[…] 7. By matrimony, therefore, the souls of the contracting parties are joined and knit together more directly and more intimately than are their bodies, and that not by any passing affection of sense of spirit, but by a deliberate and firm act of the will; and from this union of souls by God’s decree, a sacred and inviolable bond arises. Hence the nature of this contract, which is proper and peculiar to it alone, makes it entirely different both from the union of animals entered into by the blind instinct of nature alone in which neither reason nor free will plays a part, and also from the haphazard unions of men, which are far removed from all true and honorable unions of will and enjoy none of the rights of family life.

Coniugio igitur animi iunguntur et coalescunt, hique prius et arctius quam corpora, nec fluxo sensuum vel animorum affectu, sed deliberato et firmo voluntatum decreto: et ex hac animorum coagmentatione, Deo sic statuente, sacrum et inviolabile vinculum exoritur. Quae contractus huius natura propria omnino et singularis, eum toto caelo diversum facit cum a coniunctionibus pecudum solo naturae caeco instinctu factis, in quibus nulla ratio est nec voluntas deliberata, tum ab iis quoque hominum vagis coniugiis, quae ab omni vero honestoque voluntatum vinculo remota sunt et quovis domestici convictus iure destituta.

8. From this it is clear that legitimately constituted authority has the right and therefore the duty to restrict, to prevent, and to punish those base unions which are opposed to reason and to nature; but since it is a matter which flows from human nature itself, no less certain is the teaching of Our predecessor, Leo XIII of happy memory:^[7] “In choosing a state of life there is no doubt but that it is in the power and discretion of each one to prefer one or the other: either to embrace the counsel of virginity given by Jesus Christ, or to bind himself in the bonds of matrimony. To take away from man the natural and primeval right of marriage, to circumscribe in any way the principal ends of marriage laid down in the beginning by God Himself in the words ‘Increase and multiply,’^[8] is beyond the power of any human law.”

Exinde iam constat legitimam quidem auctoritatem iure pollere atque adeo cogi officio coercendi, impediendi, puniendi turpia coniugia, quae rationi ac naturae adversantur; sed cum de re agatur ipsam hominis naturam consesequente, non minus certo constat id quod fel. rec. Leo XIII decessor Noster palam monuit (8):  «In deligendo genere vitae non est dubium, quin in potestate sit arbitrioque singulorum alterutrum malle: aut Iesu Christi sectari de virginitate consilium, aut maritali se vinclo obligare. Ius coniugii naturale et primigenum homini adimere, causamve nuptiarum praecipuam, Dei auctoritate initio constitutam, quoquo modo circumscribere lex hominum nulla potest : Crescite et multiplicamini» (9).

9. Therefore the sacred partnership of true marriage is constituted both by the will of God and the will of man. From God comes the very institution of marriage, the ends for which it was instituted, the laws that govern it, the blessings that flow from it; while man, through generous surrender of his own person made to another for the whole span of life, becomes, with the help and cooperation of God, the author of each particular marriage, with the duties and blessings annexed thereto from divine institution.

Itaque germani connubii sacrum consortium divina simul et humana voluntate constituitur: ex Deo sunt ipsa matrimonii institutio, fines, leges, bona; Deo autem dante atque adiuvante, ex hominibus est, per generosam quidem propriae personae pro toto vitae tempore factam alteri traditionem, particulare quodlibet matrimonium cum officiis ac bonis a Deo statutis coniunctum.

Marriage in the Teaching of the Catholic Church

10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:^[9] “These,” says St. Augustine, “are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing;

Quae vero quantaque sint haec veri matrimonii bona divinitus data dum exponere aggredimur, Venerabiles Fratres; illius Nobis praeclarissimi Ecclesiae Doctoris verba occurrunt, quem non ita pridem, Nostris Encyclicis Litteris Ad salutem pleno ab eius obitu saeculo XV datis (10), celebravimus: «Haec omnia, — inquit S. Augustinus, — bona sunt, propter quae nuptiae bonae sunt:

[1] offspring,

PROLES,

[2] conjugal faith

FIDES,

[3] and the sacrament.”^[10]

SACRAMENTUM» (11).

And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said:

Quae tria capita qua ratione luculentissimam totius de christiano connubio doctrinae summam continere iure dicantur, ipse Sanctus Doctor diserte declarat, cum ait:

[1] “By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman;

«In fide attenditur ne praeter vinculum coniugale cum altero vel altera concumbatur; i

[2] with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere;

[3] finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring.

This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained.”^[11]

Haec est tamquam regula nuptiarum, qua vel naturae decoratur fecunditas vel incontinentiae regitur privatas» (12).

11. Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the CHILD HOLDS the FIRST PLACE. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth.”^[12

Itaque primum inter matrimonii bona locum tenet PROLES. Et sane ipse humani generis Creator, qui pro sua benignitate hominibus in vita propaganda administris uti voluit, id docuit cum in paradiso, matrimonium instituens, protoparentibus et per eos omnibus futuris coniugibus dixit: «Crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram» (13).

^] As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy^[13] when he says: “The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: ‘I wish,’ he says, ‘young girls to marry.’ And, as if someone said to him, ‘Why?,’ he immediately adds: ‘To bear children, to be mothers of families’.”^[14]

Quod ipsum Sanctus Augustinus ex Sancti Pauli Apostoli verbis ad Timotheum (l4) perbelle eruit, dicens: «Generationis itaque causa fieri nuptias, Apostolus ita testis est: «Volo, inquit, iuniores nubere. Et quasi ei diceretur: «Utquid?, continuo subiecit: Filios procreare, matres familias esse» (15).

12. How great a boon of God this is, and how great a blessing of matrimony is clear from a consideration of man’s dignity and of his sublime end. For man surpasses all other visible creatures by the superiority of his rational nature alone. Besides, God wishes men to be born not only that they should live and fill the earth, but much more that they may be worshippers of God, that they may know Him and love Him and finally enjoy Him for ever in heaven; and this end, since man is raised by God in a marvelous way to the supernatural order, surpasses all that eye hath seen, and ear heard, and all that hath entered into the heart of man.^[15] From which it is easily seen how great a gift of divine goodness and how remarkable a fruit of marriage are children born by the omnipotent power of God through the cooperation of those bound in wedlock.

Quantum vero hoc Dei beneficium sit et matrimonii bonum ex hominis dignitate et altissimo fine apparet. Homo enim vel solius rationalis naturae praestantia omnes alias creaturas visibiles superat. Accedit, quod Deus homines generari vult, non ut solum sint et impleant terram, sed multo magis, ut Dei cultores sint, ipsum cognoscant et ament eoque tandem perenniter fruantur in caelis; qui finis ex mirabili hominis per Deum in supernaturalem ordinem elevatione, omne superat quod oculus vidit, et auris audivit et in cor hominis ascendit (16).  Ex quo facile apparet proles, omnipotenti Dei virtute, coniugibus cooperantibus, orta, quantum divinae bonitatis sit donum, quam egregius matrimonii fructus.

13. But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God’s household,^[16] that the worshippers of God and Our Savior may daily increase.

Christiani vero parentes intelligant praeterea se non iam solum ad genus humanum in terra propagandum et conservandum, immo vero, non ad quoslibet veri Dei cultores educandos destinari, sed ad pariendam Ecclesiae Christi subolem, ad cives Sanctorum et domesticos Dei (17) procreandos, ut populus Dei et Salvatoris nostri cultui addictus in dies augeatur.

14. For although Christian spouses even if sanctified themselves cannot transmit sanctification to their progeny, nay, although the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity, nevertheless, they share to some extent in the blessings of that primeval marriage of Paradise, since it is theirs to offer their offspring to the Church in order that by this most fruitful Mother of the children of God they may be regenerated through the laver of Baptism unto supernatural justice and finally be made living members of Christ, partakers of immortal life, and heirs of that eternal glory to which we all aspire from our inmost heart.

Etsi enim christiani coniuges, quamvis ipsi sanctificati, sanctificationem in prolem transfundere non valent, immo naturalis generatio vitae facta est mortis via, qua originale peccatum transeat in prolem; aliquid tamen quodammodo participant de primaevo illo paradisi coniugio, cum eorum sit propriam subolem Ecclesiae offerre, ut ab illa matre filiorum Dei fecundissima per lavacrum baptismatis ad supernaturalem iustitiam regeneretur, et vivum Christi membrum, immortalis vitae particeps, atque aeternae gloriae, quam omnes toto pectore concupiscimus, heres tandem fiat

Eugenic Liberalization of abortion laws

63. But another very grave crime is to be noted, Venerable Brethren, which regards the taking of the life of the offspring hidden in the mother’s womb. Some wish it to be allowed and left to the will of the father or the mother; others say it is unlawful unless there are weighty reasons which they call by the name of medical, social, or eugenic “indication.” Because this matter falls under the penal laws of the state by which the destruction of the offspring begotten but unborn is forbidden, these people demand that the “indication,” which in one form or another they defend, be recognized as such by the public law and in no way penalized. There are those, moreover, who ask that the public authorities provide aid for these death-dealing operations, a thing, which, sad to say, everyone knows is of very frequent occurrence in some places.

Sed aliud, etiam, Venerabiles Fratres, gravissimum commemorandum est facinus, quo vita prolis, in sinu materno reconditae, attentatur. Id autem permissum volunt alti et matris patrisve beneplacito relictum; alli tamen illicitum dicunt, nisi pergraves accedant causae, quas medieae, socialis, eugenicae indicationis nomine appellant. Hi omnes quod ad poenales reipublicae leges attinet, quibus genitae necdum natae prolis peremptio prohibetur, exigunt, ut quam singuli, alti aliam, defendunt indicationem, eandem etiam leges publicae agnoscant et ab omni poena liberam declarent. Immo nec desunt qui postulent, ut ad has letiferas sectiones magistratus publici praebeant auxiliatrices manus; id quod, proh dolor, alicubi quam frequentissinle fieri omnibus notum est.

64. As to the “medical and therapeutic indication” to which, using their own words, we have made reference, Venerable Brethren, however much we may pity the mother whose health and even life is gravely imperiled in the performance of the duty allotted to her by nature, nevertheless what could ever be a sufficient reason for excusing in any way the direct murder of the innocent? This is precisely what we are dealing with here. Whether inflicted upon the mother or upon the child, it is against the precept of God and the law of nature: “Thou shalt not kill:”[Exod., XX, 13; cfr. Decr. S. Offic. 4 May 1897, 24 July 1895; 31 May 1884.] The life of each is equally sacred, and no one has the power, not even the public authority, to destroy it. It is of no use to appeal to the right of taking away life for here it is a question of the innocent, whereas that right has regard only to the guilty; nor is there here question of defense by bloodshed against an unjust aggressor (for who would call an innocent child an unjust aggressor?); again there is not question here of what is called the “law of extreme necessity” which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent. Upright and skillful doctors strive most praiseworthily to guard and preserve the lives of both mother and child; on the contrary, those show themselves most unworthy of the noble medical profession who encompass the death of one or the other, through a pretense at practicing medicine or through motives of misguided pity.

Quod vero attinet ad  «indicationem medicam et therapeuticam» — ut eorum verbis utamur — iam diximus, Venerabiles Fratres, quantopere Nos misereat matris, cui ex naturae officio gravia imminent sanitatis, immo ipsius vitae pericula: at quae possit umquam causa valere ad ullo modo excusandam directam innocentis necem? De hac enim hoc loco agitur. Sive ea matri infertur sive proli, contra Dei praeceptum est vocemque naturae : «Non occides!» (52). Res enim aeque sacra utriusque vita, cuius opprimendae nulla esse unquam poterit ne publicae quidem auctoritati facultas. Ineptissime autem haec con tra innocentes repetitur e iure gladii, quod in solos reos valet; neque ullum viget hic cruentae defensionis ius contra iniustum aggressorem (nam quis innocentem parvulum iniustum aggressorem vocet?); neque ullum adest «extremae necessitatis ius» quod vocant, quodque usque ad innocentis directam occisionem pervenire possit. In utraque igitur et matris et prolis vita tuenda ac servanda probi expertique medici cum laude enituntur; contra, nobili medicorum nomine et laude indignissimos se li probarent, quotquot alterutri, per speciem medicandi, vel falsa misericordia moti, ad mortem insidiarentur.

65. All of which agrees with the stern words of the Bishop of Hippo in denouncing those wicked parents who seek to remain childless, and failing in this, are not ashamed to put their offspring to death:

Quae quidem plane severis consonant verbis quibus Episcopus Hipponensis in coniuges depravatos invehitur, qui proli quidem praecavere student, at, si nullo exitu, nefarie eam interimere non verentur:

 “Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife.”

«Aliquando eo usque,  inquit, pervenit haec libidinosa crudelitas vel libido crudelis, ut etiam sterilitatis venena procuret, et si nihil valuerit, conceptos fetus aliquo modo intra viscera exstinguat ac fundat, volendo suam prolem prius interire quam vivere, aut si in utero iam vivebat, occidi antequam nasci. Prorsus, si ambo tales sunt, coniuges non sunt: et si ab initio tales fuerunt, non sibi per connubium sed per stuprum potius convenerunt; si autem non ambo sunt tales, audeo dicere: aut illa est quodammodo meretrix mariti, aut ille adulter uxoris» (53).

^[St. August., De nupt. et concupisc., cap. XV.^]

66. What is asserted in favor of the social and eugenic “indication” may and must be accepted, provided lawful and upright methods are employed within the proper limits; but to wish to put forward reasons based upon them for the killing of the innocent is unthinkable and contrary to the divine precept promulgated in the words of the Apostle: Evil is not to be done that good may come of it. ^[Rom., III, 8.^]

Quae autem afferuntur pro sociali et eugenica indicatione, licitis honestisque modis et intra debitos limites, earum quidem rerum ratio haberi potest et debet; at necessitatibus, quibus eae innituntur, per occisionem innocentium providere velle absonum est praeceptoque divino contrarium, apostolicis etim verbis promulgato: Non esse facienda mala ut eveniant bona (54).

67. Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother’s womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. ^[Gen., 4, 10.^]

Iis denique, qui apud nationes principatum tenent feruntve leges, oblivioni dare non licet auctoritatis publicae esse, congruis legibus poenisque, innocentium vitam defendere, idque eo magis, quo minus ii, quorum vita periclitatur et impugnatur, se ipsi defendere valent, inter quos primum sane locum tenent infantes in visceribus maternis abditi. Quod si publici magistratus parvulos illos non solum non tueantur, sed, legibus suisque ordinationibus, permittant atque adeo tradant medicorum aliorumve manibus occidendos, meminerint Deum iudicem esse et vindicem sanguinis innocentis, qui de terra clamat ad caelum (55).

Eugenic Control of Reproduction

68. FINALLY, that pernicious practice must be condemned which closely touches upon the natural right of man to enter matrimony but affects also in a real way the welfare of the offspring. For there are some who over solicitous for the cause of eugenics, not only give salutary counsel for more certainly procuring the strength and health of the future child - which, indeed, is not contrary to right reason - but put eugenics before aims of a higher order, and by public authority wish to prevent from marrying all those whom, even though naturally fit for marriage, they consider, according to the norms and conjectures of their investigations, would, through hereditary transmission, bring forth defective offspring. And more, they wish to legislate to deprive these of that natural faculty by medical action despite their unwillingness; and this they do not propose as an infliction of grave punishment under the authority of the state for a crime committed, not to prevent future crimes by guilty persons, but against every right and good they wish the civil authority to arrogate to itself a power over a faculty which it never had and can never legitimately possess.

Reprobetur denique oportet perniciosus ille usus, qui proxime quidem naturale hominis ius ad matrimonium ineundum spectat, sed ad prolis quoque bonum vera quadam ratione pertinet. Sunt enim qui, de finibus eugenicis nimium solliciti, non solum salubria quaedam dent consilia ad futurae prolis valetudinem ac robur tutius procurandum — quod rectae rationi utique contrarium non est — sed cuilibet alii etiam altioris ordinis fini eugenicum anteponant, et coniugio auctoritate publica prohiberi velint eos omnes ex quibus, secundum disciplinae suae normas et coniecturas, propter hereditariam transmissionem, mancam vitiosamque prolem generatum iri censent, etiamsi iidem sint ad matrimonium ineundum per se apti. Quin immo naturali illa facultate, ex lege, eos, vel invitos, medicorum opera privari volunt; neque id ad cruentam sceleris commissi poenam publica auctoritate repetendam, vel ad futura eorum crimina praecavenda, licebit, scilicet contra omne ius et fas ea magistratibus civilibus arrogata facultate, quam numquam habuerunt nec legitime habere possunt.

69. Those who act in this way are at fault in losing sight of the fact that the family is more sacred than the State and that men are begotten not for the earth and for time, but for Heaven and eternity. Although often these individuals are to be dissuaded from entering into matrimony, certainly it is wrong to brand men with the stigma of crime because they contract marriage, on the ground that, despite the fact that they are in every respect capable of matrimony, they will give birth only to defective children, even though they use all care and diligence.

Quicumque ita agunt, perperam dant oblivioni sanctiorem esse familiam Statu, hominesque in primis non terrae et tempori, sed caelo et aeternitati generari. Et fas profecto non est homines, matrimonii ceteroqui capaces, quos, adhibita etiam omni cura et diligentia, nonni si mancam genituros esse prolem conicitur, ob eam causam gravi culpa onerare si coniugium contrahant, quamquam saepe matrimonium iis dissuadendum est.

70. Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason. St. Thomas teaches this when inquiring whether human judges for the sake of preventing future evils can inflict punishment, he admits that the power indeed exists as regards certain other forms of evil, but justly and properly denies it as regards the maiming of the body. “No one who is guiltless may be punished by a human tribunal either by flogging to death, or mutilation, or by beating.”^[Summ. theol., 2a 2ae, q. 108 a 4 ad 2um.^]

Publici vero magistratus in subditorum membra directam potestatem habent nullam; ipsam igitur corporis integritatem, ubi nulla intercesserit culpa nullaque adsit eruentae poenae causa, directo laedere et attingere nec eugenicis nec ullis aliis de causis possunt unquam. Idem docet Sanctus Thomas Aquinas, cum, inquirens num humani iudices ad futura mala praecavenda hominem possint malo quodam plectere, id quidem concedit quod ad quaedam alia mala, sed iure meritoque negat quod ad corporis laesionem «Numquam secundum humanum iudicium aliquis debet puniri, sine culpa, poena flagelli, ut occidatur, vel mutiletur vel verberetur» (56).

71. Furthermore, Christian doctrine establishes, and the light of human reason makes it most clear, that private individuals have no other power over the members of their bodies than that which pertains to their natural ends; and they are not free to destroy or mutilate their members, or in any other way render themselves unfit for their natural functions, except when no other provision can be made for the good of the whole body.

Ceterum, quod ipsi privati homines in sui corporis membra dominatum alium non habeant quam qui ad eorum naturales fines pertineat, nec possint ea destruere aut mutilare aut alia via ad naturales funetiones se ineptos reddere, nisi quando bono totius corporis aliter provideri nequeat, id christiana doctrina statuit atque ex ipso humanae rationis lumine omnino constat.