Letter #81, 2025, Tuesday, November 25: “One flesh,” #4
The Vatican today issued a document on the sacral character of marriage entitled Una caro [“One flesh”]. In Praise of Monogamy.
In my last letter, I sent the 2nd part of the full text in English.
The third and final part of the text is below.
The footnotes will follow 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 130 in the previous emails.]
Mutual aid
131. Certainly, this ability to accept the risk of freedom does not mean that a spouse who is very sensitive to defending his or her own space for autonomy will cultivate an indifference to the other’s fears, an excessive self-confidence, a demand for complete independence that the limited human heart of his or her partner, especially if he or she loves him or her, cannot accept without great suffering. He or she cannot feel saved by his or her own autonomous self-sufficiency, because a loving alliance also implies the recognition that the other person needs him or her.
132. Together with safeguarding a healthy freedom, the word of God, while approving the request for spaces of autonomy and solitude for a certain period, also demands: “Do not reject one another” ( 1 Cor 7:5). When distance becomes too frequent, the “we” is exposed to its own possible eclipse, to the weakening of the other’s desire. In any case, if mutual attraction wanes, it is always possible to find space for sincere dialogue to heal what is causing the mutual estrangement. Ultimately, it is always possible to seek alternative paths that consolidate and enrich the “we” in a new way. This is a healthy but difficult balance, which each couple achieves in its own way , through sincere dialogue and mutual offering.
133. Mutual belonging becomes mutual help, help that not only seeks the happiness of the spouse and an alleviation of his or her suffering, but also helps each other to mature as persons, until reaching the ultimate end of life for both before God, at the banquet of heaven. Saint Paul VI recalls that “through the mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to them, spouses tend towards the communion of their persons, by which they perfect each other ” [206]. Prayer as a couple is certainly a precious means for growing in love and for sanctifying one another, a prayer which “has as its original content family life itself” [207] . In this journey of sanctification, says Sertillanges, sexuality must not be excluded, lived as a holy expression of a full gift of self to the other, as Christ and his Church give themselves to each other: “The act thus performed is therefore not only licit as the effect of a natural and legal institution; not only is it virtuous, as useful and directed to useful ends; it is holy with the sanctity of the sacrament of which it is the use, with the sanctity of the sacred union of all humanity with its Redeemer» [208].
134. A discussion of monogamy implies the recognition of the fact that the uniqueness of the spouse reflects, in the “horizontal” order of human relationships, the uniqueness of the relationship of the human person with the divine Infinite. Thinking about monogamy means questioning the relationship of human love with its ultimate fulfillment. Every loving relationship silently calls for the presence of an infinite Third, who is God himself. [209] Without this Third, love easily closes in on itself and collapses. Conjugal exclusivity then appears not as a limitation, but as the condition of possibility of a supernatural love which, beyond the flesh, opens itself to the eternal. Indeed, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that the same “Holy Spirit proceeds invisibly to the soul through the gift of love.” [210] Consequently, in the experience of authentic love we connect with that infinite Love which is the Holy Spirit. Precisely the experience of such a close love, like that of marriage, powerfully awakens in the human heart the desire for a love that is not only forever, but without end. Thus, the love of spouses becomes an epiphany of the transcendent and eternal destiny of the human person. For only a love capable of transcending human love, an eternal and infinite Love, can respond to that desire for love “forever” and “without end” that conjugal love inspires. And this is why the experience of that particular and profound closeness, offered by the conjugal bond, is ultimately destined to awaken in the heart of every man and every woman the desire for that unparalleled closeness that only God can offer fully and definitively. And God himself, by becoming man, begins to respond to this desire, also conferring on the closeness born of the marital bond the seal of uniqueness, which is precisely the sign and pledge of God’s communion with each of us in a covenant of never-ending love. Consequently, how can we not think of marriage as a path of mutual help to sanctify ourselves together, to reach the heights of union with God?
135. Mutual help for sanctification, in which the two support each other “in grace” [211], is achieved above all in the exercise of conjugal charity, because only charity exercised concretely towards the other allows us to grow in the life of grace, and without charity any effort at sanctification “would be of no use to me” ( 1 Cor 13:3). For this reason, the last pages of this document are dedicated to that unitive power which is conjugal charity.
Conjugal charity
136. We have already discussed the reciprocal nature of the conjugal union, which can be considered a form of intimate and all-encompassing friendship. In this regard, it is useful to remember that St. Thomas himself specifies that friendship is “founded on some commonality” [212]. More than some ideological or aesthetic affinities, which can be very important, it is a question of the communion that creates love, which with its unitive force makes spouses similar to each other, increases the things they share, creates a treasure of life between the two. Therefore, first of all, it must be said that, in order to speak of friendship, there must be love.
A particular form of friendship
137. Marriage cannot be properly understood without speaking of love, which for Christians is always called to reach the heights of charity, the supernatural love which “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” ( 1 Cor 13:7). Indeed, “the grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the love of the spouses” [213]. This supernatural love is a divine gift, which is asked for in prayer and nourished in the sacramental life, and invites spouses to remember the fact that God is the principal author of the unity of marriage, and that without his help their union will never reach its fullness. When the Latin rite of marriage quotes the words of the Lord: “What God has joined together, let no man separate” [214] (cf. Mt 19:6; Mk 10:9), we note that conjugal unity is not constituted only by human consent, but is the work of the Holy Spirit. The same must be said of the growth in communion of spouses, animated by grace and charity. This communion develops as a response to a “vocation from God and is brought about as a filial response to his call” [215]. But the growth of charity does not occur without human cooperation: in this case, the collaboration of spouses who seek every day an ever more intense, rich and generous communion.
138. Charity – including conjugal charity – is an affective union, meaning here by “affective” something more than feelings and desires: «it implies an affective bond between the one who loves and the thing loved: insofar as the one who loves considers the loved person as one with himself» [216]. It is expressed in the action of the will [217] which wants, chooses someone, decides to enter into intimate communion with him, unites himself to that person freely, with all the more or less intense effects that this may imply on the sensitivity in the form of desire, emotions, sexual attraction, sensuality. Even when these effects on the sensitivity or on the body weaken or are transformed in the various phases of life, the affective union remains, sometimes with great intensity, in the will. It is the will that wants to remain in union with the other human being, appreciating him as of «great value» [218] and constituting with him «one thing with himself» [219].
139. Only in this way is it possible to sustain fidelity in times of adversity or temptation, because charity keeps us attached to a value higher than the satisfaction of personal needs. In this regard, we cannot ignore the many testimonies of couples in which the spouses have supported each other in the various difficulties of life, sometimes during trials lasting years, thus testifying to the prophetic importance of monogamy. This is well expressed in the formula of consent in the Latin rite of marriage: “I promise to be faithful to you always, in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, and to love and honour you all the days of my life” [220]. Conjugal charity itself, with its unitive power, makes it possible for this promise to be truly fulfilled. This affective, faithful and total union takes the form of friendship in marriage, because ultimately charity is a form of friendship [221]. And Pope Francis, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas, therefore maintains that “after the love that unites us to God, conjugal love is the ‘greatest friendship'” [222].
140. In the Old Testament there is a peremptory affirmation referring to the need to love: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” ( Lev 19:18). This affirmation comes at the end of a passage in which the obligations of the pious Israelite towards those who are his “neighbor” are continually recalled. This is a very well-known affirmation, since Jesus takes it up and reiterates it (cf. Mt 22:39; Mk 12:31; Lk 10:29-37). He thus establishes a very special link between the reality of love, such a universal phenomenon, and the category of “neighbor.” In this way, love itself, when it is authentic, not only is directed towards those who are close to us, but is also capable of generating a “closeness.” It follows that the “neighbor” is someone with whom a particular sharing of life takes place. In this sense, conjugal love itself reveals and embodies a special “closeness,” which makes the commandment’s content resonate with particular conviction. Spousal love, in fact, creates and evokes a unique and singular closeness between two loving hearts, generating a special affinity nourished by such a sharing of self, of goods, and of life as a whole, that the depth of conjugal love is capable of realizing with unparalleled intensity. As love matures and grows, in marriage the heart of the beloved realizes that no other heart is capable of making it feel “at home” like that of the person it loves.
In body and soul
141. This conjugal friendship, filled with mutual knowledge, appreciation of the other, complicity, intimacy, understanding and patience, seeking the good of the other, and sensitive gestures, to the extent that it transcends sexuality, at the same time embraces it and gives it its most beautiful, profound, unitive and fruitful meaning. In this regard, Pope Francis recalls that “God himself created sexuality, which is a marvelous gift” [223]. At the same time, “sexual union, lived in a human way and sanctified by the sacrament, is in turn for the spouses a path of growth in the life of grace” [224]. Therefore, placing sexuality within the proper framework of a love that unites spouses in a single friendship, which seeks the good of the other, does not imply a devaluation of sexual pleasure. By directing it towards the gift of self, it is not only enriched but can also be strengthened. St. Thomas Aquinas explains all this very well when he recalls that “nature has linked pleasure to the functions necessary for the life of man” and that whoever rejected it, “to the point of neglecting what is necessary for the conservation of nature, would commit a sin, thus violating the natural order. And it is precisely this that falls within the vice of insensibility” [225]. Within this logic, St. Thomas argues that, before original sin, sensible pleasure was greater, since nature was purer, more whole, and consequently the body was more sensitive. This is the opposite of anxious dissoluteness which ultimately damages pleasure by depriving it of the possibilities of an authentically human experience [226]. The specifically human capacities that allow the human spirit to permeate the senses, to direct them and bring them to completion, “do not diminish the pleasure of the senses”, but rather to make it possible in all its fullness and richness, preventing “the concupiscible faculty from adhering unrestrainedly to pleasure” [227]. Living sexuality as an action of the whole human being, in his corporeality and interiority, thanks also to the transfiguring power of charity, means that it is not lived passively, as a simple letting oneself be carried away by impulses, but as the action of the person who chooses to unite fully with the other.
142. Lived in this way, sexuality is no longer the outlet for an immediate need, but a personal choice that expresses the totality of one’s person and accepts the other as a personal totality. This truth, rather than compromising the intensity of pleasure, can increase it, making it more intense, richer and more fulfilling. The mere fact of being treated as a person, and of treating the other in the same way, can free the heart from traumas, fears, anguish, anxiety, feelings of loneliness, abandonment, and the inability to love, which certainly hinder pleasure. At the same time, the development of love as a human and theological virtue helps to liberate the best of each person in his or her unique identity, and thus make him or her capable of a greater and more human joy, to the point of giving thanks to God who created everything “for our enjoyment” ( 1 Tim 6:17). All this does not take away from sexual union that “abundance of pleasure which is in the sexual act ordered according to reason” and which “does not contradict the means of virtue” [228]. Instead, if one withdraws into oneself and one’s immediate needs, and uses the other as the only means for their release, the pleasure leaves one more unsatisfied and the feeling of emptiness and loneliness becomes more bitter.
143. Speaking of conjugal charity, Karol Wojtyła invites us to overcome every useless dialectic, explaining that «love-virtue refers to effective love as well as to the love of concupiscence» [229]. Pope Benedict XVI, in Deus caritas est, reiterates that oblative love ( amor benevolentiae ) and possessive love ( amor concupiscentiae ) cannot be separated from each other, because «ultimately ‘love’ is a single reality, albeit with different dimensions; from time to time, one or the other dimension can emerge more. Where, however, the two dimensions are completely detached from each other, a caricature or in any case a reductive form of love emerges» [230] . When we speak of concupiscence, we must not only mean sexual desire, but also any way of seeking the other as “a good for me,” to overcome loneliness, to receive help in difficulties, to have a space of total trust, etc. This form of love, which is not excluded in marriage, is a way of expressing that I am not the savior of the other, an omnipotent and inexhaustible giver of good, but that I am a needy being, that I too need the other, that I too am incomplete and fragile, and that therefore the other is important to me and I give him the possibility of becoming fruitful by doing good to me. To do otherwise would be a sort of self-sufficiency that can easily be transformed into disguised egocentrism, because Satan “disguises himself as an angel of light” ( 2 Cor 11:14). Benedict XVI thus explains that “man cannot even live exclusively in self-sacrificing, descending love. He cannot always just give, he must also receive. Whoever wants to give love must himself receive it as a gift” [231].
144. In this sense, we cannot ignore the fact that in recent decades, in the context of postmodern consumerist individualism, various problems have emerged, originating from an excessive and uncontrolled pursuit of sex, or from the simple denial of the procreative purpose of sexuality. A characteristic of recent decades is the explicit denial of the unitive purpose of sexuality and of marriage itself. This occurs especially because of the feeling of anxiety, of being constantly busy, of wanting more free time for oneself, of being constantly obsessed with traveling and exploring other realities. Consequently, the desire for emotional exchange, for sexual relations themselves, but also for dialogue and cooperation, disappears, all of which are seen as “stressful.”
The multifaceted fruitfulness of love
145. An integral vision of conjugal charity does not deny its fruitfulness, the possibility of generating a new life, because “this totality, required by conjugal love, also corresponds to the demands of a responsible fruitfulness” [232]. Sexual union, as a way of expressing conjugal charity, must naturally remain open to the communication of life [233], even if this does not mean that this must be an explicit aim of every sexual act. In fact, three legitimate situations can arise:
a) That a couple cannot have children. Karol Wojtyła explains this magnificently when he recalls that marriage has «an interpersonal structure, it is a union and a community of two persons […]. For many reasons, marriage may not become a family, but the lack of this does not deprive it of its essential character. In fact, the interior and essential reason for the existence of marriage is not only to transform itself into a family, but above all to constitute a union of two persons, a lasting union founded on love […]. A marriage in which there are no children, through no fault of the spouses, retains the integral value of the institution […] it loses none of its importance» [234].
b) That a couple does not consciously seek a certain sexual act as a means of procreation. Wojtyła also says this, maintaining that a conjugal act, which « being in itself an act of love that unites two persons, may not necessarily be considered by them as a conscious and desired means of procreation » [235].
c) That a couple respect the natural times of infertility. Following this line of reflection, as Saint Paul VI states , «the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms inherent in the generative functions for the use of marriage only in the infertile periods» [236]. This can serve not only to «regulate birth rates», but also to choose the most suitable moments to welcome a new life. In the meantime, the couple can exploit these periods «as a manifestation of affection and to safeguard mutual fidelity. In doing so they give proof of a love that is truly and completely honest» [237].
146. All this shows the important innovation that Pope Pius XI offers when he affirms that conjugal love “pervades all the duties of conjugal life and in Christian marriage holds the primacy of nobility” [238] . In this way, he helps to overcome the discussion on the relationship between the ends or meanings of marriage (procreative and unitive) and the order that exists between them, placing conjugal charity above this dialectic of ends and goods as the central question of conjugal life, which in turn gives it a multifaceted fruitfulness. Even in the most difficult moments, spouses can say: “We are friends, we love each other, we value each other, we have decided to share our entire lives, we belong to each other, and we have freely chosen this union that God himself has blessed and strengthened. If at one time there are no children, we remain united and are fruitful in other ways; if at one time there is no sex, we continue to live this unique, exclusive, and all-encompassing friendship, which is also our best path to growth and sanctification.”
147. St. Augustine himself, who so strongly emphasizes the purpose of procreation, teaches that marriage in itself is a good even if there are no children, “because it establishes a natural partnership between the two sexes. Otherwise it would not continue to be called marriage even in old people, especially when they have lost their children or have had none at all” [239]. A similar position, expressed in other words, is supported by St. John Chrysostom: “What then is to be said: if there is no child, then [the spouses] will no longer be two? It is evident: their joining ( míxis ) in fact does just this, it pours and mixes together the bodies of both. And as he who has poured perfume into oil makes the whole one, so also here” [240]. In essence, this is also affirmed by the Second Vatican Council: “Even if the offspring, often so keenly desired, do not arise, marriage endures as a custom and communion of the whole of life and retains its value” [241].
148. One author illustrates well that, beyond the “objectives” that spouses may set for themselves, which do not constitute the essence of marriage, “the union-unity that marriage entails is explained and justified in itself, with priority given to its teleological tension, because it is a union-unity that possesses in itself its own and complete reason for good, from which certain proper works derive, without a doubt, but as consequences, never as causes” [242]. Of this union-unity, which belongs to the essence of marriage, conjugal charity is the principal and most perfect moral and spiritual expression that gives marriage various forms of fruitfulness.
A friendship open to all
149. From what has been said, it follows that an exclusive union generated and sustained by true love, even if still immature and fragile, cannot be closed in on itself; it is not an extension of individualism in the life of a couple, but is open to other relationships, is disposed to the couple’s self-giving, and to shared projects to do something beautiful for the community and for the world.
150. If marriage is already in itself a framework for a relationship which matures both spouses, this is even more true when it is generously open to others, thus overcoming “the original tragic closure of man within himself” [243] which leads to the thought that by isolating himself a person is freer and happier. Because “the human creature, insofar as he is spiritual by nature, finds fulfilment in interpersonal relationships. The more authentically he lives them, the more his own personal identity also matures. It is not by isolating himself that man fulfils himself, but by placing himself in relation with others and with God” [244].
151. As Pope Francis teaches in his appeal for universal brotherhood in his Encyclical Fratelli tutti , charity is called to an intensive but also extensive growth, which “tends to embrace everyone” . [245] Charity, therefore, impels us to broaden the conjugal “we”: “I cannot reduce my life to relationships with a small group, or even to my family, because it is impossible to understand myself without a broader fabric of relationships […]. The bond of a couple and of friendship is designed to open our hearts to others, to enable us to go beyond ourselves to welcome everyone. Closed groups and self-referential couples, which constitute themselves as an “we” opposed to the entire world, are usually idealized forms of selfishness and mere self-protection” . [246]
152. The risk of “endogamy,” that is, of a closed “we,” contradicts the very nature of charity and can mortally wound it. Four factors can prevent this “endogamy,” which distorts and impoverishes the meaning of the conjugal union:
a) The spaces each spouse enjoys through work, personal endeavors, and learning and development opportunities outside of marriage. If one spouse is unemployed, it becomes necessary to create these spaces for the benefit of the marriage, enriching dialogue and the relationship in general.
b) The procreative meaning of marriage, which manifests the fruitfulness of love that is not closed to the communication of life. For those unable to have children, adoption or other forms of stable support for the children of other couples can be a way to realize this fruitfulness.
c) Time spent with other married friends, during which, while learning from each other’s experiences and receiving support, there is a constant willingness to lend a hand in difficult times, while at the same time helping the couple to become aware of themselves as a union through friendship with other couples.
d) The social sense of the couple, who, faithful to the social dimension of Christian life, seeks ways to render a service to society and the Church, committing themselves together to the search for the common good: «Even the family with many children is called to leave its mark on the society in which it is inserted, to develop other forms of fruitfulness which are like the extension of the love which sustains it […]. It does not remain waiting, but goes out of itself in a search of solidarity» [247]. «Social love, a reflection of the Trinity, is in reality what unifies the spiritual sense of the family and its mission outside itself» [248].
153. A particular proof of the openness of the couple’s friendship towards others and of the fruitfulness of their charity is shown in their attention to the poor. Indeed, as Pope Leo XIV recalls, “the Christian cannot consider the poor only as a social problem: they are a ‘family question’. They are ‘one of us'” [249]. Furthermore, “love for those who are poor – in whatever form this poverty manifests itself – is the evangelical guarantee of a Church faithful to the heart of God” [250]. This fact is reflected in one of the options for the final blessing in the Latin rite of marriage, which concludes with the prayer: “Be witnesses of God’s love in the world so that the poor and the suffering, who have experienced your charity, may one day gratefully welcome you into the house of the Father” [251].
VII. Conclusion
154. Ultimately, although each spousal union is a unique reality, embodied within human limitations, every authentic marriage is a unity composed of two individuals, requiring a relationship so intimate and all-encompassing that it cannot be shared with others. At the same time, since it is a union between two persons who have exactly the same dignity and the same rights, it demands that exclusivity which prevents the other from being relativized in his or her unique value and used merely as a means among others for the satisfaction of needs. This is the truth of monogamy that the Church reads in Scripture when she affirms that from two they become “one flesh.” It is the first essential and inalienable characteristic of that very particular friendship which is marriage, and which requires as its existential manifestation an all-encompassing relationship – spiritual and corporeal – which matures and grows ever more towards a union that reflects the beauty of Trinitarian communion and of the union between Christ and his beloved People. This occurs to such an extent that we can recognize “in the intimate conjugal union, through which two people become one heart, one soul, one flesh, the first original meaning of marriage” [252].
155. The path followed in this Note now allows us to highlight a development of Christian thought on marriage, from antiquity to the present day, where it is evident that of its two essential properties – unity and indissolubility – unity is the founding property . On the one hand, because indissolubility derives as a characteristic of a unique and exclusive union. On the other, because unity-union, accepted and lived with all its consequences, makes possible the permanence and fidelity that indissolubility demands. Indeed, various magisterial documents have described the marital union simply as an “indissoluble unity ” [253].
156. This union requires a constant growth of love: “marital love is not safeguarded primarily by speaking of indissolubility as if it were an obligation, or by repeating a doctrine, but by strengthening it through constant growth under the impulse of grace. Love that does not grow begins to run risks, and we can grow only by responding to divine grace through more acts of love, with more frequent, more intense, more generous, more tender, more joyful acts of affection” [254]. Marital unity is not only a reality that must be ever better understood in its most beautiful sense, but also a dynamic reality, called to continuous development. As the Second Vatican Council affirms, husband and wife “experience the sense of their own unity and achieve it ever more fully ” [255]. For “the best is that which has not yet been achieved, the wine matured with time” [256].
The Supreme Pontiff Leo XIV, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Prefect together with the Secretary for the Doctrinal Section of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 21 November 2025, Liturgical Memorial of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, approved this Note, deliberated in the Ordinary Session of this Dicastery on 19 November 2025, and ordered its publication.
Given in Rome, at the seat of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 25 November 2025.
Víctor Manuel Card. Fernández
Prefect
Monsignor Armando Matteo
Secretary
for the Doctrinal Section
Ex Audientia Die 21 novembris 2025
LEO PP XIV
(Note: The above is the 3rd part of the document; the footnotes will come in the next email…)
Facebook Comments