlooked where true love is concerned. As Payen
contends, it is only by the chaste generation and education of off­
spring that mutual love between the spouses is fostered.180 Other­
wise, the action not only fails in the purpose which it sets out to
achieve, but even turns upon itself and becomes self-destructive.
As Vann declares : Love is always outward-turning, always an
impulsion to making; and if you wilfully frustrate it and turn it
upon itself, it becomes destructive and may well in the end become
self-destructive.”181 Vermeersch not only accepts this view but
states the reasons upon which it is based. Such artificial relations
as the practice of birth control cannot, as he says : “serve the pur­
poses of true love, for true love is partly founded on mutual respect,
which moral disorder must necessarily weaken.”182 In much the
178Cappello, op. cit., p. 797; cf. also: Vermeersch, What Is Marriage?
p. 43.
179 Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., “Birth Control : The Case for the Cath­
olic,” The Atlantic Monthly, 165 (1939), p. 469.
180 Payen, op. cit., I, p. 81.
AVann, Gerald, O.P., The Heart of Man (New York: Longman, 1945),
p. 107.
Vermeersch, What Is Marriage? p. 25 and p. 45.

80

The Notion of Conjugal Love

same words Payen reasons : “In that it (onanism) takes away
mutual reverence, it extinguishes 'mutual conjugal love.”183 More­
over, it would be difficult to see how a physical union, which brings
injury to the parties concerned, could even express love, not alone
attempt to increase it. And injury to the parties is the result when
the physical union does not take place in accordance with the laws
of God. Vermeersch points this out when he declares : “these laws
of God sanction an order of mutual relations which is for the good
of the parties. The partner who violates that order does an injury
to the other party, which is manifestly contrary to conjugal fidelity,
since that demands mutual helpfulness.”184 Hence we may conclude
that a chaste physical union is not only the most proper but also
the most advantageous means of expressing love ; while an unchaste
union is not only improper, but a distinct liability.
In closing this phase of our treatment we have seen that the
physical union is the completion and at the same time the best
physical expression of the moral union that is in existence between
the spouses. Just as we see in man’s nature the necessity at certain
times for a concrete expression of sincerity, etc., so also we recog­
nize a periodic necessity in the husband and wife for such con­
crete expressions as the marital act as a proof of their love. Over
and above this, there is at times a necessity that they perform this
act to nourish and increase this love. Finally, this manner of ex­
pressing love is an appropriate one, in the fulfillment of which the
spouses are also acting for the accomplishment of a greater and
higher good. For God has decided this act to be the means whereby
his own command to the human race “to increase and to multiply”
will be brought to pass. Thus in the very expression of their com­
mon love, the husband and wife have already the means whereby
that love will produce its fruit.
ARTICLE VIII. CONJUGAL LOVE AND ITS RELATION TO THE CHILD

In discussing the specific difference of conjugal love, we showed
that there was an internal relation existing between this love and
Payen, op. cit., II, p. 424: “Eo enim ipso quod mutuam tollit reverentiam,
mutuum amorem conjugalem . . . exstinguit” ; cf. also Aertnys-Damen, II,
p. 646.
Vermeersch, What Is Marriage? p. 21.

I

The Notion of Conjugal Love

81

the primary end of marriage.185 Our purpose in this article is to
point out the relationship between the virtue of conjugal love and
the primary end as objectively realized in the child. First, we wish
to recall a statement that we made in our previous article. The
union of souls, the basis of conjugal love, tends by its nature to
the physical union of bodies.186 Once that act is placed, and as­
suming that nature will cooperate perfectly in this instance, the
ground is laid for the birth of the child. The union of souls result­
ing in a union of bodies thus produces the term of love, the child.
In the child the married couple’s unity is realized in an
absolute fashion, whereas the love union can never bring
about such a fusion of the couple that they really form
but a single being. The child is the couple’s unity realized
and projected outside themselves. Each spouse rediscovers
the other in the child, and also finds himself anew.187

In connection with this notion Payen speaks of the child as the
fruit of the parent’s love: “in the common fruit of a common love,
that is in the child.”188 Farrell uses a somewhat stronger term. He
says : “the child is a perfect expression of love ; here is a union
that is the embodiment of the mother and father. . .”180 And to
again quote Leclercq: “The child, then, is closely bound up with
conjugal love. He is the fruit of love, and its most potent stim­
ulant.”100 Figurative as these statements may seem, they have a
basis in fact. They are striving to express the truth that it is
“love that begets the child.”101 First of all, the composition of
conjugal love is involved, both its corporal and spiritual aspects,
for it is of the integral conjugal love that we must speak. It would
not be totally correct to speak of one of its aspects, and call it the
whole conjugal love. One should be especially careful in speaking
185 Supra, p. 47.
** Supra, p. 74.
101 Leclercq, op. cit., p. 10.
188 Payen, op. oit., II, p. 425; “in communi fructu communis amoris, id est
in prole.”
““Farrell, op. cit., IV, p. 408.
w Leclercq, op, cit., p. 11.
** 101 Ibid., p. 14.

82

The Notion of Conjugal Love

of the spiritual side of conjugal love in this manner, for it is the
exceptional case wherein the spiritual is not expressed by the
physical, i.e,, where the union of souls does not end in the union
of bodies. Although primarily the union of souls is to be considered in conjugal love, yet it tends by its nature to the physical
union. Love then brings about the physical union of the spouses,
and supposing the ideal case where nature fully cooperates, the
child is conceived. He is in a real sense the fruit of their love. Some
may object that love is not always present as a preliminary to the
action itself, and their assertion is quite true. The physical union
quite often takes place not as a result of love, but as a desire for
sensual gratification, or for other reasons. However, this does not
obviate the fact that in the nature of things it ought to take place
as a result of love, and in the majority of cases does that very thing.
This fact is never more clearly stated than by Vermeersch when
he declares that true marriage provides for the proper multiplica­
tion of humankind, by requiring in advance of the corporal union
a sincere affection uniting the souls of the man and wife.102 Like­
wise it becomes evident in the light of the necessity of conjugal
love throughout every phase of their married life. Although this
necessity is not absolute, it is almost a conditio sine qua non for
success. Hence, in a very real sense, we think the child may be
considered as the fruit of love.
If we view the statements of the theologians as they attempt to
explain the procession of the Third Person of the Most Blessed
Trinity, we find statements that confirm the thoughts expressed
in the preceding paragraph. Scheeben states :
The love with which Father and Son embrace each other
in the communion of their goodness and lovableness, of
their nature and essence, aims in its infinite fruit-fulness
at transferring this same nature and essence to a third
subject, a third hypostasis ; and the bliss which these two
enjoy in the possession of the same nature can achieve a
real expression in no other way than by taking a third
person into this communion, by sharing with a third the
entire and indivisible good which they possess without
losing it. The sigh of the divine love is therefore a per
*
Vermeersch, What Is Marriage? p. 17.

i

;
i

I

;

*

f

The'Notion of Conjugal Love

83

sonal sigh, a person, and a person distinct from them
who breathe Him forth in their love. . .10s

It is rather obvious that there is no comparison between Love as
it produces the Holy Ghost in the Godhead, and as it begets the
human child. Again Scheeben states :
In a human soul the acts of cognition and love are acci­
dents of the substance and the person. The intelligible
word and the volitional love-impulse are at bottom really
the same as the completed acts of cognition and love, and
hence are themselves accidents of the human substance
and person. To be persons, they would first of all have to
be substantial. But they are not, and so they can serve
only to perfect the person to whom they pertain. . . . The
created person conveys not a substantial, but an accidental
wisdom and love in his word and sigh ; neither his word
nor his sigh is a substance.164

In human beings love serves only to bring about the physical
union from which the child results. It does not directly produce
the child, but it does play a vital role. Love, however, would not be
love if it did not seek to perpetuate itself. Mersch remarks : “Love
is an act of the species, in this sense, that it is destined to perpet­
uate the species. . ,”105 Again, if we remember that the love of
creatures participates to a certain degree, no matter how imperfect,
in the love of their Creator, we will realize that their love will also
partake of its power of creativeness. Indeed, God allows them to
share in his plan of creation.
God, in His love for men, had so much confidence in them
and so much respect for them that He entrusted to them
the conservation of their species. He has then, in creating
them, implanted deep in their being, along with the in­
stinct of self-preservation, another tendency almost
equally energetic, and almost as completely identified with
them. We mean conjugal love, the instinct of conservation
of the species.100
Scheeben, op. cit., pp. 75-76.
“ Ibid, pp. 77-78.
““ Mersch, op. cit., p. 210.
”· Ibid., p. 209.

84

The Notion of Conjugal Love

While these statements are intended only as corroborative, yet
they convey a strength of their own to the views presented. One
has no difficulty in understanding the creativeness of God’s own
love, how the Love of Father and Son produces the Holy Ghost.
So the way is paved for surmounting the difficulty over the
creativeness of human love. And that is cleared away if it is
understood that this love does not directly result in the child, but
only disposes the spouses toward physical union, from whence
the child is conceived.
Love also has a social aspect. We have already reported the
words of Mersch in which he calls conjugal love “the instinct of
conservation of the species.” The idea which these words attempt
to express is merely an extension of the notion that love begets
the child. The child cannot be considered solely as an individual.
He is a member of society; in fact, it is he, who with others like
him, form this society. Apropos of this Mersch states :
The species of which we speak, humanity in general, can­
not exist in itself. Only individuals, only men, exist.
It is by the multiplication of these that the species seeks
to realize all the richness of the human type which it con­
tains and to find itself quite entirely expressed.18T

Inasmuch, then, as it is true to say that love begets the child, it
will also be true to say that love conserves the species—love has
a social aspect.
Finally, we speak of conjugal love in its relation to the education
of the child. Conjugal love is singularly nourished in the education
of the child, because of the selfless devotion which husband and
wife must exhibit in the performance of this duty.188 Father Cooper
declares : “The mutual love of husband and wife finds its comple­
tion and fulfillment and final consecration in their common love of
offspring, and is sustained, fed, and further purified by their com­
mon sacrificial and unselfish devotion to and protection and care
of their children.”198 This pursuance of their common task has the
p. 210.
1Ββ Payen, op. cit., I, p. 81.
Cooper, John M., Birth Control (Washington: N.C.W.C., 1923), p. 14.

A

The Notion of Conjugal Love

85

effect of drawing them together in the bonds of closest friendship,
the better that it might be carried out. McFadden states: “The
child cements the love of husband and wife whose right and
privilege it is to lead this child along the path to eternal happi­
ness.”200 Vermeersch while voicing the same opinion takes pains
to develop it somewhat more fully: “Besides the child cements the
union of the parents ; in the little quarrels which are almost in­
evitable he is the conciliating element ; because he requires good
example he is an educative factor, and makes the work of mutual
upbuilding easier for the parents.”201 In serving as a focal point
upon which their married life centers, the child is a powerful
factor drawing the spouses together, causing them to make count­
less sacrifices of self in the interest of that new life which was the
very purpose of their marriage. Indeed, this union of the spouses
is a necessary condition to the proper upbringing of that child. For
the child requires both its mother and its father. As Merkelbach
states: “Since the offspring is the common good of the man and
the woman, his care requires the society of both as long as he
remains the good of both. . .”202 Each, by virtue of the natural
differentiation in the sexes, can make a vital contribution to the
welfare of the child. The education of the child is thus shown to
accomplish two important results in its relationship to conjugal
love. While serving to bind the ties of this love more closely, at
the same time it assures its own adequate attainment.
With this final consideration as the child as the term of love,
we complete our treatment of the notion of conjugal love. We now
turn our thoughts to love, as it is fortified and strengthened by the
powers of supernatural grace. We propose that therein will be
found the highest expression of the love of the spouses, i.e., when
they desire, beyond anything else in marriage, their “mutual sancti­
fication.” This should be the primary object of every man and
woman who enter upon Christian Marriage.
200 McFadden, Charles J., O.S.A., Medical Ethics for Nurses (Philadelphia:
Davis, 1946), p. 109.
201 Vermeersch, IVhat Is Marriage? p. 18; Leclercq, op. cit., p. 11.
303 Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill, p. 807: “Cum enim proles sit commune bonum
viri et mulieris, eius cura requirit tamdiu societatem utriusque quamdiu
remanet bonum utriusque. .

CHAPTER III

The Object

i
I
.

"

of

Conjugal Love—the Mutual Sanctification
of the Spouses

In our previous chapter in which we treated the nature of
conjugal love, we discussed it in so far as possible from the
natural point of view. In this chapter we will treat it from the
supernatural point of view, conjugal love as it is perfected, conse­
crated and elevated by the Sacrament of Matrimony. Primarily,
the Sacrament will affect the manner in which the love operates,
then the end or purpose which it has in view. It will also affect
some of the qualities of this love, namely its permanence and
exclusiveness; to the others it will add new meaning and new
force in so far as these qualities will be informed by the virtue
of charity. Because interest will center chiefly on the object of
this supernatural conjugal love rather than on its nature, we will
begin our treatment of this chapter by a discussion of this ob­
ject—the “mutual sanctification” of the spouses—and show why
we consider this to be the object. Following this we will examine
briefly the nature of this love, and then conclude the discussion
by considering the object in its relation to the general and primary
purpose of marriage.
“To husband and wife, guarded and strengthened by the heav­
enly grace which His merits gained for them, He gave power to
attain holiness in the married state,”1*These words spoken by the
venerable Pontiff, Pope Leo XIII, set the stage, as it were, for
our present considerations. For His Holiness was but stating that
two persons united in the bonds of Christian marriage are enabled by that fact to achieve holiness of life. If one considers how
two people united under such a bond are so inextricably bound
1Pope Leo ΧΙΠ, "Arcanum," ASS, 12 (1880), 388 f. : “simulque effecisse
ut coniuges, caelesti gratia, quam merita eius pepererunt, septi ac muniti,
sanctitatem in ipso coniugio adipiscerentur. . .” (PPt, p. 8.)

86

The Object of Conjugal Love

87

up in each other’s lives, one does not wonder that their efforts
to achieve such holiness are described as a search after “mutual
sanctification.” It does not take a great deal of effort to discover
the truth of this statement. Each party has renounced his own
life as a single individual in the interests of a common life with
another. From the nature of marriage they are no longer two
but one. As Christ has said : “Have you not read that the Creator,
from the beginning, made them male and female, and said, ‘For
this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to
his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ Therefore now
they are no longer two, but one flesh.”2 Because of this the life
of one will tend inexorably to have ità effect on the life of the
other. No action will take place; not a word will pass between
the two, which will not have its consequent reaction on both. With
this in mind we consider the purpose of marriage. Its purpose is
not only to bring forth children who are prospective, adopted sons
of God, but also to give to the parents an opportunity of coming
closer to their ultimate and final end, God Himself. But because
of the peculiar nature of the married state, the spouses must
seek this goal together. Such a striving after a common goal may
thus be safely described as a striving after “mutual sanctification.”
It would be well, as our initial consideration in this chapter,
to point out the meaning of the term “sanctification,” as it is to be
understood in this thesis. In his encyclical on Christian Marriage,
Pope Pius XI assigned to conjugal love the task of sanctification
of the spouses. In so doing he defined sanctification as the help
which the spouses should give one another in forming and per­
fecting themselves in the interior life. Through their partnership
in life they are to advance ever more and more in virtue so as
to grow in true love towards God and neighbor.8 More formally,
sanctification is the process through which one attains sanctity.
This is the state in which man, cleansed from sin and detached
from material considerations, adheres to God, his Highest Good
and supreme norm of morality, and firmly applies himself and9
9 Matt. 19:4-6.
^Pope Pius XI, "Casti Connu bit,” 548 f.

88

The Object oj Conjugal Love

his acts to God, his ultimate end and first principle.
*
Commonly,
sanctification is described as a process whereby a person acquires
or increases the divine life of grace in his soul. Applied to mar­
riage, it is the process whereby the spouses help one another to
maintain and increase the divine life within each other. This does
not happen directly, in the sense that the action of one spouse
can produce grace in the soul of his partner. Indirectly it may
happen, however, that one of the spouses will so dispose the
other that he will be brought to act upon the occasio ns of grace
as they are presented by this partner.5 The gaining of the grace
by the one spouse is thus a wholly independent action ; but at the
same time it must be realized that the action of the other spouse
has a contributing effect to the result produced. This is aside from
the fact, and this cannot be forgotten, that in so disposing his
spouse to the attainment of grace he gains grace himself. This,
then, is what we mean when we speak of the “sanctification” of
the spouses.
Relative to conjugal love we propose that this sanctification
take place in the following manner. First, the spouses should
know that they perform a great act of love when they give and
receive each other in marriage. For in being ministers of the
Sacrament to each other, they become the instruments whereby
each is enabled to acquire the graces that ai;e attached to this
sacramental union.5 Secondly, and this will be the ordinary man­
ner in which sanctification will take place in marriage, we propose
that it come to pass by having the spouses act as dispensers (here
we really mean occasions) of those actual graces which are due
* Merkelbach, B., O.P., Summa Theologiae Moralis, II, p. 686 : “Est enim
sanctitas status quo mens hominis, a peccato munda et ab inferioribus rebus
abstracta, adhaeret Deo, Summo Bono et supremae normae moralitatis, ac
seipsum et suos actus firmiter applicat Deo ultimo fini et primo principio."
5 By occasions we mean opportunities presented to the spouses to gain those
graces attached to the married state. Although both spouses are presented
these opportunities, and though it is the ideal that both promptly cooperate
in the attainment of these graces, it often happens that one of the spouses,
prompted by the highest type of love, will give the incentive or inclination
whereby the other is aroused to take advantage of the opportunities offered.
“Scheeben, M. J., The Mysteries of Christianity, p. 607.

1
The Object oj Conjugal Love

89

to the spouses in order that they may properly fulfill the duties
of their state in life.7 We know these actual graces are given to
the spouses when they request them.8*Pope Pius XI echoes this
teaching when he says : “Hence this sacrament not only increases
sanctifying grace . . . but also adds particular gifts, seeds of
grace. . . Finally, it grants them .the right to the actual assist­
ance of grace, as often as they ask for it when they need it for
fulfilling the duties of this state of life.”0 Vermeersch’s com­
mentary on the words of the Holy Father give an indication of a
similar viewpoint :

The Encyclical, therefore, distinguishes between a group
of actual helps, which it calls particular gifts, good in­
clinations, seeds of grace (sanctifying grace is meant)
. . . and a group of aids which are to go into operation
only at the prayer of the parties to the marriage. The
Encyclical thus attributes a special efficacy to the prayer
of the parties to obtain what is necessary or useful to
them in every situation in which they find themselves.10
The one condition to the granting of these graces is that no
obstacle {obex} be placed in the way.11 In other words the sac­
ramental graces of marriage can be claimed only as long as the
spouses remain in the state of grace. It would seem that no higher
form of expression of conjugal love could be conceived than to
have the spouses act as the occasions whereby their partners in
marriage would be prompted to seek those actual graces to
which they are entitled. In desiring and encouraging their part7 Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill, p. 781.
8 It is the certain theological teaching contained in all the theologians that
the spouses have a right to these graces. E.g., cf., Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill,
p. 781.
* Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 554 f. : “Hoc enim Sacramentum . . . non solum
permanens vitae supernaturalis principium, gratiam scilicet sanctificantem,
auget, sed etiam peculiaria addit dona . . . gratiae germina, . . ius denique
iis concedit ad actuale gratiae auxilium toties impetrandum, quotiescumque
ad munera huius status adimplenda eo indigent.”
10 Vermeersch, A., S.J., What Is Marriage? p. 29.
> 11 Merkelbach, op. cit., III, p. 781.

90

The Objeci of Conjugal Love

ners to partake of such benefits, the spouses will certainly be willing
properly conjugal benefits for each other. For these actual graces
are given precisely for the fulfillment of the marital duties. These
duties would include within their concept all the various activities
of the husband and wife which comprise the term "mutual help”
(adjutorium mutuum). We thus stay within the limits of our
definition of conjugal love, i.e,, the union by which husband and
wife wish to give each other the martial benefits. Since this kind
of sanctification seems to be in keeping with that indicated by
the Holy Father, and since it seems to constitute a properly "con­
jugal” benefit, we, therefore, propose it as the proper object of
conjugal love.
It is not strange that Pope Ptux XI should have assigned to
conjugal love the task of sanctifying the spouses. It is only nat­
ural that love, which plays such a prominent part in the lives of
all human beings, should be assigned the task of attaining man’s
highest and ultimate end, God Himself. When we consider how
conjugal love is so intrinsically bound up with the nature of
marriage, we can better understand how it is not able to function
without taking upon itself some of the characteristics of marriage,
specifically in this instance, the property of sanctity. Marriage of
its nature, especially Christian Marriage, tends toward sanctity.
Scheeben states that even natural marriage tends toward this end.
He declares:

The matrimonial union has a religious character even
in view of its natural end. For there is question of bring­
ing into the world new images of God, who are to honor
and glorify God on earth from generation to generation.
Therefore, all natural conditions necessary for the attain­
ment of this end, and the union itself, have a religious
basis, and the duties arising from the marriage state
have, on account of this direct reference to God, a more
sacred and holy character than all other natural or freely
contracted obligations of men toward one another.13
More than any other form of marriage, Christian marriage lays
claim to the title of leading spouses to the state of sanctity. To
“ Scheeben, op. cit., p. 595.

1

The Objeci of Conjugal Love

91

this end Christ Himself elevated marriage to the dignity of a Sac­
rament.13 By virtue of that elevation, grace, the greatest of all
God’s gifts to the human race, is imparted to the spouses that
they may become the more closely united to God. As Merkelbach
states: Matrimony confers: First, habitual grace. . . Second,
a special sacramental grace which furnishes to the recipient a
special aid and an habitual vigor . . . for holily fulfilling the
marital duties and moderating concupiscence. . . Third, a right
to the actual graces, necessary for obtaining this end. . Λ
* Through
these graces the spouses are able to undertake the manifold obli­
gations and duties that they must assume in married life. Besides
this conjugal life brings to the spouses many special trials that
must be borne, and difficulties that must be overcome. To do this
they need the abundant help afforded by God’s graces. Joyce
remarks :
The difficulties of married life have been recognized at
all times. And it is manifest that much virtue and much
self-sacrifice is needed, if the love of the partners is to
remain undiminished and each is to aid the other in the
service of God and the attainment of eternal fife. The
sacrament of matrimony provides the graces requisite
for this.18

Thus we see that Christian Marriage leads the spouses to sanctity.
As evidence of this in the practical order, we have such married
saints as St. Stephen, King of Hungary, St. Frances de Chantal,
and St. Elizabeth (feast on July 8th), who embraced the married
state, and afterwards were raised to the altar of sanctity.13 Since,
therefore, Christian Marriage performs this salutary task (Le­
clercq indicates this when he says: “Marriage is a sacred insti­
tution. Its primary object is the formation through the husband
■
>
I
I
fl
fl
fl
V

u Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill, p, 773.
ulbid., pp. 780-81.
laJoyce, Geo. H., S.J., Christian Marriage’. An Historical and Doctrinal
Study, p. 148.
wWe are not maintaining that these people gained their sanctity merely by
getting married or only through marriage. It was certainly a contributing
^factor, however, in each of their lives,

92

The Object of Conjugal Love

and wife of what might be styled a holy environment . . .”1T),
Christian conjugal love ought also to be directed to that end.
That this love by its very nature is directed to this end is a view
corroborated by Pope Pius XI when he said :
This outward expression of love in the home demands
not only mutual help but must go further ; must have as
its primary purpose that man and wife will help each
other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves
in the interior life, so that through their partnership in
life they may advance ever more in virtue, and above
all that they may grow in true love towards God. , ,17
18*

Mutual sanctification is thus the object of conjugal love. Just
as conjugal love because of its intrinsic relation to the primary
end took upon itself the properties of natural marriage,10 so now
Christian conjugal love assumes the object of Christian Marriage.
That the sanctification of the spouses is the proper object of
conjugal love may be shown first from Sacred Scripture. St.
Paul in his celebrated Epistle to the Ephesians advises: “Hus­
bands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church,
and delivered himself up for her that he might sanctify her. . ,’>2°
Exegetes in commenting upon this passage almost unanimously
focus their attention upon the comparison between the union of
Christ and His Church and the union between husband and wife.
Because of the union of Christ with His Church (this union
gives grace21), they say it is indicated, and with a high degree of
17 Leclercq, Jacques, Marriage and the Family, p. 68.
“ Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 548 f. : "Hoc autem opus in domestica societate
non modo mutuum auxilium complectitur, verum etiam ad hoc extendatur
oportet, immo hoc in primis intendat, ut coniuges inter se iuventur ad
interiorem hominem plenius in dies conformandum perficiendumque ; ita ut
per se mutuam vitae consortionem in virtutibus magis magisque in dies
proficiant, et praecipue in vera erga Deum . . . caritate crescant. . .” (PPt,
P· 8.)
M Supra, p. 57.
“Eph. 5:25-26.
01 Merkelbach, op. cit., III, p. 770: “Est signum gratiae. Significat enim
unionem Christi cum Ecclesia; haec autem unio per gratiam perficitur, nam
Christus dilexit Ecclesiam et seipsum tradidit pro ea ut illam sanctificaret,
quod sine gratia fieri nequit ; ergo matrimonium est gratiae signum.”

1

The Object of Conjugal Love

93

probability, that the union of husband and wife is a sacramental
one.22 In the past so much emphasis was placed on this sacra­
mental signification of the passage, there was a tendency to over­
look its literal meaning—that St. Paul was proposing a standard
or measure for the love of husband and wife. That St. Paul did
intend such a meaning is borne out by the teaching of modem
exegetes. For example, Prat states:
The obligation of the husband includes love, devotion, and
a constant care to assure the happiness of his wife, in
imitation of Christ sacrificing himself for the Church.
Sublime model for both of the Christian consorts! . . .
St. Paul, for his part, wishes that the still closer union
of Christ with his Church should serve as a rule and
standard for the intimacy of the conjugal tie.28
Martindale, too, calls this to our attention, perhaps even more
pointedly than Prat. Commenting on this text, he states: “It is
remarkable not least because he proclaims a mighty dogma almost
in passing, as something better known and admitted by all, and
(note especially) uses it to reinforce a simple moral ideal that he
recalls—in this case, union and love and mutual respect between
husband and wife.”23
24*Following the same line of thought we have
Joyce who remarks appropriately: “From the archetype the two
spouses may gather their respective duties in the Christian home.
The man is bound to love and cherish his wife as Christ loves the
Church, the woman meanwhile owing obedience to her husband
in all wifely duties.”28 Finally, we have Vostè who continues the
same theme : “As the woman, therefore, ought to be subject to
her husband (as the Church is subject to Christ), so the man
ought to love his wife (as Christ loves the Church). . .”20 Besides
23 Joyce, op. cit., p. 152.
“ Prat, Fernand, S.J., The Theology of St. Paul. Trans, from the 10th
French ed. by John L. Stoddard (Westminster, Md. : Newman, 1927), II,
p. 329.
w Martindale, C. C., S.J., Wedlock, p, 50.
M Joyce, op. cit., p. 153.
Vostè, Jacobo Maria, O.P., Commentarius in Epistulam Ad Ephesios
(Romae: Collegio Angelico, 1932), p. 235: “Sicut mulier ergo debet subjici
' viro (prout Ecclesia subjecta est Christi), ita etiam vir diligere debet uxorem
(sicut Christus Ecclesiam). . .”

94

The Object of Conjugal Love

proposing the standard for this love, we may also say that St.
Paul wished to point out the proper object of this love. St. Paul
says that husbands are to love their wives, just as Christ also loved
the Church, He then points out that the purpose of Christ’s love
for his Church is that “he might sanctify her.” If the husband is
to imitate Christ, he, too, must love his wife in order to sanctify
her. But in this case sanctification must take place in a different
manner. The husband’s love for his wife will not produce grace
directly as in the case of Christ’s love for his Church. However,
it will so prompt him to take advantage of every opportunity in
their married life to dispose her to gain those graces particularly
appropriate to it. Thus, even though no direct sanctification takes
place, the spouses still do all that is humanly possible that this
may be brought about. It is in this sense that we say that St.
Paul proposes sanctification as the object of conjugal love.
We believe this text we have quoted from St. Paul is sufficient
proof of our contention ; however, it is not the only proof that can
be pointed to in Sacred Scripture. Always closely associated with
the text of St Paul is that of St. Peter, who says : “In like manner
also let wives be subject to their husbands; so that even if any do
not believe the word, they may without word be won through the
behavior of their wives.”27 We note that this text does not speak
of love but of subjection. However, what is said of one, may be
said of the other because of their close connection and inter-rela­
tion. Pope Pius XI pointed out this connection when he said :
“Domestic society being confirmed, therefore, by this bond of love,
there should flourish in it that ‘order of love,’ as St. Augustine
calls it. This order includes both the primacy of the husband with
regard to the wife and children, (and) the ready subjection of
the wife. . .”28 The purpose of this loving subjection is, as St.
Peter states, “that even if any (husbands) do not believe the word,
they may without word be won through the behavior of their
271 Peter 3:1.
M Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 549 f. : “Firmata denique huius caritatis vinculo
domestica societate, floreat in ea necesse est ille, qui ab Augustino vocatur
ordo amoris. Qui quidem ordo et viri primatum in uxorem et liberos, et
uxoris promptam . . . subiectionem. . .” (PPt, p. 8.)

The Object of Conjugal Love

95

wives.” Clearly the purpose in evidence here is sanctification in
the sense that unbelieving husbands may be brought to grace. To
obtain the proper value of this conclusion in our thesis, we have
but to advance a point or step in the chronological order. We sup­
pose the result has been achieved, and the unbelieving husband has
been won over by his wife’s example. What, then, will be the
purpose of the wife’s subjection? It must be that the wife will act
now so as to increase this divine life which has been planted in
the soul of her husband and bring it to further fructification. This
is but to carry out the text to its logical conclusion. Thus we see
an indication, restricted though it may be, that mutual sanctification
is the object of the mutual love of husband and wife.
As far as the teaching of the Fathers is concerned, we may state
that it is substantially the same as that proclaimed in Sacred
Scripture. For all intents and purposes, this is the doctrine of St.
Paul. St. Ambrose is very definite in proclaiming the purpose of
the husband’s love for his wife. He states that husbands should so
love their wives, that their wives may thereby become religious
and holy. He declares: “Wives are ordered to be subject and to
revere their husbands : and husbands are admonished so to love
their wives, that they may lay down their lives for them, and for
the sake of love being concerned for their feelings and training
that they may be religious and holy.”29 In support of this teaching
we have also the view of St. Basil the Great, who states : “That
men should love their wives with the love with which Christ loved
the Church, and delivered himself up for her that he might sanctify
her.”30 The remaining Fathers who comment upon this teaching
simply insist upon the words of St. Paul. Therefore, instead of
restating their testimony we will consider it sufficient to mention
their names, at the same time pointing out where their testimony
may be found. These names include Origen,31 Clement of Alex­
31 St. Ambrose, Comm, in Ep. ad Ephes, c. V, v. 25-28; P.L., Migne, t.
17, 398: “Mulieres esse jubentur subditae et reverentiam habere virorum: viri
vero ita diligere mulieres suas admonentur : ut etiam animas suas pro illis
ponant, causa dilectionis zelum habentes circa affectum earum et disciplinam
ut religiosae et sanctae sint.”
•’St. Basil the Great, Moralia, Regula 73, c. 2, P.G., Migne, t. 31, 851.
. “ Origen, In Canticum Canticorum, Homilia II, 1, P.G., Migne, 13, 47.

I

96

The Object of Conjugal Love

andria,32 and finally St. John Chrysostom.83 To sum up the teach­
ing of the Fathers, we can do no better than to repeat the words
of Father Sirvaitis in this regard.

If the Fathers require that the wife be obedient, humble,
simple and kind, no less do they obligate the husband to
be a wise governor and teacher, to care for the spiritual
and material good of the family, not to repress her with
threats or blows but to perfect her by example and coun­
sel. They also require the wife to be pious and to be
ornate with virtues, and admonish the husband to lead
the wife by the performance of good works.84
Turning to the ecclesiastical Magisterium, we find that its teach­
ing is clearly summed up in the encyclical of Pope Pius XI. Here,
very emphatically and very clearly, he declares :

This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly called
by St. Augustine the “faith of chastity” blooms more
freely, more beautifully, and more nobly, when it is rooted
in that more excellent soil, the love of husband and wife
which pervades all the duties of married life and holds
pride of place in Christian marriage. For matrimonial
faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an espe­
cially pure and holy love, not as adulterers love each
other, but as Christ loved the Church. This precept the
Apostle laid down when he said: “Husbands, love your
wives just as Christ also loved the Church,” that Church
which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not
for the sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the
“ Clement of Alexandria, Stromatum, Liber IV, c. 8, P.G., Migne, 8, 1275.
88 St. John Chrysostom, In Epist. Ad Ephesios, c. V, Homilia XX, P.G.,
Migne, 62, 136-37.
w Sirvaitis, Casimiro, C.SC.P., Casti Connubii Monita de luribus et
Officiis (The Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred Theology,
n. 80, Washington, D. C. : The Catholic University of America Press, 1943),
p. 59 : “Si Patres requirunt ut uxor obedîens, humilis, simplex, benigna sit,
non minus virum obligant ut sit optimus gubernator et magister, curet bonum
spirituale et materiale familiae, uxorem non reprimat minis vel verberibus
sed exemplis et consiliis eam perficiat. . . . Uti requirunt ut uxor sit pia et
virtutibus ornata, ita et maritum admonent ut uxori viam indicet in operibus
bonis patrandis."

The Object of Conjugal Love

97

good of His Spouse. The love, then, of which We are
speaking is not that based on the passing lust of the
moment nor does it consist in pleasing words only, but in
the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in
action,, since love is proved by deeds. This outward ex­
pression of love in the home demands not only mutual
help but must go further; must have as its primary
purpose that man and wife help each other in forming and
perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through
their partnership in life they may advance ever more and
more in virtue, and above all that they may grow in true
love towards God and their neighbor, on which indeed
“dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets.”35
The Holy Father thus pointed out the mutual formation and per­
fection of the spouses as the object of their love. He does this after
citing the precept laid down by St. Paul in his Epistle. Obviously,
then, he is interpreting this passage for all Christians, but espe­
cially for Christian spouses for whom he selects a particular lesson
to be learned, i.e., the special direction which their love for one
another should take. This opinion is confirmed by Vermeersch in
his commentary on the encyclical wherein he declares : ‘Tn the
first place and holding the preeminence of nobility, (conjugal faith)
demands a true, mutual love of charity, not based on a carnal nor
fleeting fancy, not satisfied with words, but active, and that not
8,1 Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 548 f. : Postulat praeterea matrimonii fides ut vir
et uxor singulari quodam sanctoque ac puro amore coniuncti sint ; neque ut
adulteri inter se ament, sed ut Christus dilexit Ecclesiam ; hanc enim regulam
Apostolus praescripsit, cum ait: Viri diligite uxores vestras sicut et Christus
dilexit Ecclesiam ; quam certe immensa illa caritate, non sui commodi gratia,
sed Sponsae tantum utilitatem sibi proponens, complexus est. Caritatem
igitur dicimus, non carnali tantum citiusque evanescente inclinatione innixam,
neque in blandis solum verbis, sed etiam in intimo animi affectu positam
atque, siquidem probatio dilectionis exhibitio est operis, opere externo com­
probatam. Hoc autem opus in domestica societate non modo mutuum auxilium
complectitur, verum etiam ad hoc extendatur oportet, immo hoc in primis
intendat, ut coniuges inter se iuventur ad interiorem hominem plenius in dies
conformandum perficiendumque ; ita ut per se mutuam vitae consortionem
in virtutibus magis magisque in dies proficiant, et praecipue in vera erga
Deum proximosque caritate crescant, in qua denique universa Lex pendet
et Prophetae.” (PPt, pp. 7-8.)

98

The Object of Conjugal Love

only through mutual aid in present cares, but also through a
mutual zeal for spiritual progress.”38 Father Sirvaitis expresses
much the same view: “This conjugal love . . . not only is directed
to mutual aid, but also more profoundly and even primarily to
forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, in other
words to a new man perfect in virtue. It is possible for the spouses
. . . to arrive at the summit of Christian perfection.”37 After one
reads commentaries such as these, there can be no doubt how the
words of the Holy Father were understood. They take upon them­
selves added force by the very fact that they come from him, the
Supreme Shepherd and Teacher of the Church. Apropos of this
Sirvaitis remarks; “Consequently, although the encyclical letter,
‘Casti Connubii’ is not infallible, it carries great authority, and its
teaching must be accepted by all the faithful.”38 With the weight
of such an authority supporting our view, we will proceed now to
an examination of the teaching of the theologians on this subject.
The theologians follow a twofold approach in attacking this
problem. First, there are those who approach it from the general
point of view. They speak of the general concept of mutual help,
and point out its object. Secondly, there are those who treat the
question directly. They speak explicitly of the specific notion—
conjugal love—and then ascribe its object. Following the method
of the first group is Vermeersch who states very clearly and un­
mistakably that it is the purpose of mutual help to be ordained
to man’s final end. These are his words; “Mutual help should be
“A. Vermeersch, S.J., "Enc. ‘Casti Connubii’ Annotationes,” p. 47: "In
primis et tamquam principatum nobilitatis tenens, (fides conjugalis), postulat,
veram, mutuam dilectionem caritatis, non carnali et fugaci inclinatione in­
nixam, non verbis contentam, sed operosam, idque non tantum per mutuum
auxilium in praesentibus, sed etiam per mutuum studium profectus spiritualis.
” Sirvaitis, op. cit., p. 38: “Hic amor conjugalis . . . non solum ad mutuum
auxilium dirigitur, sed profundius et etiam primario ad ‘interiorem hominem
plenius in dies conformandum perficiendumque,’ aliis verbis ad novum
hominem in virtutibus perfectum. Coniugibus possibile est . . . ad summum
perfectionis christianae pervenire.”
^Ibid., p. 4: "Consequenter, etsi Litterae Encyclicae ‘Casti Connubii’ in­
fallibiles non sunt, magnam tamen auctoritatem prae se ferunt et earum
doctrina a fidelibus obedienter acceptanda est.”

“l

The Object oj Conjugal Love

99

directed immediately to man’s final end. It contains, therefore, the
zeal of the spouses for forming and perfecting themselves in rela­
tion to eternal life.”30 This was the same notion which he had
previously expressed in his Catechism based on the encyclical on
Christian Marriage of Pope Pius XI ;39
40 because of this we can be
sure that he had no doubts in his mind on this matter. Payen
reaches the same conclusion ; it is notable that he uses the
words “mutual sanctification” to express the object which the
spouses are striving to attain in their life together. Thus he de­
clares : “The secondary end is mutual help not only in domestic
affairs, but especially in educating the offspring humanly and re­
ligiously, and in fostering mutual sanctification.”41 The second
group of theologians, those who discuss the specific concept, con­
jugal love, are very definite and precise in expressing their opin­
ions. Foremost among these is Zeiger. In his definition of Christion conjugal love he says that through their love the spouses aid
each other in the way of perfection, in the fervor of the charity of
God, by an apostolate proper to the marital state. His conception is
that love is a mission or an apostolate by which the spouses aid one
another in the attainment of God. His words are such an embodi­
ment of all that we wish to express in Christian conjugal love that
it is only proper that we quote them in full.
Amongst Christians, therefore, as long as they are truly
Christians, the sexual instinct and ethical love are sub­
limated and elevated through the sacramental graces of
matrimony ; each spouse joined to God adheres to the
other, cherishes him as a most dear child of God, a com­
panion in grace and a co-heir in glory. In this union of
souls not only the spiritual goods of the natural order are
communicated, but in as much as possible the supernatural
39 Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis, IV, p. 32 : “Illud mutuum adiutorium ad
finem hominis supremum profecto referri debet. Continet igitur studium
coniugum se mutuo conformandi et perficiendi in ordine ad vitam aeternam.”
“ Vermeersch, What Is Marriage? p. 32.
41 Payen, G., SJ-, De Matrimonio, I, p. 62: “Prior finis secundarius est
'mutuum adjutorium’ non solum in curandis domesticis negotiis, sed maxime
in prole humanitus et religiose educanda, necnon in mutua sanctificatione
fovenda.”

The Object of Conjugal Love

100

goods, by which one aids the other in the way of perfec­
tion, in the fervor of the charity of God, in an apostolate
proper to the marital state.42
Lonergan in his commentary on the words of Pope Pius XI is no
less explicit when he declares : "If I have paraphrased this passage
fairly, I think there can be no doubt that the encyclical is speaking
of a process of development through conjugal love to the very
summit of Christian perfection.”43 These views, in turn, are con­
firmed by the words of Merkelbach,44 and also those of Von Hilde­
brand. The latter declares :

Conjugal love, like every authentic love, implies a genuine
intention to make the beloved happy. He who loves is even
more anxious for the happiness of the beloved than for
his own. . . . But in the supernaturally transfigured con­
jugal love, this intention is elevated to a fervent desire for
the eternal welfare of the beloved. The eternal welfare of
the beloved is not only desired in the same way as the
salvation of our neighbor in general, but with the partic­
ular consciousness that this is the person destined for me
whose salvation concerns me in a particular way and above
all others.45
«

Moreover, we have a confirmatory argument from those theologians
who counsel the spouses to love one another with supernatural
love. For example, Scheeben tells us : "it follows from the nature of*
“ Ivo Zeiger, S.J., “Nova Definitio Matrimonii," p. 44*: “Inter Christianos
vero, dummodo sint Christiani veri nominis, per gratias sacramentales matri­
monii tendentia instinctus sexualis et amoris ethici sublimatur ac elevatur
tendentia illa supernatural! ; qua uterque coniux Deo coniunctus alteri coniugi
adhaeret, eum fovet ut filium Dei carissimum, socium in gratia, coheredem
in gloria ; in hac unione animorum non solum bona spiritualia ordinis naturalis
communicantur, sed in quantum possibile bona supernaturalia, quatenus imus
alterum adiuvat in via perfectionis, in fervore caritatis Dei, in apostolatu
statui maritali proprio."
“Bernard J. Lonergan, S.J., “Finality, Love, Marriage," ThS, 4 (1943),
p. 487.
44 Merkelbach, op. cit., pp. 977-78.
“ Von Hildebrand, Dietrich, Marriage (London : Longmans, Green & Co.,
1942), pp. 37-38.

i

U

*

The Object of Conjugal Love

101

Christian marriage that the husband and wife must love each
other not merely with natural love, but with supernatural love,
as members of Christ and as representatives of His mystical
nuptials with the Church.”48 We also have De Smet who makes
his own the words of St. Francis De Sales: “amongst Christians
love should be holy and supernatural.”44
*47 In summation we may
state that the theologians present us a picture of utmost clarity in
regard to the particular object of conjugal love. Without doubt or
hesitation of any kind they declare it is the “mutual sanctification”
of the spouses.
Our concluding argument is taken from reason. Reason tells us
that real mutual love will impel one to seek the greatest good and
greatest happiness for his partner. Since we are speaking of Chris­
tian conjugal love, no spouse, prompted by this love, could wish
a greater good or greater happiness for his partner than his
sanctification. The desire that one’s spouse should be joined
eternally to his ultimate end, his ultimate joy and happiness, God
Himself—for this is what sanctification means in the final analysis
—certainly constitutes an expression of love. Indeed, in this life
it is man’s greatest expression of love. Morrisqn declares that “to
love, as understood by the scholastic philosopher, is first to dis­
cover what is another’s good and then to set about helping that
other to acquire this good.”48 In this case the good is known—
eternal life. To help one’s partner to attain that good is to love
that person. Moreover, since this is the greatest good that one can
offer, to help him or her to attain that is to exhibit the greatest
love. Thus, even though one of himself could not grant this gift,
yet, in the hope that the spouse will attain it, and the help that
one puts forth in bringing that desire to its realization, Christian
conjugal love is manifested to its fullest extent. To bring this about,
it must not be forgotten that each spouse should strive diligently
to attain this end in his own life. This is necessary because of the
44 Scheeben, op. cit., p, 605.
"De Smet, Al., Tractatus Theologico-Canonicus De Sponsalibus Et
Matrimonio, p. 232.
“Morrison, Bakewell, S.J., God Is Its Founder (Milwaukee: Bruce, 1946),
p. 3.

I

I1

102

The Objeci oj Conjugal Love

mutual influence that each exerts upon the other, because of the
closeness and intimacy of the life they must lead, and finally and
most important, because the sanctity achieved in the life of one
spouse will depend to a great extent upon the sanctity achieved
in the life of the other. This is to say that if one has led a holy life,
he has already to a certain extent brought sanctity to the other.
In the words of a member of the Canadian hierarchy:
It’s hard to imagine a man in Heaven whose wife is in
Hell, or vice versa. No, it doesn’t usually happen that
way : if it does happen, that’s the exception to the general
rule. Either both of you will find your eternal restingplace in Heaven, or both of you will be consigned to the
fires that refuse to be quenched.49

Thus we see that Christian conjugal love aims naturally at the
"mutual sanctification” of the spouses, in as much as this is the
greatest gift or the greatest good that the spouses can desire for
one another. Such an expression of love retains its force only if
this desire for sanctification of one’s partner is accompanied by a
similar desire of one’s own sanctity.
In summarizing our view on the object of Christian conjugal
love, we can say definitely that it is the teaching of Our Divine
Saviour as given first through St. Paul. Although most exegetes
would have us believe, and rightly so, that the main purpose of
the passage in the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians
is to furnish evidence for the sacramentality of Matrimony, still
in its literal signification it has a meaning of its own. It not only
points out the model for the mutual love of the spouses, but also
gives to that love its purpose. In so far as the Fathers are con­
cerned, we may note that, although they continue the Pauline
teaching, they add nothing substantial to it. It remained for His
Holiness, Pope Pius XI, after a considerable lapse of time, to
amplify the Pauline teaching. He gave it a new force, new vigor;
and finally gave to it its present precise signification. Lastly, it
is in the modern theologians that we find the clarity that now atts> Marriage-Preparation Course (The Catholic Centre, Ottawa: University
of Ottawa, 1946), p. 21.

The Object of Conjugal Love

103

taches itself to this teaching. Over all of this, reason tells us that
"mutual sanctification" is a most appropriate expression of the
love that should be in evidence between the spouses.
We have already defined natural conjugal love as the virtue
which effects a union of husband and wife by which they wish to
give each other the marital benefits.110 In Christian marriage this
love ceases to be purely natural and becomes an aspect of theo­
logical charity.*
51 Through the Sacrament of Matrimony man’s
natural love is immeasurably strengthened ; indeed, it is elevated
to far beyond its natural capacity. Human love becomes an instru­
ment whereby Divine Love is attained. The principle of operation
is no longer the natural powers alone, but these powers aided by
grace. This is the teaching of the Council of Trent, which in its
twenty-fourth session declared : “Christ Himself, the institutor
and perfector of the venerable sacraments, merited by his Passion
on our behalf the grace which should perfect the natural love of
marriage, render the union indissoluble, and sanctify the married
pair.’’52 In explaining this Merkelbach states that the effect of
this grace is to unite the souls of the spouses.53 Undoubtedly what
he means is that the union of souls, in which conjugal love es­
sentially consists, is now more intense and profound. The union
is deepened and strengthened by the outpouring of grace. Joyce,
in speaking of the consequences were this love not so consecrated,
says :
Indeed, were not this supernatural gift bestowed on Chris­
tian partners, St. Paul’s exhortations to them would be
out of place. He bids the husband cherish his wife with
love similar to that which Christ bears to the Church, The
demand would be impossible of fulfillment if marriage did
not carry with it an endowment for this end. Love such
as this is out of the reach of man’s natural faculties. It
supposes that elevation of our faculties and of their acts
which grace alone can confer.54
“ Supra, p. 37.
51 Mersch, Emile, S.J., Morality and the Mystical Body, p. 220.
“ Supra, p. 30.
Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill, p. 780 : “Effectus supernatural is matrimonii est
4jratia animorum unitiva. . .”
* Joyce, op. cit., p, 154.

104

The Object of Conjugal Love

Hence, the natural love of the man and woman is elevated by
grace. Furthermore, the spouses must look upon each other with
something more than a general interest Besides being a dearly
beloved spouse, each should be to the other a most beloved son
of God, a companion in grace, and a co-heir to eternal glory.65
And the marital benefits which we said could be reduced to the
tria bona of which St. Augustine speaks,06 undergo a change. In
reference to these we can speak especially of the bonum sacramenti
which reaches its full perfection only in Christian marriage.6’
However, even the other bona, the bonum prolis and the bonum
fidei, experience a certain transformation. Joyce declares:

The blessing of children is for the faithful a far different
thing from what it is for those outside, since Christian
children are born that they may be nurtured as children
of God. So too, within the Church, the mutual fidelity of
man and wife is not motived by self-interest, but has in
view the spiritual good and the eternal reward of the other
partner also.58*
87
“ Supra, p. 99.
“ St. Augustine, De Bono Coniugali, cap. 24, n. 32.
87 Cf. Vermeersch, What Is Marriage? pp. 26-27, wherein he speaks of this
full perfection as the absolute indissolubility of Christian Marriage. Thus he
explains : “The ultimate reason for this inflexibility may be found in the
mystical signification of Christian marriage. According to St. Paul (Eph.
5:32), marriage between Christians reproduces the perfect union which
exists forever between Christ and His Church. Now this reproduction is
achieved in its perfection in marriage between baptized persons, which has
been consummated. Common sense teaches us that by the use of the conjugal
right marriage receives a sort of completion; something irreparable has
taken place; the affective and verbal self-surrender has been supplemented
by an actual physical one which justifies the expression, very significant in
itself, of ‘consummated marriage.’ It is consummated, we may say, in the
physical order, and it is also consummated in the symbolical and mystical
order, in which it represents the indefectible union between Christ and His
Church. In a perfect representation of this union, the indefectibility of the
union must have its own symbol ; and it has in it the absolutely indissoluble
marriage.”—Cf. also: Farrell, Walter, O.P., A Companion to the Summa,
IV, pp. 410-11.
“Joyce, op. cit., p. 149.

The Object oj Conjugal Love

105

Finally, in accord with the clue given us in this last sentence, we
see that the end or purpose of this love too must be elevated. This
is the attainment of God as He is in Himself. This is the object
of Christian conjugal love, and the means whereby God is attained
in this way, is that process which we have described as “mutual
sanctification.” Thus the whole of conjugal love is affected by
grace ; not one part remains that is not transformed. In summary
form, then, we can say with Zeiger that:

Supernaturally elevated, conjugal love is that love in
which the spouses, united by the Sacrament and aided by
the sacramental grace, by common effort and zeal are in­
formed, both themselves and their children, with heavenly
virtues, tend to a supernatural end, and so in a more
perfect manner than is otherwise possible, represent that
most chaste and most holy love, with which Christ em­
braces the Church.88

We now turn to our view of sanctification as the object of con­
jugal love and consider it in its relationship to the general and
primary purpose of marriage. It is our belief that no real intrinsic
relation exists between them. At most the relationship is purely
accidental and extrinsic. Speaking of marriage as an institution,
we say that the Sacrament of Matrimony adds nothing substantial
to the primary purpose of marriage. That which was the primary
purpose of marriage considered as a natural institution—the pro­
creation and education of children—remains the primary purpose
of Christian marriage. As stated by the Code of Canon Law : “The
primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of chil­
dren.”60 The only thing that Christian marriage may be said to
add is this. It looks not to the procreation of children as such but
to the procreation of children who are destined to be the children
" Zeiger, op. cit., p. 48* : “Cui in connubio christiano accedere debet amor
sensu plenissimo sumptus, sci., supernaturaliter elevatus, quo coniuges Sacra­
mento coniuncti, gratia sacramentali adiuti, conatu communi atque studio et
ipsi et filii virtutibus coelestibus informentur, tendant ad finem supernaturalem, et sic perfectiori quo fieri potest modo repraesentent amorem illum
castissimum atque sanctissimum, quo Christus Ecclesiam amplectitur.”
' “ Codex luris Canonici, No. 1013, 1.

1!

106

The Object of Conjugal Love

of God. Pope Leo XIII makes us aware of this fact when he
declares :
For, first, there has been vouchsafed to the marriage
union a higher and nobler purpose than was ever pre­
viously given to it. By the command of Christ, it not only
looks to the propagation of the human race, but to the
bringing forth of children for the Church, fellow-citizens
with the saints, and the domestics of God; (Eph. 2:19)
so that a people might be born and brought up for the
worship and religion of the true God and our Saviour
Jesus Christ J1

Besides this, Christian marriage might be said to create a better
atmosphere wherein the ends and purposes and aims of marriage
might be more securely and more surely attained. Our meaning
will become clearer when we say that this is but to indicate the
difference that exists between marriage with and without grace.
These ends could have been attained in a non-sacramental union :
they are more certainly and more securely attained in a sacra­
mental marriage. This results because of the principle that grace
perfects nature.82 Speaking of the graces of the Sacrament of
Matrimony, Pope Pius XI states : “By these gifts the parties are
assisted not only in understanding, but in knowing intimately, in
adhering to firmly, in willing effectively, and in successfully putting
into practice, those things which pertain to the marriage state, its
aims and duties. . .”63 In the same manner we can speak of
conjugal love. It is the purpose of the spouses to aid each other*68
w Pope Leo XIII, op. cit., 389 f. : “Nam primo quidem nuptiali societati
excelsius quiddam et nobilius propositum est, quam antea fuisset ; ea enim
spectare iussa est non modo ad propagandum genus humanum, sed ad
ingenerandam Ecclesiae sobolem, cives Sanctorum et domesticos Dei; ut
nimirum populus ad veri Dei et Salvatoris nostri Christi cultum et religionem
procrearetur atque educaretur” (PPt, pp. 8-9.)
Supra, p. 30.
68Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 554 f.: “(Hoc enim Sacramentum . , . peculiaria
addit dona, bonos animi motus, gratiae germina, naturae vires augendo ac
perficiendo) ut carriages non ratione tantum intelligere, sed intime sapere
firmiterque tenere, efficaciter velle et opere perficere valeant quidquid ad
statum coniugalem eiusque fines et officia pertinet. . .” (PPt, p. 13.)

The Object of Conjugal Love

107

in the attainment of holiness, in which state, if they persist, they
will arrive at eternal glory. We proposed that one of the best
ways in which the spouses could aid each other in the achievement
of this goal, was to help in the gaining of those actual graces to
which they are entitled through the Sacrament. If we consider that
these actual graces are aimed by their very nature at the fulfillment
of the conjugal duties,64 we must realize that these will be aimed
especially at the attainment of the primary end of marriage. Cer­
tainly, then, with God’s help in the form of these graces, the spouses
will more surely achieve the purposes set forth by God for mar­
riage, than if they attempted to attain these without divine aid.
We thus maintain that in Christian marriage the secondary ends
retain their strict subordination to the primary end. Under no
account can they be considered as having assumed the role of the
primary purpose of marriage in the strict meaning of that term.
However, with the addition of grace the secondary ends will be
immeasurably strengthened, and will make easier the attainment
of the primary end.
As for the statement of the Holy Father, Pope Pius XI, that:
This mutual inward moulding of husband and wife, this
determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real
sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the
chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matri­
mony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted
for the proper conception and education of the child, but
more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the
mutual interchange and sharing thereof.6’

We believe that the Holy Father makes very clear the meaning
which he wished attached to his words. He says this is not to be
understood in the restricted sense in which the procreation and
M Merkelbach, op. cit,. III, p. 781.
w Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 548 f. : “Haec mutua coniugum interior con­
formatio, hoc assiduum sese invicem perficiendi studium, verissima quadam
ratione, ut docet Catechismus Romanus, etiam primaria matrimonii causa et
ratio dici potest, si tamen matrimonium non pressius ut institutum ad prolem
rite procreandam educandamque, sed latius ut totius vitae communio, con­
suetudo, societas accipiatur." (PPt, p. 8.)

108

I

The Object oj Conjugal Love

education of children is looked upon as the primary purpose of
marriage, but in a wider sense wherein marriage is considered as
the total community of life. Viewed in this light, sanctification of
the spouses is called the primary purpose of marriage in an im­
perfect sense only. Any indication that might seem to point to a
different interpretation is forestalled by the Holy Father who had
already prefaced his remarks with the statement: “this is also
expressed succinctly in the Code of Canon Law—‘The primary end
of marriage is the procreation and education of children.’ ”60*We,
therefore, must state that sanctification is not to be called the
primary purpose of marriage in the strict sense of that term. As
Merkelbach states : “Neither mutual love nor mutual perfection
is the primary end . . .”67 and as he continues, he explains the
statement of the Roman Catechism to which the Holy Father had
alluded :

Thence (this mutual interior formation of the spouses)
is called not the primary end of the institution of mar­
riage nor the “finis operis/’ but the cause; not simply
but by a certain ratio, namely a primary cause impelling
or a principle moving the agent, and a ratio from which
the principal excellence and the whole perfection of
matrimony is derived ; and this only if marriage is not
taken in the restricted sense as the institution for rightly
procreating and generating offspring, or as the primary
end, but in the wider sense as a total community of life,
i.e., precisely as a secondary end.68
” Ibid., 546 f. : “quod quidem ipsum in Codice iuris canonici quoque nervose
edicitur : ‘Matrimonii finis primarius est procreatio atque educatio prolis.’ ”
(PPt, p. 6.)
m Merkelbach, op. cit., III, p. 758 : “Nec mutuus amor et mutua perfectio
est finis primarius. . .”
* Ibid.·. “Proinde (haec mutua coniugum interior conformatio) non finis
primarius institutionis matrimonii dicitur nec finis operis, sed causa; non
simpliciter sed quadam ratione, scii, primaria causa impellens seu principium
movens operantem, et ratio ex qua praecipua excellentia et tota perfectio
matrimonii derivatur ; et solum, si id non sumatur pressius ut institutum ad
prolem rite procreandam et educandam, seu quantum ad finem primarium,
sed latius ut totius vitae communio, i.e., praecise quantum ad finem sec­
undarium.”

1
The Object of Conjugal Love

109

Merkelbach thus confirms the fact that the Holy Father was speak­
ing of marriage in a wide sense when he stated that the mutual
formation of the spouses could be said to be the chief reason and
purpose of matrimony. Vermeersch also supports this view. In
answering the question, “Why does the Encyclical designate the
mutual formation of the spouses ... as one of the primary causes
and reasons for marriage?” he states: “because the community of
life between the spouses—our second definition of marriage—is
providentially directed by God to this last end, which, being the
supreme end of man, occupies the first place in the Divine Will.”88
Thus, he too distinguishes by stating that he is considering mar­
riage in its second definition. Furthermore, as Ford remarks, “the
Encyclical is speaking of the supernatural perfection of the part­
ners, and it is not likely that this perfection would be set up as
the primary purpose of marriage looked at as an institution of
nature. And when we speak of the primary and secondary ends
of marriage we mean ends which it has from the natural law.”70
Finally, we have the confirmation of Aertnys-Damen. They de­
clare: “This union, this conjugal love, inasmuch as it is to be
nourished according to the intention of nature, is an end but not
the ultimate end of matrimony: it is an end “sui generis’3 which
according to the intention of nature bespeaks a relationship to
all the other ends.”71 If conjugal love is not the ultimate end of
matrimony, then the sanctification of the spouses cannot be the
ultimate end, since it is only the object of this love.
Moreover, if we consider the statement of the Holy Father
from another point of view, it would seem that he is referring
to the finis operantis of the parties in his statement, rather than
finis operis. If we return once more to Merkelbach’s quotation,
we will see this to be his opinion. He states: “(this mutual in­
terior formation of the spouses) is called not the primary end of
“Vermeersch, What Is Marriage? p. 25.
TOJohn C. Ford, S.J., “Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes,” p. 372.
71 J. Aertnys, C.SS.R,, and C. A. Damen, C.SS.R., Theologia Moralis,
Π, p. 470: “Haec unio, hic amor conjugalis quatenus ex naturae intentione
fovendus est, etiam finis sed non ultimus matrimonii est : sed est finis quidam
sui generis qui ex intentione naturae ad omnes alios fines ordinem dicit.”

110

The Object of Conjugal Love

the institution of marriage nor the “finis operis," but the cause;
not simply but by a certain ratio, namely a primary cause impelling
or a principle moving the agent. . .’*72 Ford’s testimony on this
point is very conclusive; and the fact that his study is one of
the best that we have on this subject gives added weight to his
views. He declares :

It seems more likely that this passage of the Encyclical
refers to the motives of the contracting parties rather
than to an end to which marriage is objectively and es­
sentially related. This is the interpretation given to it by
Father Franz Hürth, whose opinion has peculiar weight.
And the Roman Catechism strengthens this view ; for in
the section of it cited by the Encyclical we find that the
ends of marriage are treated, not merely as the objective
fines operis of the institution, but also as the subjective
motives or purposes for which the partners should
marry.ra

Father Connell voices the same opinion in regard to the Roman
Catechism. In his reference to it he states : “It would seem from
the context that in designating the society of the other sex and
the hope of mutual aid as the first reason for marriage the Cate­
chism has reference to the subjective inclinations of the contract­
ing parties, their finis operantisAfter considering all these
points, we seem warranted in concluding that the Holy Father
had reference only to the intentions of the spouses, in other words
the finis operantis. We are thus furnished an additional reason
for viewing the mutual formation of the spouses as the primary
purpose of marriage in an imperfect sense only.
It seems to us that when Dr. Dorns alludes to Pius Xi’s refer­
ence to the Roman Catechism, he draws a conclusion which js not
sufficiently warranted by the facts in hand. For example, he says:
n Supra, p. 108.
"Ford, op. cit., p. 372; cf. also John C. Ford, S.J., "Current Theology,”
ThS, 5 (1944), pp. 495-538.
" Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., "The Catholic Doctrine on the Ends of
Marriage,” Proceedings of the Foundation Meeting of the Catholic Theo­
logical Society of America, New York City, June 25, 26, 1946, p. 39.

The Object oj Conjugal Love

111

“love and community of life have always been recognized as a
true purpose’of marriage, if not the first purpose. The Encyclical
is important because it provides a timely recognition that we are
not unjustified in looking at marriage from a point of view dif­
ferent from that of St. Thomas."78 With this as a starting point
he proceeds to develop his work. What he arrives at may be
judged by the following example:
The constitution of marriage, the union of two persons,
does not then consist in their subservience to a purpose
outside themselves, for which they marry. It consists
in the constant vital ordination of husband and wife to
each other until they become one. If this is so, there can
no longer be sufficient reason, from this standpoint, for
speaking of procreation as the primary purpose (in the
sense in which St. Thomas used the phrase) and for di­
viding off the other purposes as secondary.7®
We do not believe this to be a lawful procedure. For in effect this
is to make another and different primary purpose of marriage.
And as we have already shown, it was just such an interpretation
that the Holy Father wished to forestall. Moreover, the Holy
Office warned against such who designated a different primary
end or purpose of marriage. It declared :

In these writings another primary end of marriage is
designated by them, for example, the complementing and
personal perfection of the spouses through a complete
community of life and action ; the mutual love of the
spouses and the union to be nourished and perfected
through the psychic and somatic surrender of their per­
sons. . . In these writings occasionally a meaning is
given to words appearing in documents of the Church
(e.g., end, primary, secondary} which does not agree
with these words according to their common usage
among theologians.77*
&
” Dorns, Dr. Herbert, The Meaning of Marriage, pp. xxi-xjdi.
n Ibid., p. 87.
” Congregatio S. Officii, AAS, 36 (1944), 103 f. : "Hisce in elucubrationibus
primarius coniugit finis alius ab aliis designatur, ut ex. gr.: coniugum per
& omnimodam vitae actionisque communionem complementum ac personalis per-

112

f

■

*

The Object of Conjugal Love

Furthermore, Dorns does not distinguish between finis operis and
finis operantis. For example, as proof of his statement that “love
and community of life have always been recognized as a true
purpose of marriage, if not the first purpose/
*
he adduces such
statements as the following, which in reality are nothing more
than the subjective motives of the parties concerned. Thus he
declares: “Rather each wants first the other person in his full
dignity, and then fulfillment through complete community of
life”*7879or again: “Experience teaches, and those philosophers
and theologians who trouble to listen to her confirm, that love is
generally a stronger motive for marriage than desire for chil­
dren.”7® In other words it would seem that those things which
the spouses themselves are seeking in marriage {fines operantis}
are the basis upon which he sets out to discover the purposes of
marriage considered as an institution (finis operis). Therefore,
he wrests a conclusion which the facts do not justify. To return
to the point of the discussion, we feel sure that even though the
spouses may make “mutual sanctification” their primary motive
for marriage, in no way can this be viewed as the primary pur­
pose of marriage, considered as the institution. Such a primary
motive may promote a better attainment of the primary purpose,
but at the same time as love’s object it will retain love’s subordi­
nation to this primary purpose or end.
fectio; coniugum mutuus amor atque unio fovenda ac perficienda per psychi­
cam et somaticam propriae personae traditionem. . . In iisdem scriptis inter­
dum, verbis in documentis Ecclesiae occurentibus (uti sunt v. gr. finis,
primarius, secundarius) sensus tribuitur qui cum his vocibus, secundum
communem theologorum usum, non congruit."
78 Dorns, of. cit,, p. 4.
79 / bid., pp. 25-26.

!

CHAPTER IV

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

In this our final chapter, it is our intention to propose several
practical considerations which are in order after an examination
into the nature of conjugal love. Naturally, conjugal love will
have its effects on the daily lives of the husband and wife. We
have already discussed in general the importance and necessity
of conjugal love; now it remains to discuss conjugal love as it
relates to particular problems. First, we shall discuss cohabi­
tation, which has a close connection and relationship with this
love. After that discussion has been completed, we will turn to
a discussion of several evils which aim at the destruction of con­
jugal love, or which makes its attainment or maintenance difficult.
ARTICLE I. COHABITATION

It is of the nature of the man and woman to be inclined towards
a community of life with each other. Joyce declares:
The interests alike of man and woman call for associa­
tion with the other. The two sexes are complementary.
This is signally manifest as regards life’s material side,
their spheres of work are distinct. , . . Neither can do
without the service of the other. Nor is this less true
in the moral sphere. The intellectual and emotional
qualities of the sexes are widely different. The rational
element is strongest in man ; the affections in woman.
Each finds what is wanting to self supplied by the other.
Only where there is the closest moral union and the
fullest reciprocal service does human nature find its
true realization.1

De Smet in speaking of this natural inclination of the sexes is
even more specific in his notions. He would say that not only does
the nature of man and woman incline them to a certain community
’Joyce, George H., S.J., Christian Marriage; An Historical and Doctrinal
Study, p. 16.

113

114

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

of life, but even more pointedly to a life of cohabitation.2 This
may be defined as a communion of habitation, the dwelling of
both spouses in the same home.3 This, in turn, ordinarily implies
three things, the consortium tori, mensae et tecti
*
This means
that the spouses are bound per se to live together in the same
home, taking their meals together, while also occupying the same
bed-chamber. Of course, in practice, this works out to a much'
more complete association of life. It is so complete, in fact, that
the spouses are almost always together, allowance being made for
the time spent by each in the pursuance of their separate labors.
However, such a complete association must be expected if the
spouses are to attain the ends for which marriage was instituted.
Although we may say that nature itself inclines the sexes to­
wards cohabitation, as far as the essence of marriage is concerned,
cohabitation is not essential.8 It does, however, look to the integ­
rity and perfection of marriage. It pertains especially to the three
ends of marriage, inasmuch as without it these ends ordinarily
cannot be attained.6 Merkelbach declares that “cohabitation or an
association in a common life is an obligation to which the spouses
are bound per se out of justice. Without this it is morally impos­
sible to fulfill the duties consonant with an undivided mode of
life, of which it is an integral part.7 Furthermore, he continues:
‘De Smet, Al., Tractatus Theologico-Canonicus De Sponsalibus et Matri­
monio, ρ. 221 : “Hanc etiam cohabitationem suadet nativa quae ad illam
habetur inclinatio inter virum et mulierem, necnon mutua indigentia unius
respectu alterius in ordinanda vita domestica.”
’ Payen, G., S.J., De Matrimonio, II, p. 794.
‘Merkelbach, B., O.P., Summa Theologiae Moralis, III, p. 968: “(Cohabitatio) Complectitur de se consortium tori, mensae et tecti.”
B Gasparri, P., Tractatus Canonicus De Matrimonio, II, p. 189: “Ceterum
ius ad hanc vitae communionem pertinere ad integritatem potius quam ad
essentiam matrimonii alias diximus. ..”
e Payen, op. cit., II, p, 794: “Sed ad ejus integritatem et perfectionem, spec­
tat; nam sine ea conjuges regulariter nequeunt tres matrimonii fines, ut
oportet, consequi.”
7 Merkelbach, op. cit., III, p. 968: “Cohabitatio seu vitae communis con­
sortium est altera obligatio ad quam coniuges per se tenentur ex iustitia, et
sine qua moraliter impossibile est officia implere pertinentia ad individuam
vitae consuetudinem, cuius proinde est pars integralis.”

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considérations

115

“The spouses should preserve this association of conjugal life,
unless a just cause excuses them. This is shown from the nature
of matrimony, and from the ends of marriage which demand an
undivided and an inseparable community of life.”8* fn regard to
the ends of marriage, we may speak especially of the relation­
ship between cohabitation and conjugal love. To a certain extent
we have already indicated this relationship when we spoke of the
importance and necessity of conjugal love in the lives of the
spouses.8 For example, Pope Pius XI implies this point when
he says that “the house built upon a rock, that is to say on
mutual conjugal chastity and strengthened by a deliberate and
constant union of spirit, will not only never fall away but will
never be shaken by adversity.”10 More important, however, in
indicating this relationship are the words of Merkelbach, who
explains that this association of a common life is precisely the
secondary end of matrimony. He states : “Amongst the Scholastics,
as we see, the object and end of marriage is called the undivided
inode of life, which essentially consists in the mutual right and
duty towards their bodies in relation to the conjugal act; integrally,
however, it also contains a common bed, table and cohabitation.”11
And though he speaks of the general term, secondary end, he can­
not but include in this principally the notion of conjugal love.
Payen makes this very clear when he speaks of conjugal love as
the bond of cohabitation.12 Vermeersch also does this when in a
very practical manner he relates conjugal love to cohabitation. He
' Ζάύί.,ΤΡ· 968-69 : “Coniuges servare debent vitae coniugalis communionem,
nisi iusta causa eos excuset. Constat ex ipsa coniugii natura, et ex finibus
matrimonii qui exigunt individuum et inseparabilem convictum.”
° Supra, pp. 65-68.
10 Pope Pius XI, “Casti Connubii,” 569 f. : At contra, quae supra petram
constituta fuerit domus, mutua nempe inter coniuges caritate, et deliberata
ac constanti animorum coniunctione solidata, nulla concutietur adversitate,
nedum evertetur.” (PPt, p. 24.)
11 Merkelbach, o/>. cit., III, p. 734: “Apud Scholasticos, ut vidimus, obiectum
et finis matrimonii dicitur individua vitae consuetudo, quae essentialiter con­
sistit in iure et officio mutuo quoad corpora in ordine ad actum coniugalem,
integraliter autem continet etiam commune torum, mensam et cohabitationem.”
” Payen,4>p. cit., II. p. 794.

116

I

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

remarks: “A common bedroom as well as a common roof are to
be highly recommended to the spouses. For separate bedrooms,
inasmuch as they furnish a ready occasion for sins and sus­
picions, are shown to be very harmful to mutual love, and, as ex­
perience witnesses, are a frequent cause of unhappy marriages
and divorces.”13 Conjugal love thus reaches to the very depths
of conjugal society. And very probably in this life of cohabi­
tation, as nowhere else, does conjugal love demonstrate its rela­
tionship to the primary purpose of marriage. It was love that
drew the spouses into marriage ; very likely it will be their love
that will cause them to remain in this state. By preserving this
community of life love will bring about the accomplishment of the
primary purpose of marriage, the procreation of children. For it
will induce the spouses to the performance of those conjugal
actions which are themselves acts of love. Even then love will
not leave the scene. As it will be necessary for the spouses to
educate their children, their love will be present to inspire them.
It will bind them together into the most intimate union of spirit,
whereby this task will be accomplished in the most effective man­
ner possible.
In turn, this preservation of the common life can be an im­
portant aid in the efforts of the spouses to attain “mutual sancti­
fication.” We know that cohabitation, enjoins upon the spouses
the duty of avoiding long separations from each other. For if
one spouse were permitted to absent himself without reason or
without the consent of his partner, grave harm might result for
this partner. For example, relative to the debitum, we must con­
sider the grave danger of incontinence that might be present and
also the danger to conjugal love because of the enforced privation
of this party from an act which by its nature fosters love. Ver­
meersch agrees that such an absence may quite possibly amount
to a mortal sin. It will amount to such, as often as it is equivalent
13 Vermeersch, A., S.J., Theologiae Moralis, IV, p. 72: “Communio cubiculi,
non solius, tecti, coniugibus summopere commendanda est. Cubiculorum enim
separatio, praeterquam quod peccatis et suspicionibus facilem occasionem
praebet, non leviter mutuo amori damnosa demonstratur, et, teste experientia,
frequens causa est coniugorum in felicium et divortiorum.'’

■

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

117

to a grievously sinful denial of the debitum.14 At times the ab­
sence of one party will be warranted, provided a sufficient cause
exists for that absence. Vermeersch again states that: “Just
causes could be: honest recreation, restoration of health, the
necessity of avoiding loss or for support of the family, or for
administering one’s affairs, (finally) the exigency of the com­
mon good.’*15 In view of its aim to attain the “mutual sanctifica­
tion” of the spouses, we might state, in this connection, that it
will be the role of conjugal love to induce the spouses to avoid
absenting themselves, if such an absence would place one’s part­
ner in an occasion of sin. And their love should be strong enough,
so that even were a just cause to arise requiring their absence,
they would be able to forego the trip in the interest of the greater
need of their partner. This is the way Christian conjugal love
should work. It will cause them to disregard their own self-inter­
ests and pleasures, and will induce them to place in the forefront
the spiritual well-being of their partners. It will impel them at
times to forego certain business and pleasure trips in the interest
of remaining at home and attending to the needs of their spouses.
It will move a husband to foresake employment that would mean
long separation from home, provided that is feasible and possible.
In fine, if such a spirit pervades their lives, a bountiful measure
of temporal happiness is certain to accrue to them, and likewise
will redound upon their eternal happiness in heaven.
Our next consideration will be of several evils that are abso­
lutely opposed to those conjugal goods, the tria bona, which we
proposed as proper objects of conjugal love. These evils are di­
vorce, infidelity, contraception and abortion. These evils aim not
only at the destruction of conjugal love, but also place a grave
obstacle in the way of the “mutual sanctification” of the spouses.
14Ibid.: “Altero coniuge invito, sine causa sufficiente abesse, erit mortale:
a) Quotiens mortalem debiti negationem includit; b) si non ad breve tempus
fuerit : quod cum in se tum ex alterius damno aut tristitia pensandum erit."
1B Ibid. : “Causae iustae esse possunt : honesta recreatio, curanda valetudo,
necessitas vel propria vitandi damni aut familiae alendae, vel administrandae
rei familiaris, exigentia boni publici.”

118

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations
ARTICLE II, DIVORCE

Ordinarily, when we speak of divorce, we mean the rupture
of conjugal relations and the separation of the spouses from
conjugal life. Also included in this notion, especially as under­
stood at the present time among non-Catholics, is the privilege
of remarriage for the two erstwhile spouses. In order to judge
the evil attached to such an action, it is necessary to consider first,
by whose authority the divorce was decreed. For example, Cap­
pello declares: “Arbitrary dissolubility, that which takes place
at the instance of the spouses themselves, is repugnant to a pri­
mary law of nature, inasmuch as it is opposed to the principal
end of matrimony, i.e., the procreation and due education of chil­
dren.”16 Under these circumstances a divorce would be considered
as intrinsically evil, and hence is altogether forbidden. On the
other hand “Non-arbitrary dissolubility, i.e., restricted within cer­
tain limits, is repugnant to a secondary law of nature, because,
having been permitted, it renders most difficult the attainment
of the primary end.”17 Divorce, under these circumstances, is evil
but not intrinsically so, and hence under certain conditions and
at certain times can be permitted, e.g., by dispensation of God.
In this thesis, since we are dealing principally with a secondary
end of marriage, we intend merely to acknowledge that the pri­
mary argument against divorce is based on the primary end of
marriage—the great difficulty involved in the proper rearing of
children when the parents have been separated18—and then con­
centrate on the secondary argument—the harm inflicted on the
secondary ends of marriage by divorce. We will show how divorce
goes directly contrary to “mutual helpfulness” which should be
expressed by the spouses, how it is destructive of conjugal love,
10 Cappello, Felix M-, S.J., Tractatus Can onico-M oratis De Sacramentis,
V, p. 737 : “Dissolubilitas arbitraria, relicta mero coniugum arbitrio, repugnat
iuri naturae primario, quatenus opponitur fini principali coniugii, i.e., pro­
creationi et debitae educationi prolis."
17 Ibid. : “Dissolubilitas etiam non arbitraria, scit, intra certos limites
restricta, iuri naturae secundario adversatur, quia, ea admissa, consecutio
finis matrimonii fieret valde difficilis."
“ Joyce, op. dt., p. 21.

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

119

and finally, how it prevents attainment of love’s object—the
“mutual sanctification
*
’ of the spouses.
Before proceeding further, it would be well to divert our
attention for a moment to the most important fact that divorce
stands opposed to the unalterable law of God. Nowhere is this
teaching more strikingly stated than in the Encyclical letter,
“Casti Connubii,” of Pope Pius XI. He states:

Opposed to all these reckless opinions (divorce, etc.),
Venerable Brethren, stands the unalterable law of God,
fully confirmed by Christ, a law that can never be de­
prived of its force by the decree of man, the ideas of
a people or the will of any legislator : “What God hath
joined together, let no man put asunder.” (Mt. 19:6)
And if any man, acting contrary to this law, shall have
put asunder, his action is null and void, and the con­
sequence remains, as Christ Himself has explicitly con­
firmed: Everyone that putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery.” (Luke 16:18)ie

Standing as it does in its opposition to the law of God, it becomes
opposed also to the “bonum sacramenti,” that good of marriage
which regards the duty of the spouses to live together and forbids
the one who departs from the common life, whether it be wife
or husband, from forming a new union, even for the sake of chil­
dren?0 It is to be noted in Christian marriage this good takes
upon itself a new stability and a new firmness, since it is sup­
ported by the sacramental graces. “These two persons are now
“Pope Pius XI, op, cit., 573 f.: “Verum, contra lias quoque insanias omnes
stat, Venerabiles Fratres, una lex Dei certissima, a Christo amplissime
confirmata, nullis hominum decretis vel scitis populorum, nulla legumlatorum
voluntate debilitanda: “Quod Deus coniunxit, homo non separet.” Quod
quidem si iniuria homo separaverit, irritum id prorsus fuerit iure propterea,
ut plus semel vidimus, Christus ipse asseveraverit : “Omnis qui dimittit
uxorem suam et alteram ducit, moechatur ; et qui dimissam a viro ducit,
moechatur." (PPt, pp. 27-28.)
“St. Augustine, De Genesi Ad Litteram, Lib. IX, cap. 7 (CSEL 28-1,
275 f.). “(Bona nuptiae) Hoc autem tripertitum est; fides, proles, sacra­
mentum ... in sacramento, (attenditur) ut coniugium non separetur et
dimissus aut dimissa nec causa prolis alteri coniungatur.”

120

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

one, as Christ and His Church are one ; their union is as in­
dissoluble as that mystic union of Christ and the Church.”21
Even here love has already entered into the picture, for this bonum
is one of the three specific benefits which the spouses have willed
to each other through conjugal love. Once it is taken away, the
way is prepared for the removal of the other two. Love is thus
destroyed.
That divorce wreaks great harm upon the secondary ends of
marriage is all too evident A brief examination shows that once
divorce has become a reality, mutual help and mutual love be­
tween this man and this woman cease. First, we consider the
more general term, “mutual help.” All theologians, as well as all
right-minded people, agree that mutual help is stopped by divorce,
e.g., Payen22* and Merkelbach.28 The reason underlying this is
rather obvious. The spouses need each other, not only in those
matters which pertain to the procreation and education of chil­
dren, but also in those affairs which refer to themselves. Because
of the peculiar characteristics of each sex, the spouses are said
to mutually complement each other. Each one has something
which he can give the other ; each one lacks something which he
can find in the other. This is the manner in which nature has
endowed the sexes. Only too evidently will separation bring this
cooperation to an end. Mutual help will stop, and their mutual
needs will go unfulfilled.
A similar condition prevails in the case of mutual love. Divorce
hastens the process of destruction,24 even if, by chance, some
trace of it be left after conjugal life has disintegrated. Perhaps, if
we consider the question from a different point of view, the re­
sultant picture will have more meaning for us. We will consider
it from the point of view of the effect that dissolubility or in­
dissolubility has upon the love of the spouses. Dissolubility pre­
vents the complete union of souls for which conjugal love strives.
Thus we have Vermeersch speaking of the obstacle that the mere
21 Farrell, Walter, O.P., A Companion to the Summa, IV, p. 411.
“ Payen, op. cit., I, p. 77.
M Merkelbach, op. cit., Ill, p. 806.
"Ibid.

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

121

possibility of divorce puts in the way of perfect union between
the spouses.25* Joyce’s statement is more significant in that it
gives us a full description of the situation with which we are
dealing. He states:

When ultimate separation is possible, the two partners
cannot give themselves unreservedly to each other. Each
must bear in mind that the present state of things is
provisional. Common sense dictates that rash commit­
ments should be avoided, so that, should a severance
come, it should not involve the total shipwreck of life.
The full identification of interests is not to be thought
of. Nor can anything be more destructive of conjugal
love than this possibility. Love calls for confidence.
Where divorce may occur, confidence can hardly exist.20
Two more important facts are brought out by Payen. He says that
the spouses are not so inclined to have patience in bearing with
one another’s faults when they know that they have the freedom
to remarry (patience has much to do with the preservation of
love). Then again the fear of dismissal weighs heavily upon the
woman who suffers the greater losses through divorce.27 It be­
comes rather obvious from the statements of these authors that
dissolubility can have nothing but a harmful effect on the love
of the spouses. Where there is fear, there can be no love, “for
love that introduces an element of time and looks to an end has
ceased to be love by ceasing to be complete surrender.”28
On the other hand the facts are no less conclusive as to the
beneficial effects of indissolubility on the love of the spouses.
Only indissolubility can clear the way and make possible that
union of souls in which conjugal love truly consists. Pope Pius XI
indicates this when he says : “both husband and wife possess a
positive guarantee of the endurance of this stability which that
generous yielding of their persons and the intimate fellowship
“ Vermeersch, A., S.J., What Is Marriage! p. 11.
** Joyce, op. cit., p. 23. (Italics mine.)
Λ Payen, op. cit., I, p. 77.
“Farrell, op. cit., IV, p. 411.

I

i
*

I
B

II

1

,
I
I·

I

122

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

of their hearts by their nature strongly require. . ”29 And Joyce
points out that: “if it is open to either party to depart at will,
it follows that the partnership can never be more than half­
hearted. . . . The full identification of all interests, apart from
which this union fails of its purpose, can never be realized.”80
Finally there is the remark of Vermeersch on the great blessing
of indissolubility for the institution of marriage: "By removing
the fear of a breach, it makes way for that full intimacy which
is the joy of the home. . .”81 We conclude our remarks on this
point by referring once more to Joyce. In a most excellent pas­
sage wherein he expresses the nature of conjugal love as a “union
of the affections as well as of body,” and where "passion is at
once reinforced and elevated by the conscious choice of intelligence
and free-will,” we find this noteworthy statement: “This love
can only find full satisfaction in that fusion of lives of which
we have spoken above. And such fusion is, of its very nature,
only possible when the union is permanent.”82
Indissolubility also has other effects on the love of the spouses.
St. Thomas says that the love of the spouses will be more faith­
ful as long as they know that they are indivisibly joined together.88
It prevents disagreements from growing into bitterness, thus
removing grave perils to conjugal love.84 Indeed as Merkelbach
says : “The law of indissolubility imposes on the spouses the obli­
gation of solicitously preserving both the harmony of souls and
Christian charity, and also of avoiding any disagreements, espe­
cially those which prepare the way for separation.”88
“ Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 553 f. : “Et primum quidem coniuges in hac fir­
mitate certum habent perennitatis signaculum, quod generosa propriae per­
sonae traditio et intima suorum animorum consociatio suapte natura tantopere
exigit, cum vera caritas finem nesciat.” (PPt, p. 12.)
40 Joyce, op. cit., p. 17.
“Vermeersch, "What Is Marriage?” p. 27.
” Joyce, op. cit., p. 18.
“St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, Liber III, Cap. 123 : “Sic
enim fidelior amor unius ad alterum erit, dum cognoscunt se indi visibiliter
conjunctos. .
“Vermeersch, “IF/iat Is Marriage?” p. 27.
“ Merkelbach, op. cit., III, p. 823 : “Lex indissolubilitatis coniugibus imponit obligationem sollicite servandi animorum concordiam et Christianam
charitatem, atque cavendi quidquid discordiis ac ipsi praesertim separationi
viam sternere possit.”

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

123

Finally, the nature of conjugal love itself is an effective argu­
ment against divorce. Already we have found, in discussing the
qualities of this love, that it is of its nature to tend towards per­
manency.36 As Mersch says: “(A man) ought to give himself
for an entire life. If he wished the conjugal union, but pretended
not to_ renounce by the same act the right of taking himself back,
he would give himself while refusing himself, and would there­
fore go contrary to the essential requirements of love.”87 Thus
spouses with a true concept of this love firmly implanted within
them are supplied with an effective weapon for the combating
of divorce. It must be remembered that this statement retains its
force only on the supposition that the conditions for a conjugal
love of a true nature are fulfilled. This implies that this love
is not all passion, nor a union of souls only. It is a combination
of both, with an emphasis on the spiritual side, as is befitting
man's rational nature. Viewed in this light, this balanced love
provides a strong and effective guarantee for the stability of
marriage.
Consequent on the destruction of conjugal love in Christian
marriage is the destruction of its object, the "mutual sanctifica­
tion” of the spouses. As divorce leaves the spouses to pursue their
separate ways, it becomes only too evident how openly exposed
it leaves the spouses to the dangers of temptation. Specifically,
there is the danger of infidelity. And of course if there is re­
marriage on the part of either, there is the spectre of adultery
hanging over the one who attempts this. Thus does divorce com­
plete its cycle of evil:
One question now remains to be answered; it is posed by the
Pauline Privilege, Some wonder whether this could not be com­
pared to divorce, wreaking the same harm that it does. Morrison
answers no, and so explains :
If then God—and God alone—can and does promise
with His grace to obviate these secondary hurts to the
due begetting and education of children and the proper
* Supra, p, 57 f.
K Mersch, Emile, S.J., Morality and the Mystical Body, p. 217.

124

I
j
i

!
I
•
>

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

unity and harmony of the wife and husband, the intrinsic evil is done away with and the action of divorce
and remarriage by divine authority, with the divine
guarantees of a special aid and Providence, become good.
. . . But, as God is Master and as His Providence is
sovereign, the unfitting consequences which in the nature
of the case do flow from humanly administered divorce
as a general rule, can by His Mercy be obviated. Thus,
with the reason for forbidding divorce and remarriage
securely guaranteed against working hurt, the reason for
forbidding disappears. God consequently is not violating
a law He made when He permits the Pauline Privilege
for spiritual interests and as a means of furthering the
true faith and its propagation.88
ARTICLE III. INFIDELITY

I
j
[
I

I
»

*
{
I

l

Of all the evils that set out to destroy marriage and married
life, the one that is most insidious is infidelity.38 It does not aim to
destroy marriage by the slow process from without, but from
within bores immediately and directly to the very foundations
upon which marriage is based. It wounds marriage in its most
cardinal provision, for it attacks the right to which the spouses
have pledged themselves. It is the right which forms the basis of
the matrimonial contract, the right, perpetual and exclusive, to
the performance of those actions per se capable of bringing about
the procreation of children.40 It is the right from which all the
other rights and duties of marriage flow. For this reason it is
easy to understand why a spouse who violates this right of the
other does a grave injury to his partner. And once fidelity is
breached in this matter, it is not difficult to see how infidelity
will extend itself to the other rights of marriage. For one who
cannot be faithful in a promise of such great importance cannot
M Morrison, Bakewell, S J., Cod is [is Founder, pp. 268-69.
"The term “infidelity” as used in this thesis is not to be understood in its
ordinary theological sense, but in the popular sense of that term where it is
synonymous with the term “unfaithfulness,” i.e., guilty of the sin of adultery.
40 Codex luris Canonicis, No. 1081, 2 : “Consensus matrimonialis est actus
voluntatis quo utraque pars tradit et acceptat ius in corpus, perpetuum et
exclusivum, in ordine ad actus per se aptos ad prolis generationem.”

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

125

be expected to be faithful in matters of less importance. It is
thus safe to say that infidelity inflicts grave injury on the institu­
tion of marriage. In view of this what must be the injury to con­
jugal love? It, too, must suffer heavily since it is based upon the
mutual trust and fidelity of the spouses. As Zeiger has said, the
foundation of all true love must be placed in mutual trust?1
Once this foundation crumples, love must fall. Infidelity, if it
does not destroy love, gravely injures it.41*
On the other hand an altogether different picture is presented
when the vow of fidelity is conscientiously preserved by the
spouses. In place of being gravely injured or destroyed, conjugal
love is nourished and strengthened. Let us for a moment con­
sider the effect of this good in relation to conjugal love. Pope
Pius XI states the relationship thus :

This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly called
by St. Augustine the “faith of chastity,” blooms more
freely, more beautifully and more nobly, when it is
rooted in that more excellent soil, the love of husband
and wife which pervades all the duties of married life
and holds pride of place in Christian marriage. For
matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be
joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adul­
terers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church.48
Commenting upon this passage of the Holy Father, Vermeersch
explains : “The great positive duty (of conjugal fidelity) is that
41 Ivo Zeiger, S.J., “Nova Definitio Matrimonii,” p. 45*.
“Merkelbach, op. cit., HI, p. 782: “In laudata encyctica Pius XI totus
est in tribus bonis declarandis, et in denuntiandis erroribus et vitiis oppositis :
. . . b) Bono fidei, adulterina laesio castitatis coniugaiis, emancipatio feminae
seu laesio subordination!s eius ad virum, et laesio amoris coniugaiis.”
48 Pope Pius XI, op. cit., p. 548 : “Haec autem, quae a St. Augustino
aptissime appellatur ‘castitatis fides,' et facilior et multo etiam iucundior
ac nobilior efflorescet ex altero capite praestantis simo ; ex coniugali scilicet
amore, qui omnia coniugaiis vitae officia pervadit et quemdam tenet in
Christiano coniugio principatum nobilitatis. Postulat praeterea matrimonii
fides ut vir et uxor singulari quodam sanctoque ac puro amore coniuncti sunt ;
neque ut adulteri inter se ament, sed ut Christus dilexit Ecclesiam. .
(PPt, pp. 7-8.)

126
'
I
1

.

I
(
I
I

1
I
j

I
I

I

,
i
·'
i[
i

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

of mutual love inspired by charity. The marriage bond sets up
between the spouses an intimacy which no other surpasses or
even equals ; the marriage would never have been entered upon
without the mutual affection which was necessary for the parties
to give themselves to each other.”44 By confining, and thus pro­
moting the intimacy between the two spouses, conjugal fidelity
prepares for a closer and deeper union of souls. It strengthens
the ties of love between the spouses, and in so doing it indubitably
effects its own good. For as the injuring of one brings about the
injuring of the other, so the strengthening of the one will bring
about the strengthening of the other. There is thus the greatest
connection and inter-relation between conjugal fidelity and conjugal love.
In a somewhat more detailed form the following may be called
a summary of the qualities which conjugal fidelity implies in con­
jugal love. First, there is implied a love that is pure and holy.45
Vermeersch adds to this the notion that this love is to be a “love
of charity.”48 Finally, we have Wayne who describes it as a love
that is “ardent and humble, intimate and reverent, which each
reserves for the other, serving to draw them ever closer to one
another, strengthening a tie that must take the strain of adversity,
worry, sickness, unhappy moods.”4’
Secondly and indirectly, the effect of fidelity on conjugal love
will be seen by a comparison of this good with the notion of
“mutual help.” Wernz-Vidal introduce us to this aspect of the
question by stating that this good implies that “the spouses should
honour one another with a holy love and bestow upon each other
that aid and comfort in which is found the secondary end of
marriage.”48 This is to state nothing else but that conjugal fidelity
demands mutual helpfulness. This is in effect what Vermeersch
** Vermeersch, A., S.J., “IVhat Is Marriage?" p. 22.
45 Cf. supra, note 43 ; also, Payen, op. cit., p. 82.
"Vermeersch, "IVkai Is Marriage?" p. 22.
47 Wayne, T. G., Morals and Marriage (London: Longmans, 1936), p. 35.
48 Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum, V, p. 35. “Illud importat, ut coniuges sese
sancto amore prosequantur sibique mutuum praestent adiulorium et solamen,
in quo reperitur secundus finis matrimonii.”

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

127

states when he says: “(the) laws of God sanction an order of
mutual relations which is for the good of the parties. The partner
who violates that order does an injury to the other party, which
is manifestly contrary to conjugal fidelity, since that demands
mutual helpfulness.”49 This principle which we have enunciated
can have a very practical effect in the lives of the spouses as far
as their love is concerned. St. Augustine gives us a clue to this
when he tells us “married people owe one another not only the
faith of their sexual intercourse, for the begetting of children . . .
but also, in a way, a mutual service of sustaining one another’s
weakness in order to shun unlawful intercourse.”80 The refusal
on the part of one or the other to render the debitum can well
mean not only an injury to fidelity, but also can lead to a lessen­
ing of love. Previously we have stated that intercourse was nor­
mally necessary at times in order to foster and nourish the mutual
love of the spouses. A refusal in such a case would have but one
meaning; obviously a lessening of love would result. St. John
Chrysostom rather fittingly describes the effects of such a refusal.
His words best sum up what we have wished to state. They follow
thus : “The wife should not observe continence if the husband is
unwilling, nor should the husband do so without his wife’s con­
sent. Why so? Because great evils have often sprung from this
source; for adulteries and fornications and the ruin of families
have often arisen hence.81 Following this he treats an actual case:
So take the case of a husband and wife where the wife
is continent without the husband’s consent. If in such
circumstances he commits fornication, or though abstain­
ing from fornication, frets and grows restless and gives
all kinds of trouble to his wife, where is all the gain of
** Vermeersch, “What Is Marriage?” p. 21.
“ St. Augustine, De Bono Coniugali, VI, 6 (CSEL 41-195). “Debent ergo
sibi coniugati non solum ipsius sexus sui commiscendi fidem liberorum procre­
andorum causa, quae prima est humani generis in ista mortalitate societas,
verum etiam infirmitatis invicem excipiendae ad illicitos concubitus evitandos
mutuam quodam modo servitutem, ut etsi alteri eorum perpetua continentia
placeat, nisi ex alterius consensu non possit.”
81 St. John Chrysostom, In Epistolam I ad Corinthios 7:5, Homilia XIX
(P.G. 65, 152).

128

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations
fasting and continence if there is a rift made in their
love. There is none.82

Finally, the mutual fidelity of the spouses will have its effect
on love’s object. Joyce confirms this when he says: “Within the
Church, the mutual fidelity of man and wife is not motived by
self-interest, but has in view the spiritual good and the eternal
reward of the other partner also.”88 Probably in no other rela­
tionship of marriage do the spouses show more concern for the
spiritual welfare of their partners than they do when preserving
fidelity. An example of this may be had in the positive aspect of
this good. In commanding the rendering of the debitum, we can
see what an effective remedy is provided for sins against purity.
In thus allowing the spouses to keep intact their friendship with
God, fidelity can be said to effectually promote their “mutual
sanctification.”
In conclusion we note one important corollary which is given
to us by Leclercq, and which seems to have special importance
for this modern age. He says :
(There are) those who believe that they are remaining
faithful to their marriage vows as long as they do not
have carnal intercourse with anyone but their own
spouse, but they deem it permissible to enter into senti­
mental relations outside of the home. They fail to see that
by so doing they destroy in their home that union of
souls which is more important than the union of bodies.64
ARTICLE IV. CONTRACEPTION

There are some Catholics among countless others who trans­
gress the laws of God and of the Church as regards contraception.
There are those to whom “selfish pleasure” means so much, that
they refuse to accept the pronouncements of God and of the
Church on this matter. There are still others who, basing their
thoughts more on sentiment than on reason, think that such a
“Ibid.
"Joyce, op. cit., p. 149.
“Leclercq, Jacques, Marriage and the Family, p. 126 (Italics mine).

1
Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

129

practice is permitted because ill-health, poor economic conditions
or other causes make the bearing of children inadvisable. To these
and all others who insist on maintaining such a viewpoint, the
Church firmly answers that such an act, inasmuch as it completely
sets aside the order of nature, is intrinsically evil, and hence can­
not be permitted under any circumstances, no matter how much
hardship it might seem to cause. The words of Pope Pius XI
eloquently proclaim this teaching :
But no reason, however grave may be put forward by
which anything intrinsically against nature may become
conformable to nature and morally good. Since, there­
fore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature
for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it
deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin
against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and
intrinsically vicious.66

Besides the intrinsic evil of contraception, there is to be con­
sidered the harm that it causes to the secondary ends of marriage.
Fundamental here is the consideration that such a practice leads
to a lack of mutual respect on the part of the spouses, which, in
turn, results in serious injury to the “mutual help” and “mutual
love” of the spouses. Thus Payen declares
*.
“In that it takes away
mutual reverence, it extinguishes mutual conjugal love and thence
mutual help.”56 Vermeersch in speaking of the necessity of pre­
serving the natural order in conjugal relations says that the sec­
ondary ends of marriage would be frustrated by wrong relations.
He declares: “Such relations cannot foster true love, which sup­
poses mutual respect; too often they result only in disagreement
Pope Pius XI, op. cit., p. 559 : “At nulla profecto ratio, ne gravissima
quidem, efficere potest, ut quod intrinsice est contra naturam, id cum natura
congruens et honestum fiat. Cum autem actus coniugii suapte natura proli
generandae sit destinatus, qui, in eo exercendo, naturali hac eum vi atque
virtute de industria destituunt, contra naturam agunt et turpe quid atque
intrinsice inhonestum operantur.” (PPt, p. 17.)
M Payen, op. cil,, II, p. 424. “Eo enim ipso quod mutuam tollit reverentiam,
mutuum amorem conjugalem, eo nomine dignum, ac proinde mutuum adju­
torium, exstinguit"; cf. also, Aertnys-Damen, Theologia Moralis, Π, p. 640.

130

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

and separation.”67 Our attention is called to the “true love” of
which Vermeersch speaks. No act can be an expression of “true
love” unless that act is performed in conformity with the laws
of nature. Mersch expresses this fact very clearly when he states :
“This activity (the marital act) is then intrinsically bound to
love, and one cannot arouse it voluntarily except in conformity
with the natural law, which is the law of love. . .”68 If one would
persist in calling an onanistic act an act of love, the most that can
be said of it is that it is a sensual love. For any man who would
induce his wife to the performance of such an action would not
be treating her as an object of love, but as an object of sensual
delight. As Payen brings out : “Onanism is opposed to the dignity
of the woman; it reduces her to a state of servitude, where she
becomes a mere instrument of pleasure, and more like a harlot
than a true wife.”68
Pursuing this matter further, we have Bonnar declaring con­
trary to the opinion of the Birth Preventionists, that such an act
fails even to satisfy the requirements for a full physical expres­
sion of love. Only the natural act designed by God completely
and satisfactorily fulfills this purpose. And so he says : “even
physically, the Birth Preventionist refuses fully to give himself
to his partner.”60 And what is more important to us, the full
psychological expression is incomplete. Bonnar again declares :
“In the first place there is not the complete surrender which full
love demands. Again, love, by its nature, is not barren but pro­
ductive, and, therefore, to deliberately render it barren by positive
interference, is to render it psychologically incomplete.”61 In
more vivid terminology Vann states this same idea: “Contracep­
tion tears love-making from its human completeness, and de­
stroys a great part—the perfection—of its creativeness.”62 Our*
69
07 Vermeersch, "IVhat Is Marriage?” p. 45.
88 Mersch, op. cit., p. 213.
69 Payen, op. cit., II, p, 424. “Adde quod opponitur onanismus dignitati
mulieri quae in servitutem cadit, cum fiat weruju voluptatis instrumentum,
et meretrici similior quam verae uxori.”
“Bonnar, A., O.F.M., The Catholic Doctor, pp. 59-60.
β1 Ibid., p. 60.
“Vann, Gerald, O.P., The Heart of Man, p. 107.

K

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

131

picture is completed by the words of Father Connell : “Undoubt­
edly, too, the psychological benefits of marital intercourse, such
as the deepening of conjugal love and the contentment consequent
on complete sexual satisfaction, suffer greatly from contraceptive
practices. There is inevitably a lowering of mutual respect be­
tween the husband and wife who agree to make use of contra­
ception.”03 Thus it can be said that the act of the contraception!st
has failed even in its attempts to express a complete love. Because
this failure is one with a certain deliberateness attached to it, it
is to be even more reproved ; and it cannot be expected to pro­
mote the mutual love of the spouses.
Finally, that contraception brings to an end the “mutual sancti­
fication” of the spouses is only too evident from what has al­
ready been said. This fact is borne out by Wayne who remarks :
“Impurity committed by married people is made worse by the
fact that it lowers the sacramental dignity of their state. If the
impure action be mutual, then man and woman, instead of caus­
ing grace to one another, are the occasions of sin to the person
they should most care for and protect from harm.”04 As all
theologians agree to the truth of the above statement, we feel
that no further testimonies need be adduced here. It cannot be
doubted that, when the spouses see fit to revert to this practice
habitually, the manifest deliberateness of the act shows clearly
that the spouses are bent only on seeking the false happiness of
sensual pleasure. Until they return once again to the quest of true
moral values and to the realization that only in them may true
happiness be found, the aim of “mutual sanctification” remains
as a mere goad to blunted consciences.
Relative to the treatment of the practice of contraception, it is
only proper to consider at the same time the practice of Periodic
Continence, popularly known as the “Rhythm” theory, and speak
of it in its relation to conjugal love. First of all it is necessary to
state that this practice is not always illicit or unlawful; it can
“ Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., “Birth Control : The Case for the Catholic,”
p. 472.
* Wayne, op. cit., p. 53.

132

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

be justified in certain cases if there is an objectively sufficient
reason for resorting to it.85 Provided then that such a condition
is fulfilled, that the husband and wife agree to its use, and pro­
vided also that there is no danger of incontinence, the practice
may be permitted the spouses. However, be that as it may, there
still remains to be considered the danger and possible threat to
the existence of conjugal love that may result from its practice.
This danger and threat remain, and hence is to be guarded against,
because in the normal course of events the love of husband and
wife is dependent to some degree on normal sex relations.68 This
practice confines marital sex activity to those periods of time
in the menstrual cycle of the woman when the conception of a
child is not likely to take place. This restriction in itself consti­
tutes a danger to those who are unable to exercise self-control
over a long period of time; this is the danger of incontinence.
But over and beyond this there is another danger, because for
the woman the time when conception is more likely to occur is
coincident with the time of highest sexual desire. The danger is
this, as Morrison has declared:
The result can well be that the wife, eager for affection
in an attractive and compelling way, may tease quite
unconsciously, may, all unawares, make larger invita­
tions to her husband’s love than at other times during
the month. If this is foreseen and calculated for, the
strain it could induce will be minimized. If it is not
understood, it may unfortunately produce a sense of
tension and a “snappiness” that make the couple wonder
what is happening to them.87*75
65 Griese, N. Orville, The "Rhythm" in Marriage and Christian Morality,
75 f. (Note the confirmation of this view in the recent statement of the Holy
Father, Pope Pius ΧΠ, as he spoke to the Italian Catholic Union of Mid­
wives, Oct. 29, 1951. He declares: “There are serious motives, such as those
often mentioned in the so-called medical, eugenic, economic and social ‘indi­
cations,’ that can exempt for a long time, perhaps even the whole duration
of the marriage, from the positive and obligatory carrying out of the act.
(Moral Questions Affecting Married Life (Washington: N.C.W.C., 1951),
P- 14.))
** Ibid., pp. 62-63; supra, 76 f.
·* Morrison, op. cit., p. 221.

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

133

As to the seriousness of the danger present, Kelly remarks that:
“the attempt to limit intercourse to the “safe period” constitutes
a serious danger to, if not a direct attack on the secondary ends
of marriage.”e8 The danger to the secondary ends, particularly
to conjugal love, cannot be underestimated. The strain that such
a practice «inflicts on the spouses is an ever-present threat, one
that could be seriously injurious to their love. In conclusion we
bring to'mind a warning issued by Father Kelly. He warns that:
“Only exceptional couples can take up the practice of the “rhythm­
theory” without exposing their married lives to grave dangers;
and even these couples usually need the grace of God.”ea
ARTICLE V. ABORTION

Finally, we come to the consideration of that evil which de­
stroys conjugal love in its natural term. This is the evil of abortion
by which is brought about the destruction of the non-viable foetus.
Those who make use of such a practice resort to many ex­
cuses to conceal the guilt of their sinful actions. For example,
they speak of the necessity of protecting the health of the mother,
the necessity of relieving her of the intolerable burden of rear­
ing the child, etc. But, though these are found and adduced, yet,
no matter how cogent, they must be rejected. For it remains that
abortion is, and will be regarded always, as intrinsically evil.
Hence, no reason, however grave, will excuse those who procure
it or assist in procuring it, from the guilt of grave sin. Pope
Pius XI most emphatically declared this to be the teaching of
the Church when he stated :
However much we may pity the mother whose health and
even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the
duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could
ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the
direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what
we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the
mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God
and the law of nature: “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13) :
«Gerald Kelly, S.J., “Current Theology," ThS, 8 (1947), p. 10$.
"Ibid.

1

134

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations
The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the
power, not even the public authority, to destroy it.70

And as if the Church were not sufficiently stressing the gravity
of the crime by means of these words, she further impresses
upon her children the seriousness of such an action by branding
with the bann of excommunication all those who dare to cooper­
ate in it."
Besides being gravely evil in itself, abortion has other serious
consequences. One is its effect on conjugal love. To state this in
the best practical manner is to state that abortion destroys con­
jugal love in that which is its natural term, the child. For the
child, as we have explained previously, is the fruit of love.*
72 In
71
a manner somewhat similar to that in which we say that marriage
retains its ordination to its ends, regardless of their realization,
so may we speak of conjugal love.73 It, too, is ordained or is
related to the primary end of marriage. It is its purpose to bring
about an easier attainment of this end. Thus, it will retain its rela­
tion to the primary end, even though this end may never be real­
ized. But supposing a case in which nature cooperates perfectly,
this is what will happen. Love inclines the spouses to union, to a
union of affections primarily, but ultimately to a physical union.
With nature cooperating perfectly, the result of that union will
be the conception of a child. Then the husband and wife delib­
erately procure the destruction of that child. With that destruction
love in its natural term is destroyed. We can thus state that aborion destroys conjugal love in its natural term, the child. Moreover,
it may lead to the destruction of conjugal love, itself. The follow­
™ Pope Pius XI, op. cit., 562 f. : “Quantopere Nos misereat matris, cuî ex
naturae officio gravia imminent sanitatis, immo ipsius vitae pericula: at quae
possit umquam causa valere ad ullo modo excusandam directam innocentis
necem? De hac enim hoc loco agitur. Sive ea matre infertur sive proli, contra
Dei praeceptum est vocemque naturae : ‘Non occides !' Res enim aeque sacra
utriusque vita, cuius opprimendae nulla esse unquam poterit ne publicae
quidem auctoritati facultas.” (PPt, p. 19.)
71 Codex luris Canonici, No. 2350.
™ Supra, p. 81.
n Supra, p. 65.

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

135

ing words which Gerald Vann has spoken in regard to contraception
are very appropriate here. He states: “Love is always out­
ward-turning, always an impulsion to making; and if you will­
fully frustrate it and turn it upon itself, it becomes destructive
and may well in the end become self-destructive.”T* In destroying
that which should be the fruit of their love, it may well be that
their selfishness which has accomplished this will bring about the
destruction of their love for one another.
The injury that abortion brings to the “mutual sanctification’’
of the spouses is seen most demonstrably in the case where the
husband either assists or urges the wife to procure the abortion.
His real position is that of guardian of the family and the pro­
tector of its morals. It is his duty, if needs be, to chasten his
wife, thus effectively promoting her sanctification.78 But instead,
wishing to avoid his own role in the rearing of the child, he
selfishly allows the wife to pursue her course of action without
interference, or worse, even assists her in doing so. The effect
of his .action is to seriously impede their attainment of “mutual
sanctification,” an end which he as a Christian spouse should be
seriously seeking. In so doing he loses a wonderful opportunity
for spiritual progress for himself and his spouse. Christian love
is thus thwarted. Now the only concern is whether the spouses
can recover from the harmful effects of this action by exerting
themselves sufficiently to regain God’s friendship, enabling them­
selves once again to pursue effectively the aim of “mutual sancti­
fication,”
*****

In this chapter we have discussed the relationship of conjugal
love to cohabitation, and thence to various evils that afflict the
lives of the spouses. These are the practical considerations that
had to be discussed in our treatment of conjugal love. In its rela­
tion to cohabitation we stressed love as a means of preserving
the community of life, and how the relation of conjugal love to
■‘Vann, op. cit., p. 107.
w Sirvaitis, Casimiro, C.SC.P., Casti Connubü Monita de turibus et Officiis,
p. 59.

136

Conjugal Love: Some Practical Considerations

the primary purpose of marriage was effectively demonstrated in
this life. Finally, in this regard, we showed how the preservation
of cohabitation or the common life could be an important aid in
the efforts of the spouses to attain “mutual sanctification.”
In our consideration of the various evils that affect conjugal
love, we saw first of all how these were gravely wrong. We then
discussed how each worked in accomplishing the destruction or
the lessening of mutual help and mutual love. Finally we de­
scribed in turn the effect of each on love’s object, i.e., “mutual
sanctification.” In conclusion we are led to make the observation
that the effects of these evils demonstrate even more clearly and
emphatically the necessity of a true conjugal love in the lives of
the spouses. Its presence will improve considerably their chances
of leading a life of joy and happiness. And in their attempts to
attain love’s object, they will have advanced far in their efforts
to reach the ultimate goal of life, i.e., God Himself.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sources

Acta AposMicae Sedis, Commentarium Officiale, Romae, 1909—■
Acta Sanctae Sedis, 41 vols., Romae, 1865-1908.
Canones et Decreta Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Tridentini, Ratisbonne:
G. 'J. Manz, 1903.
Codex luris Canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus Benedicti
Pafiae XV auctoritate promulgatus, Romae: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanîs, 1936.
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Editum consilio et impensis
Academiae litterarum caesareae vindobonensis, 68 vols., Vienna, 1866—
Denzinger, H.-Bannwart, C.-Umberg, J., Enchiridion Symbolorum Defini­
tionum et Declarationum de Rebus Fidei et Morum, 21-23 ed., Friburgi
Brisgoviae: Herder & Co., 1937.
Migne, J. P., Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, 161 vols.,
Parisiis, 1856-1866.
-------- , Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, 221 vols., Parisiis,
1884-1864.
General Works

Aertnys, J.-Damen, C. A., Theologia Moralis, 14 ed., Vol. II, Turin : Marietti,
1944.
Allers, Rudolf, Character Education in Adolescence, New York: Wagner,
1940.
Alphonsus. St., Theologia Moralis, 9 ed., Gaude, Vol. IV, Rome : Vatican,
1905.
*
Ambrose, St., Comm, in Ep. ad Ephesios, PL Migne, 17.
Augustine, St., De Bono Coniugali, CSEL, 4L
-------- , De Genesi Ad Litteram, CSEL, 28-1.
-------- , De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, CSEL, 42.
-------- , In Generationibus Domini, Sermo LI, PL, Migne, 38.
-------- , Tractatus LXXXVII in Joannis Evangelium, PL, Migne, 35.
Basil the Great, St., Moralia, Regula LXXIII, PG, Migne, 31.
Bertke, Stanley, The Possibility of Invincible Ignorance of the Natural Law,
The Catholic University of America Studies in Sacred Theology, n. 58,
Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1941.
Bonnar, A., The Catholic Doctor, 2 ed., New York: Kenedy, 1939.
Boylan, M. Eugene, This Tremendous Lover, Westminster: Newman, 1947.
Brin, P., Farges, A., and Barbedette, D., Philosophia Scholastica, 68 ed.,
Vol. I, Paris: Berche and Pagis, 1937.

137

138

Bibliography

Cappello, Felix, Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, 5th ed., Vol.
V, Rome: Marietti, 1947.
Chrysostom, St. John, Γη Epistolam I Ad Corinthios, Homilia XIX, PG,
Migne, 13.
-------- , In Epistolam Ad Ephesios, Homilia XX, PG, Migne, 62.
Clement of Alexandria, St., Stromatum, Liber IV, PG, Migne, 8.
Cohausz, Otto, The Pope and Christian Marriage. Trans, by Geo. D. Smith,
New York: Benziger, 1933.
Concina, F. Daniele, Theologia Christiana, Vol. IV, Neapoli: Paci, 1773.
Cooper, John M., Birth Control (pamphlet), Washington: National Catholic
Welfare Conference, 1923.
-------- , Religion Outlines For Colleges, 2 ed., Vol. IV, Washington: The
Catholic Education Press, 1941.
Cronin, Michael, The Science of Ethics, Vol. V, Dublin: Gill, 1939.
D’Arcy, M. C., The Mind and Heart of Love, New York: Henry Holt
& Co., 1947.
Davis, Henry, Moral and Pastoral Theology, 4 ed., Vols. I & IV, London:
Sheed & Ward, 1945.
De Guchteneere, R., Judgment on Birth Control, New York: Macmillan,
1942.
De Smet, AL, De Sponsalibus Et Matrimonio, 4 ed., Belgium : Beyaert, 1927.
Dorns, Herbert, Du Sens Et De La Fin Du Mariage, 12 ed., Paris: Desclée,
1937.
-------- , The Meaning of Marriage. Trans, by Geo. Sayer, New York: Sheed
& Ward, 1939.
Farrell, Walter, A Companion to the Summa, 4 vols., New York: Sheed
& Ward, 1942.
Foerster, F. W., Marriage and the Sex Problem. Trans, by Meyrick Booth,
New York: Stokes, 1936.
Francis De Sales, St., Introduction to a Devout Life. Trans, from the
French, Ratisbon : Pustet.
Gasparri, P., Tractatus Canonicus De Matrimonio, 9 ed., 2 vols., Rome:
Vatican, 1932.
Gerrard, Thomas J., Marriage and Parenthood, rev. by Edgar Schmiedler,
New York: Wagner, 1937.
Gilson, Etienne, The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy. Trans, by A. H. C.
Downes. New York: Scribner’s, 1940.
Goldsmith, J. William, The Competence of the Church and State Over Mar­
nage—Disputed Points. Canon Law Studies, n. 197, Washington:
C.U.A. Press, 1944.
Griese, N. Orville, The Marriage Contract and the Procreation of Offspring,
Canon Law Studies, n. 226, Washington : C.U.A. Press, 1946.
—:---- , The “Rhythm” In Marriage and Christian Morality, Westminster:
Newman, 1944.

Bibliography

139

Hervé, J. M., Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. Ill, Paris: Berche
et Pagis, 1929.
Hope, Wingfield, Life Together, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1943.
Joyce, Geo. H., Christian Marriage: An Historical and Doctrinal Study,
London: Sheed & Ward, 1933.
Kelly, Gerald, Modem Youth and Chastity, St. Louis: The Queen’s Work,
1943.
Kirsch, Felix M., Sex Education and Training In Chastity, New York:
Benzinger, 1930.
Knabenbauer, J., Commentarius in S. Pauli Apostoli Epistolas, Paris:
Lethielleux, 1912.
Leclercq, Jacques, Marriage and the Family. Trans, by Thomas R. Hanley,
2 ed., New York: Pustet, 1942.
Leen, Edward, The Holy Ghost and His Work in Souls, New York: Sheed
& Ward, 1939.
-------- , Progress Through Mental Prayer, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1940.
Pope Leo XIII, “Arcanum," ASS, 12 (1880).
McFadden, Charles J., Medical Ethics for Nurses, Philadelphia: Davis, 1946.
Marriage-Preparation Course, The Catholic Centre, Ottawa : The University
of Ottawa, 1946.
Martindale, C. C., Wedlock, London : Sheed & Ward, 1937.
Merkelbach, B., Stimma Theologiae Moralis, 3 ed., 3 vols., Paris: Desclée
de Brouwer, 1939.
Mersch, E., Love, Marriage and Chastity. Trans, with notes by A. B., Lon­
don : Sheed & Ward, 1944.
-------- , Morality and the Mystical Body. Trans, by Daniel Ryan, S.J., New
York : P. J. Kenedy, 1939.
Moore, Edward R., The Case Against Birth Control, New York: AppletonCentury, 1931.
Moore, Thomas Verner, Personal Mental Hygiene, New York: Grune &
Stratton, 1944.
Morrison, Bakewell, Character Formation in College, Milwaukee: Bruce,
1938.
-------- , God Is Its Founder, Milwaukee: Bruce, 1946.
Naughton, James W., Pius XII on World Problems, New York: The Amer­
ica Press, 1943.
Noldin, H.-Schmitt, A., Summa Theologiae Moralis, 26 ed., 3 vols., Ratisbon: Rauch, 1940.
Suprema Sacra Congregatio S. Officii, "Decretum De Finibus Matrimonii,"
AAS, 36 (1944).
Origen, In Canticum Canticorum, Homilia II, PG, Migne, 13.
Ostheimer, Anthony L., The Family: A Thomistic Study in Social Phi­
losophy, Philosophical Studies, η. 50, Washington: C.U.A. Press, 1939.
Payen, G., De Matrimonio, altera editio, Vols. I & II, ZI-KA-WEI: in
Typographia T'OU-SE-WE, 1935.

‘140

Bibliography

Petrovits, Joseph J., The New Church Law on Matrimony, Canon Law
Studies, n. 6, Philadelphia : John J. McVey, 1919.
Pope Pius XI, ‘‘Casti Connubii,” AAS, 22 (1930).
-------- , "Vigilanti Cura,” AAS, 28 (1936).
Pope Pius XII, “Allocutio mulieribus ab Actione Catholica earumque
adiutricibus,” AAS, 33 (1941).
-------- , “To The Italian Catholic Union of Midwives,” An Address delivered
on Oct. 29, 1951, contained in Moral Questions Affecting Married Life
(Washington, N.C.W.C.), 1951.
-------- , “IVOman’s Duties in Social and Political Life,” An Address delivered
on Oct. 21, 1945; N.C.W.C. translation.
Prat, Fernand, The Theology of St. Paul, 10 ed. Trans, by John L. Stoddard,
2 vols., Westminster : Newman, 1926.
Prümmer, M., Manuale Theologiae Moralis, editio altera et tertia, Vol, II,
Freiburg: Herder, 1923.
Quigley, Joseph A., A Summary of the Canon Law on Matrimonial Im­
pediments and Dispensations, 2 ed., Philadelphia ; The Dolphin Press,
1942.
The Sacred Roman Rota, Acta Tribunalium-Sacra Romana Rota (Romana
Nullitatis Matrimonii et Dispensationis super rato), AAS, 36 (1944),
Scheeben, Matthias J., The Mysteries of Christianity. Trans, by Cyril Vol­
lert, St. Louis: Herder, 1946.
Schmiedeler, Edgar, An Introductory Study of the Family, New York :
Century, 1930.
-------- , Marriage and the Family, 1 ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, 1946.
Sheen, Fulton J., Love on Pilgrimage, Huntington : Our Sunday Visitor,
1946.
Sirvaitis, Casimiro, Casti Connubii Monita de Juribus et Officiis Patrisfamilias, Studies in Sacred Theology, n. 80, Washington : C.U.A.
Press, 1943.
Ter Haar, Francis, Mixed Marriages and Their Remedies, ed. by Francis J.
Connell. Trans, by Aloysius Walter, New York: Pustet, 1933.
Thomas Aquinas, St., Summa Theologica, Turin: Marietti, 1937.
-------- , Summa Contra Gentiles, Turin : Marietti, 1937.
-------- , III Sententiarum.
Vann, Gerald, The Divine Pity, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1946.
-------- , The Heart of Man, New York: Longmans, 1945.
Vermeersch, A., Theologiae Moralis Principia^Responsa—Consilia, 3 ed.,
Vol. IV, Rome: Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, 1944.
-------- , What Is Marriage? A Catechism According to the Encyclical "Casti
Connubii” of Pope Pius XL Trans, by T. L. Bouscaren, S.J., New
York : The America Press, 1932.
Von Hildebrand, Dietrich, In Defense of Purity, New York: Sheed & Ward,
1935.
-------- , Marriage, London : Longmans, Green & Co., 1942.

r

Bibliography

141

Von Streng, Franz» Marriage : A Great Sacrament in Christ, ed. and trans,
•by Charles P. Bruehl, New York: Benzinger, 1939.
Voste, Jacobo-Maria» Commentarius in Epistulam Ad Ephesios, Romae:
Collegio Angelico, 1932.
Wayne, T. G.» Morals and Marriage, London : Longmans, Green & Co., 1936.
Wernz, F.-Vidal, P., Jus Canonicum, 3 ed., by P. Aguirre, Vol. V, Jus
Matrimoniale, Rome : The Pontifical Gregorian University, 1946.
Periodicals

Adam, Karl, “Sanctification of Marriage,” (Part I), Orate Fratres, 9
(1935), 171-176.
•-------- , “Sanctification of Marriage,” (Part II), Orate Fratres, 9 (1935),
218-225.
Bertrams, W., “Annotationes: Decretum de Finibus Matrimonii S. Con­
gregatio S. Officii (AAS, 36 (1944) 103),” Periodica De Re Morali,
Canonica, Liturgica, 33 (1944), 219-228.
Carrel, Alexis, “Married Love,” The Reader’s Digest, 25 (1939), 12-16.
Connell, Francis J., “Birth Control : The Case for the Catholic,” The
Atlantic Monthly, 164 (1939), 468-473.
-------- , “The Catholic Doctrine on the Ends of Marriage,” Proceedings of
the Foundation Meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of
America (New York City, June 25, 26, 1946).
-------- , “Ecclesiastical Library Table: Recent Theology,” The Ecclesiastical
Review, 93 (1935), 187-198.
-------- , “Ecclesiastical Library Table: Recent Theology,” The Ecclesiastical
Review, '108 (1943), 224-232.
-------- , “How Must the Confessor Deal with an Onanist?” The Ecclesiastical
Review, 107 (1942), 55-64.
-------- , “The Intrinsic Evil of Condomistic Relations,” The Ecclesiastical
Review, 108 (1943), 36-39.
-------- , “The Problem of Mixed Marriages,” The American Ecclesiastical
Review, 115 (1946), 386-388.
Ford, John C., “Current Theology,” Theological Studies, 5 (1944), 495-538.
-------- , “Marriage: Its Meaning and Purposes,” Theological Studies, 3
(1942), 333-374.
Gits, A., “The Instruction of the Faithful on Mixed Marriages,” The Clergy
Review, 24 (1944), 355-358.
Hanley, Thomas R., “The Natural Law on Marriage,” The Ecclesiastical
Review, 108 (1943), 195-208.
-------- , “The Natural Law on Marriage,” The Ecclesiastical Review, 108
(1943), 298-309.
Hennrich, Killian J., “Preparing for Matrimony,” The Homiletic and Pas­
toral Review, 41 (1941), 1000-1009.
Kelly, Gerald, “Current Theology,” Theological Studies, 8 (1947), 97-117.

142

Bibliography

Lavaud, B., “The Interpretation of the Conjugal Act and the Theology of
Marriage," The Thomist, 1 (1939), 360-378.
Lonergan, Bernard J., “Finality, Love, Marriage,” Theological Studies, 4
(1943), 477-510.
McHugh, J. A., “The Meaning of Marriage,” The Homiletic and Pastoral
Review, 41 (1941), 969-975.
Miller, Ernest F., “Mixed Company Keeping,” The Homiletic and Pastoral
Review, 41 (1941), 1073-1079.
Poland, William, “The Natural Law in Marriage,” The Ecclesiastical Re­
view, 22 (1900), 337-354.
Ryan, John A., "How Must the Confessor Deal with an Onanist,” The
Ecclesiastical Review, 107 (1942), 283-286.
-------- , “The Moral Teaching of the Encyclical—Casti Connubii," The Ec­
clesiastical Review, 104 (1941), 264-271.
Vermeersch, A., "Encyc. 'Casti Connubii,’ Annotationes,” Periodica De Re
Morali, Canonica, Liturgica, 20 (1931), 42-68.
Zeiger, Ivo, “Nova Definitio Matrimonii,” Periodica De Re Morali, Canonica,
Liturgica, 20 (1931), *.37
-59
Miscellaneous

Statistical Abstract of the U. S.: 1952, Washington: Government Printing
Office, 1952.

ABBREVIATIONS

A AS—Acta Apostolicae Sedis
ASS—Acta Sanctae Sedis
CS EL—Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum
H PR—The Homiletic and Pastoral Review
PG—Migne, Patrologia Graeca
PL—Migne, Patrologia Latina
PPt—Paulist Press translation of the Encyclical, “Casti Connubii.”
TAER—The American Ecclesiastical RpVicw
TER—The Ecclesiastical Review
ThS—Theological Studies
i

143

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Michael Francis McAuliffe was born in Kansas City, Kansas,
on November 22, 1920. He attended the Our Lady of Good Coun­
sel Grade School in Kansas City, Missouri. In 1933 he entered
St. John’s Catholic Seminary in Kansas City and completed his
High School and Junior College courses there in 1939. This same
year he was sent to the St. Louis Preparatory Seminary, Webster
Groves, Missouri, to pursue his Philosophical Studies. He took
his Theological Studies at the Theological College, The Catholic
University of America, Washington, D. C. He received the degree
of the Licentiate in Sacred Theology in May, 1945, and was
ordained to the Sacred Priesthood for service in the Diocese
of Kansas City on May 31, 1945,

144

ALPHABETICAL INDEX
Abortion: 133 f.
Abraham; 62
Absence of Spouses: 116-117
Abstract, Statistical of the United
States' X
Actual graces: 20, 88-89, 91, 107
Adam, Karl: 48
Adultery: xi, 35, 123, 127
Aertnys-Damen : 33, 64, 75, 109
Alphonsus, St.: 71
Ambrose, St. : 95
Appetites :
physical, 38 f., 48 f., 73, 81-82, 130
spiritual, 38 f., 49, 73, 81-82
Attraction of the sexes: 1, 8-9, 35-36
General sex attraction, 9-10, 12, 23
Personal sex attraction, 10-11
Augustine, St: 14, 31, 34, 43, 69, 76,
96, 104, 119, 127

Basil the Great, St. : 95
Benefits, marital : 36, 42 f., 50, 90,
104, 120
Benevolence, love of : 6, 8, 55-56, 74
Betrothals: 11
Birth-control : 79-80, 128 f.
Bond, conjugal: 3, 19, 37, 41-42, 46,
50, 57, 65, 86
Bonnar, A. : 56, 73, 77, 130
Bonum fidei: 43 f., 104, 124 f.
Bonum prolis : 43, 44, 81 f., 104
Bonum sacramenti: 43, 44-45, 104,
119-120
Erin-Farges-Barbedette : 6, 8
Canon Law, 16, 31, 48, 105, 108, 134
Cappello, F.; 2, 31, 33, 46-47, 77, 79,
118
Carrel, A.: 22-23
Casti Connuhii: ix, xii, 13, 20, 22, 24,
28, 31, 34, 52, 57, 66, 69, 71-72,
78, 87, 89, 92, 96 f., 99, 100, 107,
115, 119, 121-122, 125, 133
Catechism, Roman : cf. Roman Cate­
chism
Chastity: 28, 115
determining factor in one’s moral
worth, 21-22
in childhood plays vital role in
preparation for marriage, 25

Childhood, and preparation for mar­
riage, 23-24
Children :
and primary end of marriage, 31
conjugal love and its relation to,
81 f.
good of marriage, 43
Choice of partner for marriage: 13 f.
Church, The: 134
Clement of Alexandria : 95
Cohabitation; 42, 113 f.
Community of life: 35-36, 41, 44, 46,
55, 108, 111-112, 113 f.
Company-keeping :
with Non-Catholics, 16 f.
Complementary :
sexes are, 9, 113, 120
Concupiscence ; 31, 41, 44, 78-79, 91
Concupiscence, Love of : 6, 8, 54, 74
Conjugal act : 40, 42 f., 48, 52, 55, 59,
70, 72 f., 115 f., 129 f.
accessory acts, 76
fosters love, 75-76
obligation, 77
Conjugal actions, properly so-called:
41
Conjugal love: ix, 19, 28
and abortion, 133 f.
and conjugal act, 72 f.
and conjugal fidelity, 28, 34-35,
124 fand ends of marriage, xii
and marital benefits (goods), 42 f.
and virtue of justice, 52-53
as supematurally elevated, 53
a virtue, 37, 64, 65-66, 72
classified under “mutual help,” 32
45
contraception, 128 f.
definitions, 36-37
divorce, 118 f.
effects on the spouses, 68 f.
essential to marriage, 64-65
importance in the constitution of
marriage, 28
infidelity, 124 f.
in the wide sense, 50
marriage, 28
nature, 28
necessity, 64 f., 82, 115

145

146

Alphabetical Index

object, xi, 15, 86 f.F 117, 128
practical considerations, 113 f,
purpose, 92
qualities, 54 f.
relation to the child, 80 f.
relation to primary end of mar­
riage, 40-41, 47, 81, 134
rhythm, 131 f.
secondary end of marriage, 33
specific difference, 36, 45 f.
spirit pervading married life, 28-29
Connell, F. : xiii, 16, 17, 79, 110, 131
Consent, matrimonial: 37, 41, 48-49,
50
Consummation : 76
Continence: 127-128
periodic continence, 131 f.
Contraception ; xi, 128 f.
Contract, marriage : 40, 47, 48-49, 72,
124
Cooper, J. : 21, 84

D'Arcy, M. : 28, 38
Davis, H, : 37
Dermine, A.: 60
De Smet, A.: 69, 75, 101, 113
Dispensation for marriage: 17, 18
Dissolubility of marriage: 118
Divorce : x, 4, 23, 44, 59, 62, 65,118 f.
Doms, H, : xii-xiü, 110 f.
Duties of spouses : 42, 114
of husband, 135

Education of children: 31, 32, 34, 37,
43, 47, 57, 59, 70, 79, 84-85, 105,
116, 118
Elizabeth, St.: 91
End:
notion, 5
primary, 5
secondary, 5
Ends of marriage: xii, 30, 43, 46, 106,
114-115
primary, 28, 31 f., 40, 43, 44, 46, 49,
59, 78-79, 81, 105, 107 f., 116, 118,
134
secondary, 31 f., 40, 43 f., 78-79, 99,
107, 108 f„ 115, 118, 120, 129, 133
Epistles :
I Corinthians, 52, 62, 77
Ephesians, xi, 29, 69, 92
I Peter, 94
Equality of rights : 70 f.
Exclusiveness :
of love, 57, 59 f., 86

of marriage union, 30
quality of personal sex attraction,
10-12
Excommunication, 134
Exodus, Book of : 133
Farrell, W.: 19, 52-53, 55, 56, 58, 6263, 81
Fathers of the Church : 95-96, 102
Faults of the spouses : 121
Fear :
effect on love, 121
Fidelity, conjugal: 28, 34-35, 37, 80,
96, 124 f.
good of marriage, 43, 44, 104
Finis :
operantis, 5, 109 f.
operis, 5, 30, 47, 108, 109-110, 112
Foetus: 133
Ford, J.: 5, 31, 32, 33, 36, 38, 41, 43,
50-51, 64, 65, 74, 109, 110
Fornication: 127
St. Frances De Chantal: 91
St. Francis De Sales : 101
Friendship, love of: 6, 8, 56
Fruit of love: 81-82, 134-135

Gasparri, P.: 33, 66-67, 114
Generosity : xiii, 56
Genesis, Book of: 1, 8, 62
Gilson, E. : 15, 54, 58
Goods of marriage: 30-31, 43 f., 104
Government of the family, 42
Grace: 88, 91, 94, 105, 106
sacramental, 88, 91, 120
Griese, O.: 44, 45, 75, 77, 132
Hanley, T. : 3, 58
Hervé, J. : 7
Holiness : 86-87
Holy Office, Congregation of the : 34,
111
Hope, W. : 71
Hurth, F, : 110
Husband, Primacy of : 69, 94
Duties, 77, 135
Duty to love, 29, 63-64, 93
Impotency: 40
Impurity: 131
Incontinence: 77, 116, 132
Indissolubility : 2, 30, 44-45, 57, 61-62
effect on love, 121-122
Infidelity : 123, 124 f.
Intensity of love: 62-63

Alphabetical Index
J ealousy : 60
St. John Chrysostom: 96, 127Λ28
Joyce, G. : 45, 60, 91, 93, 103, 113,
118, 121, 122
Justice : 52-53
Kelly, G. : 9, 10-11, 12, 133
Kisses: 11, 76

Lavaud, B. : 48, 60
Leclercq, J. : 6, 12, 22, 25, 39, 40, 72,
74-75, 78, 81, 91-92, 128
Leen, E. : xi, 62
Pope Leo XIII : 86, 106
Lonergan, B. : 100
Love : 6, 28-29, 37-38, 62-63
of benevolence, 6, 8, 55, 74
of concupiscence, 6, 8, 54, 74
conjugal, cf., conjugal love
definition, 6
formal object, 8
of friendship, 6, 8, 55-56, 60
natural, 6, 7
physical, 6
spiritual, 6-7, 11, 38 f., 49, 72 f., 8182
supernatural, 6, 7, 30, 53
St. Luke: 15, 119
Marriage: ix, 29 f., 51
benefits, 36, 42 f., 50, 90, 104, 120
bond, 3, 19, 37, 41, 42, 46, 50, 57,
65, 86
and conjugal act, 40, 42 f., 48, 52,
55, 59, 70, 72 f., 115 f„ 129 f.
ends, xii, 30, 43, 46, 106, 114-115
God’s plan for, 1, 12
goods of, 30-31, 43 f., 104
mixed-marriage, 16 f.
preparation for, 13
properties, 2
purpose, xiii, 2, 87, 105 f.
Sacrament of, ix, xi, 2, 19, 30, 86,
91, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107
specific difference from other con­
tracts, 40, 46-47
vocation of, ix, 1
Martindale, C. C. : 20, 93
Matrimonium tn facto esse- 30, 37
41,48,51,65
Matrimonium in fieri : 30, 48, 51
St. Matthew: 2, 62, 87, 119
McFadden, C. : 85
Merkelbach, B. : 44, 58, 59, 60, 61, 85
91, 100, 108, 109, 114, 115, 12θ’
122, 125

147

Mersch, E. ; 39, 54, '55, 60, 73, 83, 84,
103, 123, 130
Miller, E. : 17, 18
Ministers of the Sacrament : 88
Model of Love, Christ : 29
Moral union: 38, 73, 113
Moral worth: 21
Moore, E. : 24
Moore, Verner: 23
Morrison, B. : 9, 101, 123-124, 132
Motion pictures : 4
Mutual help : xii, 31, 40, 42 f., 58, 78,
90, 126-127, 129
distinguished by relation to the
primary end of marriage, 46 f.
and divorce, 120
object, 98-99
relation to conjugal love: 32-34
Mutual respect: 79, 129, 131
Mutual sanctification: xi-xii, xiv, 15,
86 f., 116-117, 123, 128, 131, 135
meaning, 87-88
and mixed-marriages, 19-20
Natural Law : 130, 133
Necessity of conjugal love: 64 f., 82,
115
Noldin-Schmitt : 21, 33, 77

Obedience :
of wife to husband, 69 f„ 93
Object of conjugal love: xi, 15, 86 f.,
117, 128
relation to primary purpose of
marriage: 105 f.
Object of marriage: 3, 48-49
Occasion of sin :
absence of one’s spouse, 116-117
Onanism, 80, 130
Order of love : 69 f., 94
Origen, 95
Ostheimer, A. : 63
St. Paul : xi, 29, 52, 69, 77, 92 f., 102
Pauline Privilege : 62, 123-124
Payen, G.: 43, 51, 79, 80, 81, 84, 99,
114, 115, 120, 121, 129, 130
Periodic continence: 131-133
Permanency :
a quality of love, 57 f., 66, 86, 123
St. Peter : 94
Physical :
role of man’s physical nature, 38 f.,
48 f., 73, 81-82, 130

1

14S

Alphabetical Index

Pope Pius XI : ix, xii, 3, 4, 20, 22, 23,
26, 39, 52, 71-72, 89, 96 t, 100,
115, 121-122
on abortion, 133
on benefits of indissolubility, 57
on conjugal faith, 28, 34-35, 125
on contraception, 129
on divorce, 119
on fostering of love as sufficient
reason for the conjugal act, 78
on necessity of conjugal love, 66
on order of love, 69
on primary end of marriage, 31
on preparation for marriage, 13
on the purpose of conjugal love,
xii, 87, 90, 92, 106, 107 f.
Pope Pius XII : 26, 70
Poland, W- : 61
Polygamy: 61
Prat, F. : 93
Pre-marital love:.l f., 41, 47-49, 57
directed to God, 14-15
effect of marriage on, 48
foundation for conjugal love, 3
importance in preparation for mar­
riage, 2-3
nature of, I, 10 f.
norm for marriage, 13-14
physically manifested, 11-12
purpose, 12-13
Preparation for marriage ; 13
necessity of, 25-27
proper courses in schools, 26-27
Primacy of husband: 69 f., 94-95
Procreation of children: xiii, 31-32,
34, 43, 47, 48, 59, 77, 79, 105,
107-108, 111, 116, 118, 120, 129
Properties of marriage: 2, 57
Psychological expression of love :
130-131
Public authority : 133
Purity: 128
Purpose of marriage : xiii, 2, 87,
105 f.
Qualities of conjugal love: 54 f.
Quigley, J,: 18
Recreation :
cause for absence of spouses, 117
Relationship of husband and wife:
69-70
Remarriage: x-xi, 118
Rhythm: 78, 131-133
Roman Catechism: xii, 107, 110

The Sacred Roman Rota : 5, 30, 32,
33-34, 40, 42, 45, 46, 47, 49
The Sacrament of Matrimony : ix, xi,
2, 19, 30, 86, 91, 102, 103, 105,
106, 107
ministers of : 88
Safe-period : 133
Sanctification, mutual : cf., Mutual
sanctification
Sanctifying grace: xi, 20, 88-89, 91
Scheeben, M. : 38, 82-83, 88, 90, 100101
Schmiedler, E, : 25, 26
Selfishness: ix, 28, 54, 55, 56, 135
Sex: 36
general sex attraction, 9-10, 12, 23
Sexes :
mutually complementary, 9, 113,
120
Sirvaitis, C. : 96, 98
Species, conservation of : 40, 83, 84
Spiritual love : cf., Love, spiritual
Spouses :
absences of, 116-117
effects of conjugal love on, 68 f.
ministers of grace, 88
Standard for married love: 29, 94
St. Stephen of Hungary: 91
Subjection of wife : 69 f., 93, 94-95
Family table: 42, 114
Temperance, virtue of : 56
Ter Haar, F. : 16, 18, 20
St. Thomas Aquinas:
on bonum sacramenti, 44
on conjugal union, 41
on ennobling effect of love, 62
on friendship,
as argument for exclusiveness of
love, 61
between husband and wife, 55
on indissolubility and love, 122
on marriage as a union, 51
on natural and supernatural love, 8
on primary purpose of marriage,
xiii, 31, 111
on union effected by love, 37
Trent, Council of: xi, 30, 103
The Trinity : 82

Union :
as affected by grace, 103
of Christ and His Church, 92, 120
conjugal love a, 36, 37, 55-56, 59,
65, 68, 71, 81-82, 126, 128

i

Alphabetical index
and dissolubility of marriage, 120121
moral, 38, 73-74, 113
physical, 39-40, 73
Unity of marriage : 2, 57
Vann. G, : 56, 67, 68. 79, 13D, 135
\renereal pleasure: 11
Vermeersch, A. : 3, 20, 52, 57-58, 68,
75, 82, 89, 104, 116-117, 120-121,
122
on betrothals, 11-12
on birth-control and love, 79, 80,
129
on chastity and marriage, 22
on the child and relation to its par­
ents, 85
on exclusiveness of love, 60

149

on fidelity and love, 44, 125-126,
127
on love and cohabitation, 115-116
on love and sanctification, 97-98,
98-99
on mixed-marriages, 19-20
on place of the wife, 70
Virtue, conjugal love a : 37, 64, 65 f„
72 f.
Vocation, marriage a: ix, 1
Von Hildebrand, D.: 36, 49, 10Û
Voste, J. : 93

Walter, F. : 36
Wayne, T. G. : 126, 131
Wernz-Vidal: 33, 66-67, 126
Wife :
subject to husband, 69 f 01 Q4_ck
53, 64, 65, 66, 67, 99 125