Letter #80, 2025, Tuesday, November 25: “One flesh,” #3
The Vatican today issued a document on the sacral character of marriage entitled Una caro [“One flesh”]. In Praise of Monogamy.
Here is the full text in Italian:
Una Caro: In Praise of Monogamy
In my last letter, I sent the 1st third of the full text in English (because the email service I use would not take a longer file).
The 2nd third is below.
The final third will come in the next email.
—RM
DICASTERIUM PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
UNA CARO
In praise of monogamy
Doctrinal note
on the value of marriage as an exclusive union
and mutual belonging
[Presentation and Paragraphs 1 to 57 in the previous email.]
58. The Eastern authors of our time also insist on the relational aspect in the light of the Trinity.
The Greek theologian, Ioannis Zizioulas, states that «the person is otherness in communion and communion in otherness.
The Person is an identity that emerges through the relationship ( schesis , in the terminology of the Greek Fathers); it is an “I” that can exist only as long as it relates to a “you” who affirms its existence and its otherness. […] [The “I”] cannot simply be without the other. This is what distinguishes the person from the individual» [58].
In the context of this particular Eastern evaluation of the relationship, which is ultimately a reflection of Trinitarian communion, another Greek theologian and philosopher, Christos Yannaras, shows how married life must be understood in the broader framework of relationships in the ecclesial community, which allows us to understand sexuality as a personal relationship transfigured by Trinitarian grace: «The relationship and knowledge between spouses become ecclesial events, they are brought about not only through nature but also through the Church […] within the context of the relationships that hold the Church together as an image of the Trinitarian model» [59].
And he immediately explains that «this does not mean ‘spiritualization’ of marriage and devaluation of the natural relationship, but dynamic transformation of the natural impulse into an event of personal communion, according to the way in which the Church brings about communion, that is, as a grace-free gift of otherness and personal freedom» [60].
Magisterial interventions
First interventions
59. Until Leo XIII, the interventions referring to monogamy were few and essential. Worth mentioning is a brief but important intervention by Innocent III in the year 1201, in which he refers to pagans who «share conjugal affection with several women at the same time», and with reference to Genesis he states that it is contrary to the Christian faith, «since from the beginning one rib was changed into one woman» [61]. He then refers to Scripture (cf. Eph 5:31; Gen 2:24; Mt 19:5) to underline that it says that «they will be two in one flesh» (duo in carne una) and that the man will unite himself “to his wife”, not “to his wives”. Finally, he interprets the prohibition of adultery (cf. Mt 19:9; Mk 10:11) as referring to monogamous marriage [62].
60. The Second Council of Lyons again maintains that it is “held as firm that it is not permitted for a man to have more than one wife at the same time, nor for a woman to have more than one son” [63]. The Council of Trent derives the meaning of monogamy from the fact that Christ the Lord taught more openly that with this bond only two people are closely united, when he said: “Therefore they are no longer two, but one flesh” [64]. In the 18th century, Benedict XIV, taking into consideration the situation of clandestine marriages, reiterates that “neither of the two can, as long as the other is alive, move on to another marriage” [65].
Leo XIII
61. On the subject of monogamy, the central argument that spouses constitute “one flesh” returns in the teaching of Leo XIII: «We see this declared and solemnly ratified by the Gospel with the divine authority of Jesus Christ, who proclaimed to the Jews and the Apostles that marriage, by its very institution, must be only between two, that is, between a man and a woman ; that the two are formed as one flesh» [66].
62. In his reflection, the defense of monogamy is equally a defense of the dignity of women, which cannot be denied or dishonoured even by the desire for procreation. The unity of marriage therefore implies a free choice by the woman, who has the right to demand exclusive reciprocity: «Nothing was more miserable than the wife, lowered to such vileness that she was almost considered only as an instrument destined to satisfy lust or to procreate children. Nor did he blush at the fact that those who were to be placed as wives were bought and sold like corporeal things, the power having sometimes been given to the father or the husband to condemn the wife to the extreme torture» [67].
63. Monogamous marriage is the expression of a mutual and exclusive search for the good of the other: «It is necessary that they always have their minds so disposed as to understand that one owes the other a very great love, a constant faith, a solicitous and continuous help» [68]. This reality of being “one flesh” acquires with Christ a new and precious motivation and reaches its fullness in the Sacrament of Matrimony: «It should be added that marriage is a Sacrament precisely for this: that it is a sacred sign, which produces grace and renders an image of the mystical wedding of Christ with the Church. The form and shape of these are then expressed by that same bond of perfect union by which man and woman are joined together, and which is nothing other than marriage itself» [69].
Pius XI
64. Pope Pius XI offers a further development of the doctrine on marital unity in the Encyclical Casti connubii. He emphasizes the value of the “mutual fidelity of the spouses in the fulfillment of the marriage contract; so that what pertains by this contract sanctioned by divine law to the spouse alone, is neither denied to him nor permitted to a third person.” And he concludes: “This faith therefore demands in the first place the absolute unity of marriage, which the Creator himself foreshadowed in the marriage of the first parents, wanting it to be only between one man and one woman” [70].
65. The Pontiff then enriches the teaching on the unity of marriage by proposing a new reflection on conjugal love, “which pervades all the duties of conjugal life and in Christian marriage holds the primacy of nobility ” [71]. And the noblest thing that can be found in a marriage is conjugal love, especially when it reaches the supernatural level of charity through grace. As a consequence, the marital union becomes a path of spiritual growth: “It does not only include mutual help, but must also extend to, and indeed aim above all at, this: that the spouses help each other for an ever better interior formation and perfection, so that in their mutual union of life they grow ever more in the virtues, especially in sincere charity towards God and towards their neighbour […]. This mutual interior formation of the spouses, with the assiduous effort to perfect each other, in a certain very true sense […] can also be said to be the primary cause and motive of marriage ” [72]. This “broadening” of the meaning of marriage, which goes beyond the narrow sense, predominant until then, of an institution ordered to the procreation and proper education of offspring, has opened the way for a deeper understanding of the unitive meaning of marriage and sexuality.
66. One can also recall how in his time Pope Pius XI felt compelled to highlight those tendencies contrary to monogamy which have become much more common today: «Those who think that we should be indulgent towards the ideas and customs of our time regarding false and harmful friendships with third parties, and who maintain that in these external relationships spouses should be allowed a certain greater license to think and act, are corrupting fidelity first of all, and this is all the more true since (as they say) not a few have an innate sexual constitution which they cannot satisfy within the narrow confines of monogamous marriage. Therefore that disposition of mind by which honest spouses condemn and refuse every affection and libidinous act with a third person, they consider an antiquated weakness of mind and heart or an abject and vile jealousy; therefore they declare the penal laws of the State regarding the obligation of conjugal faith to be null and void» [73].
The times of the Second Vatican Council
67. Following the path opened by Casti connubi, the Second Vatican Council presents marriage first of all as a work of God which consists in a communion of love and life which the two spouses share, a communion which is not only oriented towards procreation, but also towards the integral good of both. Marriage is defined as an “intimate communion of life and conjugal love” [74]. In marriage, the man and the woman, who through the conjugal covenant “‘are no longer two, but one flesh’ ( Mt 19:6), offering each other mutual help and service through the intimate union of their persons and activities, experience the sense of their own unity and achieve it ever more fully. This intimate union, as a mutual gift of two persons, as well as the good of the children, demand the full fidelity of the spouses and demand their indissoluble unity” [75].
68. Christ himself “comes to meet Christian spouses through the sacrament of marriage. He also remains with them so that, just as he loved the Church and gave himself up for her, so too spouses may love one another faithfully, forever, with mutual dedication. Authentic conjugal love is taken up into divine love and is sustained and enriched by the redemptive power of Christ and the saving action of the Church” [76].
In this way, it is possible to live conjugal love: “being directed from person to person with a feeling that arises from the will, that love embraces the good of the whole person; therefore it has the possibility of enriching with a particular dignity the expressions of the body and of the psychic life and of ennobling them as special elements and signs of conjugal friendship. The Lord has deigned to heal, perfect and elevate this love with a special gift of grace and charity. Such love, uniting human and divine values, leads spouses to a free and mutual gift of themselves, which is expressed through tender feelings and gestures and pervades the entire life of the spouses» [77] . Sexual acts in marriage, «carried out in a truly human way, foster the mutual giving which they signify and enrich the spouses themselves mutually with joy and gratitude» [78].
69. The Council refers explicitly to marital unity to express that it, «confirmed by the Lord, is also clearly evident from the equal personal dignity which must be recognized in both man and woman in their mutual and complete love» [79]. The defense of marital unity in the Council is thus based on two firm points: on the one hand, the Council reiterates that marital union is all-encompassing, «it pervades the entire life of the spouses» [80], and consequently is only possible between two people; on the other, it underlines that such love corresponds to the equal dignity of each of the two spouses, who, in the case of a “plural” union, would find themselves in the situation of having to share with others what should be intimate and exclusive, thus becoming like objects, in a relationship which debases their own personal dignity [81].
70. Saint Paul VI, having concluded the Council and resuming his reflections on marriage, expresses a profound concern regarding the themes of marriage and the family. Even if in Humanae Vitae he wishes to underline the procreative meaning of marriage and sexual acts, at the same time he wishes to show that this meaning is inseparable from the other: the unitive one. In fact, he affirms that «because of its intimate structure, the conjugal act, while profoundly uniting the spouses, makes them capable of generating new lives» [82]. In this context, he reaffirms the value of reciprocity and exclusivity which recalls the communion of love and mutual perfection [83]. There is an «inseparable connection» between the two meanings of sexual acts: «By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act fully preserves the sense of mutual and true love and the ordination to man’s highest vocation in fatherhood» [84]. Therefore, if we say that the unitive meaning is inseparable from procreation, we must say at the same time that the pursuit of procreation is inseparable from the unitive meaning, as Saint John Paul II later clarified: «total physical donation would be a lie, if it were not the sign and fruit of total personal donation» [85].
Saint John Paul II
71. Saint John Paul II uses Christ’s reference “in the beginning” to introduce, in the reflection on the spousal relationship, the hermeneutic of the gift [86]. In Creation, God’s self-giving is revealed and Creation itself constitutes the fundamental and original gift. The human being is the only creature who can receive the created world as a gift and who can, at the same time, as the image of God, make his own life a gift. It is in this logic that the spousal meaning of the human body, in its masculinity and femininity, reveals that the human being was created to give himself to the other and that only in this gift of himself does he bring to completion the true meaning of his being and his existence [87].
72. In this context, in his exposition of the Christian concept of monogamy, Saint John Paul II supports the Semitic and non-Western origin of its deepest foundations, affirming that “it appears as the expression of the interpersonal relationship, one in which each of the two partners is recognized by the other as having equal value and in the totality of his person. This monogamous and personalist concept of the human couple is an absolutely original revelation, which bears the mark of God, and which deserves to be ever more deeply explored” [88].
73. The Holy Pontiff must however recognize that «the whole tradition of the Old Covenant indicates that the effective need for monogamy never reached the conscience of successive generations of the chosen people, their ethos […] adultery is not understood as it appears from the point of view of monogamy established by the Creator» [89]. For this reason, he strives to read the Old Testament not from the normative point of view, but from the theological point of view, and he does so starting from two cornerstones. The first is Christ’s will to return to the beginning [90], to the origin of Creation, when the original couple was monogamous, in the sense of “two in one flesh”: «God made man in his own likeness, creating him male and female. This is what is surprising right from the start. Humanity, to resemble God, must be a couple of two people who move towards each other» [91]. The other point of reference is the reflection of the prophets on the exclusive love between God and his people, for which «they often denounce the abandonment of the true God Yahweh by the people, comparing it to adultery […]. Adultery is a sin because it constitutes the breaking of the personal alliance between man and woman […]. In many texts monogamy appears to be the only and correct analogy of monotheism understood in the categories of the Alliance, that is, of fidelity and trust in the one and true God-Yahweh: Husband of Israel. Adultery is the antithesis of that spousal relationship, it is the antinomy of marriage» [92].
74. Following this line of thought, Saint John Paul II maintains that this union does not express God’s original will for monogamy if the other person, even if the union is exclusive, becomes merely an object used to satisfy one’s own desires: «The personal union or ‘communion’ to which man and woman are mutually called ‘from the beginning’ does not correspond, but rather conflicts with it, if one of the two persons exists only as a subject for the satisfaction of sexual need, and the other becomes exclusively the object of such satisfaction. Furthermore, the case where both, man and woman, exist reciprocally as an object for the satisfaction of sexual need, and each for her part is merely the subject of that satisfaction, does not correspond to this unity of ‘communion’ – indeed it conflicts with it. Such a ‘reduction’ of such a rich content of the mutual and perennial attraction of human persons […] extinguishes the personal meaning and the ‘communion’ meaning proper to man and woman» [93].
75. The gift of the “Holy Spirit poured out in the sacramental celebration offers Christian spouses the gift of a new communion of love which is a living and real image of that most singular unity which makes the Church the indivisible Mystical Body of the Lord Jesus […] a stimulating impulse so that they may progress every day towards an ever richer union between them at all levels – of bodies, characters, hearts, minds, wills, souls” [94].
Benedict XVI
76. Benedict XVI takes up this teaching again when he recalls, also recalling the story of Creation, that «eros is rooted in the very nature of man; Adam is searching and ‘abandons his father and mother’ to find the woman; only together do they represent the entirety of humanity, they become ‘one flesh’. The second aspect is no less important: in an orientation founded in creation, eros refers man to marriage, to a bond characterized by uniqueness and definitiveness; thus, and only thus, is its intimate destination realized» [95].
77. Benedict XVI also taught that marriage does nothing other than gather and bring to completion that disruptive force which is love, which, in its dynamic of exclusivity and definitiveness, does not want to mortify human freedom, but, on the contrary, opens life to nothing less than a horizon of eternity: «It is part of the development of love towards higher levels, towards its intimate purifications, that it now seeks definitiveness, and this in a double sense: in the sense of exclusivity – “only this one person” – and in the sense of “forever”» [96].
Francis
78. Pope Francis has given us an original reflection rooted in concrete experience on various aspects of the exclusive union of spouses in the fourth chapter of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, where one can find a detailed description of conjugal love in its various manifestations, taking as its starting point 1 Cor 13:4-7. First of all, patience, without which “we will always have excuses for responding with anger, and in the end we will become people who do not know how to live together, antisocial, incapable of controlling our impulses” [97]; then benevolence, “doing good” as a “dynamic and creative reaction towards others” [98]; then kindness, because those who have learned to love “hate making others suffer” [99] and “are capable of speaking words of encouragement, which comfort, which give strength, which console, which stimulate” [100]. Love also implies a certain “self-detachment”, to give oneself freely to the point of giving one’s life [101]. Consequently, love is capable of overcoming interior violence towards the defects of others, which «puts us on the defensive before others» and «ends up isolating us» [102]. To all this is added forgiveness, which «presupposes the experience of being forgiven by God» [103], the capacity to rejoice with others, so that «whoever does something good in life knows that they will celebrate it with him» [104]; and trust, because love «leaves freedom, it renounces the attempt to control everything, to possess, to dominate» [105]. Finally, love hopes for the other, «it always hopes that a maturation is possible, a surprising blossoming of beauty, that the potentialities of his being will one day sprout» [106].
79. Pope Francis thus helps us to “embody” what “conjugal charity” is. At the same time, with healthy realism, he warns of the danger of idealizing the marital union with inadequate deductions, as if the theological mysteries had to find a perfect correspondence in the life of the couple, and the latter had to be perfect in every circumstance. In reality, this would create a constant sense of guilt in the more fragile spouses, who struggle and do their best to maintain their union: “It is not good to confuse different levels: one must not place upon two limited persons the tremendous burden of having to reproduce in a perfect manner the union that exists between Christ and his Church, because marriage as a sign implies ‘a dynamic process, which advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God'” [107]. Instead, we must positively evaluate all the efforts, the painful moments, the challenges that have surprised and destabilized the spouses, the changes in the loved one, and even the defeats that have subsequently been overcome, as part of a journey where the Holy Spirit works as he wishes, because in this way, «after having suffered and fought together, the spouses can experience that it was worth it, because they have achieved something good, they have learned something together, or because they can appreciate more what they have. Few human joys are as profound and joyful as when two people who love each other have achieved something together that cost them a great shared effort» [108].
Leo XIV
80. Among the first interventions of Pope Leo XIV, in reference to the theme of this Note, one can take into consideration what he expressed in the message for the commemoration of the 10th anniversary of the canonization of the couple Louis and Zélie Martin, parents of Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus.
On that occasion, the Holy Father refers to the “model of the couple that the Holy Church presents to young people” as “such a beautiful adventure: a model of fidelity and attention to others, a model of fervor and perseverance in the faith, of the Christian education of children, of generosity in the exercise of charity and social justice; a model also of trust in times of trial” [109].
81. In truth, the motto of Pope Leo XIV, « In illo uno, unum » (« in Him who is One, we are one »), taken from a passage of Saint Augustine [110], could be applied to the life of a couple, suggesting that « being one » is possible and fully realisable in God.
In this sense, marital unity finds its foundation and its completeness in the relationship with God. On the occasion of the Jubilee of families, grandparents and the elderly, Pope Leo XIV, addressing spouses directly, reiterated that « marriage is not an ideal, but the canon of true love between man and woman: a total, faithful, fruitful love […]. While transforming you into one flesh, this same love makes you capable, in the image of God, of giving life » [111].
82. The Code of Canon Law refers to the “matrimonial covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life , ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of offspring”, and recalls that “among the baptized it has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament” [112].
83. Finally, in its synthetic vision, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that: « Polygamy is contrary to this equal dignity and to conjugal love which is unique and exclusive» [113]. Furthermore, «conjugal love demands from spouses, by its very nature, an inviolable fidelity. This is the consequence of the gift of themselves which spouses make to each other» [114]. For this reason, «adultery is an injustice. Whoever commits it fails to fulfil the commitments undertaken. He wounds that sign of the Covenant which is the marriage bond, injures the rights of the other spouse and attacks the institution of marriage, violating the contract on which it is founded. It compromises the good of human generation and of children, who need the stable union of their parents» [115]. This does not exclude the possibility of understanding “the drama of those who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, find themselves obliged to repudiate one or more women with whom they have shared years of married life. However, polygamy is in contrast with the moral law. It radically contradicts conjugal communion” [116].
IV. Some perspectives from philosophy and cultures
In classical Christian thought
84. In St. Thomas Aquinas we can find a Christian philosophical thought, which has become classic, on the foundations of monogamy. In the third book of the Summa contra Gentiles , his conception appears above all under the philosophical profile, with reasoning drawn from natural theology and from his knowledge of the biology of the time. The spousal relationship is thus presented as a bond of the natural order, a “society of man (and) woman” [117] or a form of “social bond ( socialis coniunctio )” [118], inherent in human nature, which unites man and woman.
85. St. Thomas maintains that monogamy derives essentially from natural instinct, being inscribed in the nature of every human being; this sphere therefore prescinds from the demands of faith. In fact, “man […] naturally desires to be certain of his offspring, which certainty would be completely eliminated if several men had only one woman. Therefore it follows from natural instinct that there should be only one woman for one man” [119]. This union, which consolidates the mutual balance between man and woman, is governed by “a natural equity”. There is therefore no room either for some form of polyandry, nor for polygamy which, among other things, Aquinas defines as a form of slavery: “It is also evident that the dissolution of the aforementioned society is incompatible with equity […]. If, therefore, a man taking a woman in her youth, when she is beautiful and fertile, could leave her later when she is old, he would be doing the woman an injustice against natural equity […]. On the other hand, if a man could abandon his wife, there would not be a society of equals between man and woman, but slavery on the part of the woman» [120].
86. Furthermore, equity in love establishes a substantial equality between spouses, that is, a fundamental equality between man and woman: «Friendship consists in a certain equality. Therefore, if a woman were not allowed to have more than one husband, so as not to jeopardize the security of her offspring, while a husband were permitted to have more than one wife, friendship between man and woman would not be liberal but almost servile. And this argument is proven by experience: since among men who have more than one wife, these are held almost as slaves. “An intense friendship is not possible towards many people,” as the Philosopher explains (Ethic. iv). If, therefore, the wife had only one husband, but the husband had more than one wife, friendship would not be equal on both sides» [121].
87. Marital fidelity, therefore, has as its foundation that highest degree of friendship which is established between man and woman. This friendship at the highest degree ( maxima amicitia ), as a love of benevolence ( amor benevolentiae ), different from the mere love of concupiscence ( amor concupiscentiae ) which is oriented rather towards one’s own advantage, leads to an intimate and total exchange between equals, in which each partner gives himself without reserve, seeking the good of the other: «The greater the friendship, the more firm and lasting it is. Now, between husband and wife, there is a very great friendship ( maxima amicitia ): since they are united not only for carnal intercourse, which even among beasts establishes a certain sweet society, but for the community of all domestic life; so that to express this, the man “leaves even his father and mother for his wife”, as it is said in Genesis (2,24)» [122].
Communion of two people
88. In the twentieth century, some Christian philosophers emphasized a vision of marriage as a union between persons or a communion of life. In the context of classical Thomistic thought, Antonin-Dalmace Sertillanges presents marriage as a union of two persons , which can never be understood as a kind of fusion or destruction of themselves to constitute a superior unity, nor even as a pure means of procreation for the good of the species: «Man, precisely because he is a person, that is, an end in himself , man who is valid in himself independently of the species, will seek in his union, together with the good of the species, also his own good. If, therefore, man and woman found a life cemented by love, this life will develop in two centers like an ellipse in two focuses […] without anyone being sacrificed» [123].
89. Consistent with this thought, Sertillanges shows that in marriage even the pursuit of a good for oneself constitutes a way of taking the other person seriously, opening up for him the possibility of being fruitful thanks to his spouse: «Certainly it is better to give than to receive, we said; but receiving is also a giving. O my heart, receive, so that your friend may find in you the testimony of what he gives. Be happy, so that your friend may say: I therefore bring happiness!» [124] . In this way, «in the conjugal union the two lives are enriched all the better the closer their association is destined to become and their mutual contributions are destined by nature to complement each other» [125], because «this love which makes two people united what each of them, alone, could not be, is the most decisive natural enrichment» [126] . In this way, marital communion implies a “double preference which intertwines to form the strongest of knots, and makes each of the two simultaneously the most loving and the most loved, and makes each obtain what is due to him just as he procures it for the other; the happiness of being one in two” [127].
A person entirely referred to another
90. At this point, it is useful to connect three authors who have increasingly explored a line of thought on marital unity. The first is Søren Kierkegaard. He is convinced that a person realizes himself when he is capable of going out of himself, thus making love and union possible: «Love is abandonment, but abandonment is possible only thanks to the fact that I go out of myself» [128], accepting the risk and the unpredictability. Only in this way does that decision to belong fully to a single person become possible, with all the risks that this decision may entail: «a decisive step is needed, and therefore courage is needed for this, and yet marital love collapses into nothingness when this does not take place, because it is only thanks to this that one shows that one does not love oneself but the other. And how should one show if not thanks to the fact that one is only for another?» [129]. Consequently, the Danish philosopher maintains, «he became aware of the affront, and therefore of how unfortunate it is to want to love with a part of the soul but not with the whole, to reduce one’s own love to a moment, and therefore to take all the love of another person» [130].
91. Thus we find the foundation of monogamy precisely in the idea of person, which allows us at the same time to understand the meaning of our own existence and to love that of our spouse. The interior call to abandon ourselves before the other thus becomes the foundation of “loving only one” [131]. Kierkegaard himself confirms this when he recognizes that, if there is a true love that makes us go out of ourselves towards the other, “lovers are intimately convinced that their relationship is a perfect whole in itself” [132] . He also recognizes that this reality means for spouses a call to “transform the instant of enjoyment into a small eternity” [133] . This then implies the action of the spiritual will but above all the reference to God, without separating marriage – including its component of enjoyment and sexuality – from the love of God: «lovers refer their love to God» who effectively «will give it an absolute imprint of eternity» [134].
92. These sources also nourish the personalism of Emmanuel Mounier, which starts from the «absolute value of the human person» [135], whose full realisation can only come about through self-giving, in a process which transfigures all the tensions of the personality [136]. On the contrary, «constituted in a closed society, the family is made in the image of the individual proposed to it by the bourgeois world» [137], and in this way constitutes only the sum of two particularisms, not a union. If its true nature is understood, «individuals must sacrifice their particularism to it […]. It is an adventure to be undertaken, a commitment to be made fruitful» [138]. But this is on condition that they strive towards it with all their effort . This totalising union is between two and does not admit rivals.
93. Also a supporter of personalism, Jean Lacroix draws inspiration more directly from Kierkegaard and expresses similar ideas under the figure of the mutual recognition of two people ( s’avouer l’un à l’autre ), which opens them to communion with all: «At the moment in which they recognize each other, the spouses simultaneously recognize each other before a superior reality that transcends them […]. The family, in fact, can undoubtedly be the place, the source and the archetype of all sociality […]. It will therefore be the analysis of recognition itself that will allow us to discern what is authentic and what is illusory in the conception of the family understood as the primary cell of society» [139]. The recognition of the other is «the human act that fully assumes the character of intimacy and the character of sociality», and in this way responds to the transcendental desire of love in its richest sense [140] . But it is a question of recognizing the other “as other” [141] . In this way, the tendency to fight against the other “is transformed into mutual recognition” [142] . In this horizon, we understand that the foundation of marriage “which is essentially love, cannot be anything other than integral recognition – recognition of the body, recognition of the soul, total recognition of this incarnate spirit which is the concrete man” [143] . Therefore, monogamy emerges clearly from the affirmation that marriage between a man and a woman is a “superior unity” to any other on this earth: “the family being is the greatest realization of human unity” [144] .
Face to face
94. The French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas, with his reflection on the face of the other, proposes to always discover the personal relationship as a “face to face”. Thanks to the face, which always imposes its own recognition, personal interiority becomes communicable and requires the ever new discovery of the other [145]. Sexual desire, when it moves within this dynamic of the face of the other, can adequately hold together sensitivity and transcendence, self-affirmation and recognition of otherness. In this face to face, the caress acts as an expression of love that seeks union by admiring, respecting and preserving otherness: “it is not an intention of unveiling but of research: a journey into the invisible” [146]. Lévinas’s thought can be a fruitful way to explore the meaning of marriage as an exclusive union: a face-to-face relationship that is only possible between two people, and which, when fully realized, claims for itself an exclusive, mutual belonging, incommunicable and non-transferable outside of that “we two.”
95. Polygamy, adultery, or polyamory are based on the illusion that the intensity of a relationship can be found in the succession of faces. As the myth of Don Juan illustrates, the number dissolves the name: it disperses the unity of the amorous impulse. If Lévinas showed that the face of the other summons an infinite, unique, and irreducible responsibility, multiplying faces in a supposedly total union means fragmenting the meaning of marital love.
The thought of Karol Wojtyła
96. Behind the catechetical notes on love offered by Saint John Paul II as Pontiff, we can find the philosophical reflection developed by the young Bishop Karol Wojtyła. This reflection helps us to understand in depth the meaning of the unique and exclusive union of marriage.
97. The young Polish thinker takes the theme of this Note very seriously. He explains that marriage has «an interpersonal structure: it is a union and a community of two persons» [147]. This is «its essential character», «the interior and essential reason for being of marriage» which is «above all to constitute a union of two persons». This is its «integral value» which remains even beyond procreation [148].
98. At the foundation of all his thought is what he himself calls the “personalist principle”, which requires “treating the person in a way that corresponds to his being” and not “in the situation of an object of enjoyment, at the service of another person” [149] as happens in polygamy. Being a person necessarily implies that “he can never be an object of utilitarian enjoyment for another, but only an object (more exactly a co-subject) of love” [150], because “he cannot be treated as an object of use, therefore as a means” [151].
99. Wojtyła’s thought allows us to understand why only monogamy guarantees that sexuality develops within a framework of recognition of the other as a subject with whom one shares one’s life entirely, a subject who is an end in himself and never a means to one’s own needs. Sexual union, which involves the whole person, can treat the other precisely as a person, that is, as a co-subject of love and not an object of use, only if it develops within the framework of a unique and exclusive belonging. In this case, those who give themselves fully and completely to the other can only be two. In any other case, it would be a partial gift of self, because such a gift must leave room for others, and consequently all would be treated as means and not as persons. For these reasons, he concludes that «strict monogamy is a manifestation of the personalist order» [152] .
100. In the same work, Karol Wojtyła broadens his reflection on monogamy with an original development on the unitive purpose of sexuality, which becomes an expression and a maturation of that objective fact which is marital unity as an essential property of marriage. For this reason, he forcefully denies the rigorist thesis – which he considers to be typical of “Manichean” or “ultra-spiritualist” visions – according to which «the Creator uses man and woman, as well as their sexual relations, to ensure the existence of the species homo . Thus he uses persons as means» [153]. Only in this context, for that mentality, would sexual pleasure become tolerable. Wojtyła instead maintains that «it is not at all incompatible with the objective dignity of persons that their conjugal love involves sexual “enjoyment” […]. There exists a joy which is in conformity with the nature of the sexual tendency and at the same time with the dignity of persons; in the vast field of love between man and woman, it springs from common action, from mutual understanding, from the harmonious fulfillment of goals chosen together. This joy, this enjoyment , can come both from the multifaceted pleasure created by the difference between the sexes and from the sexual voluptuousness offered by conjugal relations […] on condition that their love develops normally from the sexual impulse» [154].
101. In his effort to avoid the rigorist extreme, which ultimately excludes the unitive finality of sexuality in marriage, Wojtyła explains that the other can be truly loved as a person and at the same time be fully desired. These two things “differ from each other, but not to the point of excluding each other” because “a person can desire another as a good for himself, but can at the same time desire something good for him, independently of the fact that it is also a good for himself” [155]. Recognizing the integrity of the person and his needs, it must also be admitted that mutual love requires many other expressions, not only sexuality: if “what the two people bring to love is solely, or above all, concupiscence in the search for enjoyment and pleasure, then reciprocity will be deprived of those characteristics” [156] which offer stability to marriage (love as a virtue, trust, disinterested giving, etc.).
Further on
102. The marriage of Jacques and Raïssa Maritain appears as a special case of intellectual, cultural and spiritual communion, which cannot be presented as the only model, since the forms of conjugal union are certainly as diverse as the people themselves. Their special case, however, has much to say. Given the wonderful experience of sharing with Raïssa an interior search for truth and above all for God, Jacques relativizes – without excluding it – the importance of desire, passion and sexuality: «The truth is this, in my opinion: first of all, love as desire or passion, and romantic love – or at least an element of it – should, as far as possible, be present in marriage as a first incentive, as a starting point […]. Secondly, marriage, far from having as its primary purpose that of bringing romantic love to its perfect fulfillment, has to accomplish a very different work in human hearts: an infinitely deeper and more mysterious operation of alchemy» [157] . He is fascinated by «a truly disinterested love, which does not exclude sex, of course, but which becomes increasingly independent of sex» [158]. He is not referring, in a Gnostic or Jansenist sense, to a spiritual love completely disconnected from corporeality or earthly realities, because such an interpretation would be contrary to his anthropological thought, but precisely to the ideal of «a complete and irrevocable gift of one to the other, for love of the other. Thus it is that marriage can be an authentic community of love between man and woman: something built not on sand, but on rock» [159] . This ideal of the full gift of oneself to the spouse implies «the arduous discipline of self-sacrifice and by dint of renunciations and purifications […]. Each, in other words, can then become truly dedicated to the good and salvation of the other» [160] . In this context, he underlines the constant need for forgiveness: «prepared and ready, just as a guardian angel must be, to forgive others a lot: in fact the evangelical law of mutual forgiveness expresses well, it seems to me, a fundamental need» [161].
103. In this text, Maritain’s philosophical gaze is revealed as completely transfigured by a supernatural vision, where the power of theological love pushes the person who loves completely beyond himself, in search of the good of the other, to the fullness of this good of the beloved, which consists in his salvation, that is, in his total union with God. This profoundly spiritual vision of Maritain seems to exclude a complete philosophical treatment of marital love that we can find in other authors, but it has the great merit of guiding our reflection on monogamous love in an ascent towards the highest values, where such love matures in a self-sacrificing sense, which in marriage takes the form of a radical union. This admirable union manifests itself in the sincere and constant concern for the good of the other as a supernatural movement, and in the tender and generous search for the full and total fulfillment of the loved one in the saving love of God.
104. However, in a later text one can perceive a greater philosophical precision. These are the annotations that Maritain develops starting from his wife’s diary , published after her death. They are annotations completed by Maritain himself and published separately [162]. Already in the first pages the theme of that very special love which reaches very high levels of generosity and disinterestedness returns. The French philosopher calls it «mad love» [163], because it is a love «considered in its extreme and completely absolute form» [164], characterised «by the power it has to alienate the soul from itself» [165]. But the novelty is that, in this commentary on Raïssa’s diary , he takes a decisive step: he positively integrates sexuality even in the context of that most perfect love. Starting from human nature made of spirit and body and from the all-encompassing characteristic of marital love, he arrives at the affirmation: «a human person can give himself to another or be enraptured in another to the point of making this one his All, only if the other gives, or is willing to give, his body while giving his soul» [166]. In this supreme love between two human beings, marital unity finds its most precious earthly expression.
Other views
105. It seems useful here to also keep in mind a glance at the non-Christian East. Let us dwell, for example, on the traditions of India. In that region, although monogamy has usually been the norm and considered an ideal in married life, polygamy has continued to be present over the centuries. In any case, one of the oldest texts taken from the Hindu scriptures, the Manusmṛti, states the following: “That mutual fidelity continues until death, this can be considered as the summary of the supreme law for husband and wife. That man and woman, united in marriage, constantly strive, that (they are) not disunited (and) do not violate their mutual fidelity” [167]. An important text that is often cited to defend monogamy is that of the Srimad Bhagavatam or Bhagavata Purana, which states: “Lord Rāmachandra vowed to accept only one wife and to have no ties with other women. He was a saintly king, and everything in his character was good, untainted by qualities such as anger» [168]. When Ravana kidnaps his wife Sita, Lord Ramachandra, who could have taken any other woman as his wife, takes none. Furthermore, the emphasis placed on the wife’s chastity in the Thirukkural (a classical collection of aphorisms in Tamil) indicates the importance of total fidelity: «If woman could preserve chastity, what more precious treasure could the world contain? […] She who keeps incessant vigil to protect herself, takes care of her husband and the good name of her family, give her the name of a woman» [169].
106. In connection with the philosophical and cultural reflections developed thus far, it is also appropriate to pay attention to the issue of education. Our era, in fact, is experiencing various trends regarding love: increasing divorce rates, the fragility of unions, the trivialization of adultery, and the promotion of polyamory. In light of all this, it must also be recognized that great collective narratives (novels, films, songs) continue to exalt the myth of the unique and exclusive “great love.” The paradox is evident: social practices undermine what the imagination celebrates. This reveals that the desire for monogamous love remains inscribed deep within the human being, even when behaviors seem to deny it.
107. How, then, can we preserve the possibility of faithful and monogamous love? The answer lies in education. It is not enough to denounce failures; starting from the values still preserved in the popular imagination, we must prepare generations to embrace the experience of love as an anthropological mystery. The world of social networks , where modesty fades and symbolic and sexual violence proliferates, demonstrates the urgent need for a new pedagogy. Love cannot be reduced to an impulse: it always calls upon the responsibility and capacity for hope of the whole person. Engagement, understood in its traditional sense, embodies this time of testing and maturation, in which the other is welcomed as a promise of infinity. Thus, education in monogamy is not a moral constraint, but an initiation into the grandeur of a love that transcends immediacy. It directs erotic energy toward a wisdom of enduring and an openness to the divine. Monogamy is not archaism, but prophecy: it reveals that human love, lived in its fullness, somehow anticipates the very mystery of God.
V. The poetic word
108. Speaking of poetic words, Pope Francis states that “literary words are like a thorn in the heart that moves you to contemplation and sets you on the way. Poetry is open, it throws you elsewhere” [170]. And he adds: “The artist is the man who with his eyes looks and at the same time dreams, sees more deeply, prophesies, announces a different way of seeing and understanding the things that are before our eyes. Indeed, poetry does not speak of reality starting from abstract principles, but by listening to reality itself” [171]. Given these premises, it is impossible to ignore the poetic word in order to better grasp that mystery of love between two people who unite and belong to each other.
109. It is useful to note how many poets have sought to express the beauty of this unique and exclusive union. Acknowledging the power of their poetry now certainly does not imply that their lives were perfect or that they were always faithful in love. In any case, it is clear that, when they found love and decided to belong exclusively to another person, or when they perceived the value of an exclusive union, these poets needed to express it through their art, as if to indicate that it was something beyond sexual satisfaction, the fulfillment of a personal need, or a superficial adventure. Some examples include:
We drove around and around,
until we got home,
the two of us [172].
No one else, my love, will sleep with my dreams.
You will go, we will go together across the waters of time… [173].
110. In these verses, we perceive that, in a journey of respect and freedom, time consecrates the mutual choice, strengthens the bond, deepens the satisfaction of belonging to one another, enriches that “we” that comes to feel indestructible. In the context of this union, each of the two knows that, just as they have given something of themselves to the other, they have also received so much from their beloved:
I went down millions of stairs giving you my arm
not because perhaps one can see more with four eyes.
I went down them with you because I knew that
between us
the only true pupils, although so clouded,
were yours [174].
I give you myself,
my sleepless nights,
the long sips
of sky and stars – drunk
on the mountains,
the breeze of the seas crossed
towards remote dawns . […]
And you welcome my wonder
as a creature,
my trembling as a
living stem in the circle
of horizons,
bent to the
clear wind – of beauty:
and you let me look at these eyes
that God has given you,
so full of sky –
deep as centuries of light
sunk beyond
the peaks – [175]
111. The relationship is seen as irreplaceable, so that, when the poet wants to rediscover his roots, he conceives of himself as referring to the other person, with a force that transcends time:
I will close my eyes
and I only want five things,
five favorite roots.
One is endless love…
The fifth thing is your eyes,
my beloved Matilda,
I don’t want to sleep without your eyes,
I don’t want to be without you looking at me [176].
112. In great poets one generally does not find a naive romanticism, but a realism that recognizes the risks of static habituation, accepts the challenges that stimulate growth, and at the same time does not lose sight of the need for an openness outside the narrow circle of the two:
The two of us holding hands
We believe ourselves to be at home everywhere […]
Next to wise men and fools
Among children and adults [177].
113. This is rooted in the fact that the authenticity of this union excludes any form of self-contained fusion. Mutual belonging is not merely the fruit of personal need, but of a decision to belong to the other that allows us to overcome loneliness and abandonment: a decision that is simultaneously intimately marked by great respect for the other and for his or her personal mystery. Love, which sees in the other a unique value, perceives in its own way that the human person is “non-transferable,” that it cannot be its own property, and requires a similar attitude:
Your eyes question me sadly.
They would like to probe all my thoughts
while the moon scans the sea […]
But it is my heart, my love.
Its joys and its anxieties
are immense
and its desires and its riches are infinite.
This heart is as close to you as your own life,
but you cannot know it completely [178].
114. In these few examples cited, it clearly emerges how the poetic word takes seriously the value of the exclusive union of two people who have freely decided to be together and to belong, in an exclusive way, to each other. What has been said about the all-encompassing nature of love can be summarised with the words of another great poet, Emily Dickinson: « That Love is all / is all we know of Love » [179].
VI. Some reflections to be explored further
115. Thanks to the progress made thus far, it is now possible to gather a substantial body of considerations that can help us perceive the unique and exclusive marital union in a harmonious and multifaceted way. These considerations are in themselves useful for a valid understanding of the meaning of monogamy; however, it seems appropriate, in this final part of the Note, to focus attention on some important specific points regarding the theme under consideration. As we have seen, the unity-union of marriage could be expressed in various philosophical, theological, or poetic ways, but among the many possible ones, two appear decisive: mutual belonging and conjugal charity. Both have emerged frequently in various texts cited in this Note.
Mutual belonging
116. One way of expressing this exclusive union between two people is summed up in the expression “mutual belonging.” Already in the fifth century, Saint Leo the Great referred to the mutual belonging of spouses when he spoke of the situation of soldiers who, presumed dead, return from war and discover that they have been “replaced” by others. The Pope then orders that “each should receive what belongs to him. ” [180] This insight now leads us to reflect on this mutual belonging in a richer and deeper way.
117. It is St. Thomas Aquinas who affirms that, to establish a friendship, “not even benevolence is enough, but mutual love is required ” [181]. Mutual belonging is based on the free consent of the two.
Indeed, in the Latin rite of marriage, consent is expressed by saying: “I accept you as my bride”, “I accept you as my husband” [182]. In this regard, following the dictates of the Second Vatican Council , it must be said that consent is a “human act by which the spouses mutually give and receive each other” [183] . This act “which binds the spouses to each other” [184] is a giving and receiving of one another: it is the dynamism which gives rise to mutual belonging, called to deepen, to mature, to become ever more solid. In technical terms, mutual giving is the matter; mutual acceptance is the form.
118. It is no coincidence that Saint Paul VI links the “mutual personal gift” in marriage to the unity of the bond, characterizing it as “their own and exclusive “. [185] And, still on the subject of reciprocity, Karol Wojtyła maintains that it “obliges us to consider the love of man and woman not only as the love of one for the other but rather as something that exists between them […]. Love is not only in the woman nor only in the man – because then we would ultimately have two loves – but it is unique, it is that thing which binds them […]. Its being, in its fullness, is inter-personal and not individual […]. It is reciprocity which, in love, decides the birth of this ‘we’. It proves that love has matured, has become something between persons, has created a community” [186] . This reciprocity is a reflection of the Trinitarian life: “two persons whom a perfect love brings together in unity. This movement and this love make them similar to God, who is the same love, the absolute unity of the three Persons” [187]. The unity of the relationship of the spouses is profoundly rooted in Trinitarian communion.
119. Pope Francis loved to speak of marriage in terms of freely chosen belonging, because “without a sense of belonging , one cannot sustain dedication to others; each ends up seeking only his or her own convenience.” [188] In marriage, each of the two “expresses a firm decision to belong to one another. Getting married is a way of expressing that one has truly left the maternal nest to forge other strong bonds and take on a new responsibility towards another person. This is much more important than a mere spontaneous association for mutual gratification.” [189] Mutual and exclusive belonging becomes a strong motivation for the stability of the union: “In marriage, one also experiences the sense of belonging completely to one person. The spouses take on the challenge and the yearning to grow old and live out their lives together and thus reflect God’s faithfulness […]. It is a belonging of the heart , where only God sees (cf. Mt 5:28). Every morning when we get up, we renew this decision of faithfulness before God, whatever happens during the day. And each one, when he goes to sleep, waits to get up to continue this adventure” [190].
The transformation
120. With the passage of time, even when physical attraction and the possibility of sexual relations weaken, mutual belonging is not destined to dissolve. The option for the union of the two changes and transforms. Naturally, various intimate expressions of affection will not be lacking, which, however, are also considered exclusive, as expressions of the unique marital union, which cannot be offered to others without experiencing inadequacy. Precisely because the experience of mutual and exclusive belonging has deepened and strengthened over time, there are expressions that are reserved only for the person with whom one has chosen to share one’s heart in a unique way.
121. For Pope Francis, this is precisely one of the advantages of understanding the marital union as a mutual belonging: «The intimate relationship and mutual belonging must be maintained for four, five or six decades, and this entails the need to re-choose one another repeatedly. Perhaps the spouse is no longer attracted by an intense sexual desire that moves him or her towards the other person, but he or she feels the pleasure of belonging to that person and that that person belongs to him or her, of knowing that he or she is not alone, of having an ‘accomplice’ who knows everything about his or her life and who shares everything. This is the companion on the journey of life» [191] . Thus «although many confused feelings circulate in the heart, the decision to love, to belong to one another, to share one’s entire life and to continue to love and forgive one another remains alive every day […]. In the course of this journey, love celebrates each step and each new stage […]. The bond finds new modalities and demands the decision to re-establish it over and over again. Not only to preserve it, but to make it grow” [192]. In any case, it must be recognized that mutual belonging is a way of understanding the conjugal union which has its great richness and at the same time limits which it is essential to clarify.
Non-belonging
122. A characteristic of the person is that he is an end in himself. The human being “is the only creature on earth that God willed for its own sake” [193]. It can thus be said that man is an end in himself, and therefore cannot be reduced to being merely the end of others. The person cannot be treated in a way that does not correspond to this dignity, which can be called “infinite” [194], both because of the unlimited love that God has for him and because it is an absolutely inalienable dignity. Every “human individual has the dignity of a person; he is not just something, but someone” [195]. Consequently, the person “cannot be treated as an object of use, and therefore as a means” [196].
123. When this conviction, proper to true love that stops short of the sacred dimension of the other, is lacking, the diseases of undue possession of the other easily develop: manipulation, jealousy, harassment, infidelity. On the other hand, the mutual belonging proper to mutual exclusive love implies delicate care, a holy fear of profaning the freedom of the other, who has the same dignity and therefore the same rights. Those who love know that the other cannot be a means of resolving their own dissatisfaction; they know that their own emptiness must be filled in other ways, never through domination of the other. This is what does not happen in many forms of unhealthy desire, which result in various manifestations of explicit or subtle violence, oppression, psychological pressure, control, and ultimately asphyxiation. This lack of respect and reverence for the dignity of the other is also found in those claims of complementarity where one of the two is forced to develop only some of his or her possibilities, while the other finds ample room for personal expansion. To avoid all this, it must be recognized that there is no single model of marital reciprocity. In a healthy and generous relationship “there are flexible roles and tasks, which adapt to the concrete circumstances of each family” [197]. Consequently, “at home decisions are not made unilaterally, and the two share responsibility for the family, but every home is unique and every marital synthesis is different” [198].
124. When, instead of a healthy mutual belonging – even though this always requires patience and generosity – signs of irritation and even some disrespect appear in the spouse, it is necessary to react in time before forms of manipulation or violence appear. In these cases, the person must assert his or her dignity, set the necessary limits and begin a journey of sincere dialogue, in such a way as to express a clear message: “You do not possess me, you do not dominate me”. And this not only to defend oneself, but also for the dignity of the other, because “in the logic of domination, even those who dominate end up denying their own dignity” [199].
125. The healthy and beautiful “two of us” can only be the reciprocity of two freedoms that are never violated, but choose each other, always leaving a safe limit that cannot be exceeded, that cannot be crossed with the excuse of some need, personal anxiety or psychological state. As Pope Francis highlights, spouses “are called to an ever more intense union, but the risk lies in trying to erase the differences and that inevitable distance that exists between the two. Because each possesses a dignity that is proper and unrepeatable” [200] . Fully respecting this principle “requires an interior stripping” [201].
126. Taking what has been said so far seriously, the word “belonging” can only be applied to marriage in a similar way. Indeed, any form of belonging other than that of a love that experiences the other as sacred in their freedom, not transferable to its personal core, and autonomous, would only be a self-centered way of subjecting the spouse to one’s own ends or plans. The person does not disperse in the relationship, does not merge with the loved one, always remaining an untransferable core. This should not be understood as a limitation or a poverty of mutual love; on the contrary, it allows for the preservation of that level of respect and wonder that are part of every healthy love, which never intends to absorb the other.
127. This is confirmed by the fact that there is a dimension of the person which, being the deepest, transcends all others – including the corporeal – and which only God can enter without violating it. There is a core of the human being in which only the infinite love of God can reign. He alone has the omnipotent and creative love which makes the very existence of freedom possible. Therefore, if he touches it, he can only strengthen it, promote it, exalt it in its very nature, without any possibility of mutilating it, dominating it, weakening it or imposing himself upon it. Indeed, “God alone penetrates [ illabitur ] the soul” [202]: only God can enter into the depths of the human heart, since only he can do so without disturbing the freedom and identity of the person [203]. God, through grace, draws fully close, with an identification with the deepest depths of the human being which only he can reach [204]. Therefore, “no one can claim to possess the most personal and secret intimacy of the loved one” [205].
128. As their love matures, the couple will be able to peacefully understand and accept that the precious mutual belonging that characterizes marriage is not a possession, but leaves open many possibilities. For example, one of the two may request a moment of reflection, or some habitual space for solitude or autonomy, or reject the other’s intrusion into some aspect of their intimacy, or keep some personal secrets locked away in the sanctum sanctorum of their conscience without being followed or observed.
129. When love matures, that “we two” possesses all the strength of a union freely chosen by both, all the joy of a shared memory, all the satisfaction of a shared journey and dreams, all the security that comes from knowing that one is not and will not be alone. But that beauty is enhanced by a magnificent freedom that no true love could harm.
130. Marriage, therefore, also excludes any control that might provide security, absolute certainty, the absence of all surprises. In a mature love, if the other needs time to rediscover the world, there is room only for trust, not for the demand for absolute tranquility, free of all secret fears, incapable of facing new challenges. In this sense, marriage does not free us completely from loneliness, because a spouse cannot attain a space that can only be God’s, nor fill a personal emptiness that no human being is capable of filling. The fact that their affection is imperfect does not mean that it is false, totally selfish, inauthentic, but simply that it is earthly, limited, and cannot be expected to satisfy every need.
(Note: The above is the 2nd part of the document; the first one-third came in the last email; the 3rd and final part will come in the next email…)
Facebook Comments