History of Marriage

The word marriage may be taken to denote the action, contract,
formality, or ceremony by which the conjugal union is formed or
the union itself as an enduring condition. In this article we deal
for the most part with marriage as a condition, and with its moral
and social aspects. It is usually defined as the legitimate union
between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of
some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the
phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual
intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union. The last two
characters distinguish marriage, respectively, from concubinage
and fornication. The definition, however, is broad enough to
comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions when they are
permitted by the civil law; for in such relationships there are as
many marriages as there are individuals of the numerically larger
sex. Whether promiscuity, the condition in which all the men of a
group maintain relations and live indiscriminately with all the
women, can be properly called marriage, may well be doubted. In
such a relation cohabitation and domestic life are devoid of that
exclusiveness which is commonly associated with the idea of
conjugal union.

(1) The Theory of Primitive Promiscuity

All authorities agree that during historical times promiscuity has
been either non-existent or confined to a few small groups. Did it
prevail to any extent during the prehistoric period of the race?
Writing between 1860 and 1890, a considerable number of
anthropologists, such as Bachofen, Morgan, McLennan, Lubbock, and
Giraud-Teulon, maintained that this was the original relationship
between the sexes among practically all peoples. So rapidly did
the theory win favour that in 1891 it was, according to
Westermarck, "treated by many writers as a demonstrated truth"
(History of Human Marriage, p. 51). It appealed strongly to those
believers in organic evolution who assumed that the social customs
of primitive man, including sex relations, must have differed but
slightly from the corresponding usages among the brutes. It has
been eagerly adopted by the Marxian Socialists, on account of its
agreement with their theories of primitive common property and of
economic determinism. According to the latter hypothesis, all
other social institutions are, and have ever been, determined by
the underlying economic institutions; hence in the original
condition of common property, wives and husbands must likewise
have been held in common (see Engles, "The Origin of the Family,
Private Property, and the State", tr. from German, Chicago, 1902).
Indeed, the vogue which the theory of promiscuity for a time
enjoyed seems to have been due far more to a priori considerations
of the kind just mentioned, and to the wish to believe in it, than
to positive evidence.

About the only direct testimony in its favour is found in the
fragmentary statements of some ancient writers, such as Herodotus
and Strabo, concerning a few unimportant peoples, and in the
accounts of some modern travellers regarding some uncivilized
tribes of the present day. Neither of these classes of testimony
clearly shows that the peoples to which they refer practised
promiscuity, and both are entirely too few to justify the
generalization that all peoples lived originally in the conditions
which they describe. As for the indirect evidence in favour of the
theory, consisting of inferences from such social customs as the
tracing of kinship through the mother, religious prostitution,
unrestrained sexual intercourse previous to marriage among some
savage peoples, and primitive community of goods,(none of these
conditions can be proved to have been universal at any stage of
human development, and every one of them can be explained more
easily and more naturally on other grounds than on the assumption
of promiscuity. We may say that the positive arguments in favour
of the theory of primitive promiscuity seem insufficient to give
it any degree of probability, while the biological, economic,
psychological, and historical arguments brought against it by many
recent writers, e.g. Westermarck (op. cit., iv-vi) seem to render
it unworthy of serious consideration. The attitude of contemporary
scholars is thus described by Howard: "The researches of several
recent writers, notably those of Starcke and Westermarck,
confirming in part and further developing the earlier conclusions
of Darwin and Spencer, have established a probability that
marriage or pairing between one man and one woman, though the
union be often transitory and the rule frequently violated, is the
typical form of sexual union from the infancy of the human race"
(History of Matrimonial Institutions, I, pp. 90, 91).

(2) Polyandry and Polygamy

One deviation from the typical form of secular union which,
however, is also called marriage, is polyandry, the union of
several husbands with one wife. It has been practised at various
times by a considerable number of people or tribes. It existed
among the ancient Britons, the primitive Arabs, the inhabitants of
the Canary Islands, the Aborigines of America, the Hottentots, the
inhabitants of India, Ceylon, Thibet, Malabar, and New Zealand. In
the great majority of these instances polyandry was the
exceptional form of conjugal union. Monogamy and even polygamy
were much more prevalent. The greater number of the polyandrous
unions seem to have been of the kind called fraternal; that is the
husbands in each conjugal group were all brothers. Frequently, if
not generally, the first husband enjoyed conjugal and domestic
rights superior to the others, was, in fact, the chief husband.
The others were husbands only in a secondary and limited sense.
Both these circumstances show that even in the comparatively few
cases in which polyandry existed it was softened in the direction
of monogamy; for the wife belonged not to several entirely
independent men, but to a group united by the closest ties of
blood; she was married to one family rather than to one person.
And the fact that one of her consorts possessed superior marital
privileges shows that she had only one husband in the full sense
of the term. Some writers, e.g. McLennan (Studies in Ancient
History, pp.112, sq.) have asserted that the Levirate, the custom
which compelled the brother of a deceased husband to marry his
widow, had its origin in polyandry. But the Levirate can be
explained without any such hypothesis. In many cases it merely
indicated that the wife, as the property of her husband, was
inherited by his nearest heir, i.e. his brother; in other
instances, as among the ancient Hebrews, it was evidently a means
of continuing the name, family, and individuality of the deceased
husband. If the Levirate pointed in all cases to a previous
condition of polyandry, the latter practice must have been much
more common than it is shown to have by direct evidence. It is
certain that the Levirate existed among the New Caledonians, the
Redskins, the Mongols, Afghans, Hindoos, Hebrews, and Abyssinians;
yet none of these peoples shows any trace of polyandry. The
principal causes of polyandry were the scarcity of women, due to
female infanticide and to the appropriation of many women by
polygamous chiefs and strong men in a tribe, and to the scarcity
of the food supply, which made it impossible for every male member
of a family to support a wife alone. Even today polyandry is not
entirely unknown. It is found to some extent in Thibet, in the
Aleutian Islands, among the Hottentots, and the Zaporogian
Cossacks.

Polygamy (many marriages) or, more correctly, polygyny (many
wives) has been, and is still much more common than polyandry. It
existed among most of the ancient peoples known to history, and
occurs at present in some civilized nations as in the majority of
savage tribes. About the only important peoples of ancient times
that showed little or no traces of it were the Greeks and the
Romans. Nevertheless, concubinage, which may be regarded as a
higher form of polygamy, or at least as nearer to pure monogamy,
was for many centuries recognized by the customs and even by the
legislation of these two nations (see Concubinage). The principle
peoples among whom the practice still exists are those under the
sway of Mohammedanism, as those of Arabia, Turkey, and some of the
peoples of India. Its chief home among uncivilized races is
Africa. However widespread polygamy has been territorially, it has
never been practised by more than a small minority of any people.
Even where it has been sanctioned by custom or the civil law, the
vast majority of the population have been monogamous. The reasons
are obvious: there are not sufficient women to provide every man
with several wives, nor are the majority of men able to support
more than one. Hence polygamous marriages are found for the most
part among the kings, chiefs, strong men, and rich men of the
community; and its prevailing form seems to have been bigamy.
Moreover, polygamous unions are, as a rule, modified in the
direction of monogamy, inasmuch as one of the wives, usually the
first married, occupies a higher place in the household than the
others, or one of them is the favourite, and has exceptional
privileges of intercourse with the common husband.

Among the principal causes of polygamy are: the relative scarcity
of males, arising sometimes from numerous destructive wars, and
sometimes from an excess of female births; the unwillingness of
the husband to remain continent when intercourse with one wife is
undesirable or impossible; and unrestrained lustful cravings.
Still another cause, or more properly a condition, is a certain
degree of economic advancement in a people, and a certain amount
of wealth accumulated by some individuals. In the rudest societies
polygamy is almost unknown, because hunting or fishing are the
chief means of livelihood, and female labour has not the value
that attaches to it when a man's wives can be employed in tending
flocks, cultivating fields, or exercising useful handicrafts.
Before the pastoral stage of industry has been reached scarcely
any one can afford to support several women. When, however, some
accumulation of wealth has taken place, polygamy becomes possible
for the more wealthy, and for those who can utilize the productive
labour of their wives. Hence the practice has been more frequent
among the higher savages and barbarians than among the very lowest
races. At a still higher stage it tends to give way to monogamy.

We may now sum up the whole historical situation concerning the
forms of sexual union and of marriage in the words of one of the
ablest living authorities in this field of investigation:

It is not, of course, impossible that, among some peoples,
intercourse between the sexes may have been almost promiscuous.
But there is not a shred of genuine evidence for the notion that
promiscuity ever formed a general stage in the history of mankind
. . although polygamy occurs among most existing peoples, and
polyandry among some, momogamy is by far the most common form of
human marriage. It was so among the ancient peoples of whom we
have any direct knowledge. Monogamy is the form which is generally
recognized and permitted. The great majority of peoples are, as a
rule, momogamous, and the other forms of marriage are usually
modified in a monogamous direction. We may without hesitation
assert that, if mankind advance in the same direction as hitherto;
if, consequently, the causes to which monogamy in the most
progressive societies owes its origin continue to operate with
constantly growing force; if, especially, altruism increases and
the feeling of love becomes more refined and more exclusively
directed to one, (the laws of monogamy can never be changed, but
must be followed much more strictly than they are now.
(Westermarch, op.cit., pp. 133, 459,510)

The experience of the race, particularly in its movement toward
and its progress in civilization, has approved monogamy for the
simple reason that monogamy is in harmony with the essential and
immutable elements of human nature. Taking the word natural in its
full sense, we may unhesitatingly affirm that monogamy is the only
natural form of marriage. While promiscuity responds to certain
elemental passions and temporarily satisfies certain superficial
wants, it contradicts the parental instinct, the welfare of
children and of the race, and the overpowering forces of jealousy
and individual preference in both men and women. While polyandry
satisfied in some measure the temporary and exceptional wants
arising from scarcity of food or scarcity of women, it finds an
insuperable barrier in male jealousy, in the male sense of
proprietorship, and is directly opposed to the welfare of the
wife, and fatal to the fecundity of the race. While polygamy has
prevailed among so many peoples and over so long a period of
history as to suggest that it is in some sense natural, and while
it does seem to furnish a means of satisfying the stronger and
more frequently recurring desires of the male, it conflicts with
the numerical equality of the sexes, with the jealousy, sense of
proprietorship, equality, dignity and general welfare of the wife,
and with the best interests of the offspring.

In all those regions in which polygamy has existed or still
exists, the status of woman is extremely low; she is treated as
man's property, not as his companion; her life is invariably one
of great hardship, while her moral, spiritual, and intellectual
qualities are almost utterly neglected. Even the male human being
is in the highest sense of the phrase naturally monogamous. His
moral, spiritual, and aesthetic faculties can obtain normal
development only when his sexual relations are confined to one
woman in the common life and enduring association provided by
monogamy. The welfare of the children, and therefore, of the race,
obviously demands that the offspring of each pair shall have the
undivided attention and care of both their parents. When we speak
of the naturalness of any social institution, we necessarily take
as our standard, not nature in a superficial or one-sided sense,
or in its savage state, or as exemplified in a few individuals or
in a single generation, but nature adequately considered, in all
its needs and powers, in all the member of the present and of
future generations, and as it appears in those tendencies which
lead toward its highest development. The verdict of experience and
the voice of nature reinforce, consequently, the Christian
teaching on the unity of marriage. Moreover, the progress of the
race toward monogamy, as well as toward a purer monogamy, during
the last two thousand years, owes more to the influence of
Christianity than to all other forces combined. Christianity has
not only abolished or diminished polyandry and polygamy among the
savage and barbarous peoples which it has converted, but it has
preserved Europe from the polygamous civilization of
Mohammedanism, has kept before the eyes of the more enlightened
peoples the ideal of an unadulterated monogamy, and has given to
the world its highest conception of the equality that should exist
between the two parties in the marriage relation. And its
influence on behalf of monogamy has extended, and continues to
extend, far beyond the confines of those countries that call
themselves Christian.

(3) Deviations from Marriage

Our discussion of the various forms of marriage would be
incomplete without some reference to those practices that have
been more or less prevalent, and yet that are a transgression of
every form of marriage. Sexual license amounting almost to
promiscuity seems to have prevailed among a few peoples or tribes.
Among some ancient peoples the women, especially the unmarried,
practised prostitution as an act of religion. Some tribes, both
ancient and relatively modern, have maintained the custom of
yielding the newly married bride to the relatives and guests of
the bridegroom. Unlimited sexual intercourse before marriage has
been sanctioned by the customs of some uncivilized peoples. Among
some savage tribes the husband permits his guests to have
intercourse with his wife, or loans her for hire. Certain
uncivilized peoples are known to have practised trial marriages,
marriages that were binding only until the birth of a child, and
marriages that bound the parties only for certain days of the
week. Although any general exercise of the so-called jus primae
noctis has no historical basis, and is now admitted to be an
invention of the encyclopedists, at times serf women were required
to submit to their overlords before assuming marital relations
with their husbands (Schmidt, Karl,"Jus Primae Noctis, a
historical examination"). Japanese maidens of the poorer classes
frequently spend a portion of their youth as prostitutes, with the
consent of their parents and the sanction of public opinion.

Concubinage, the practice of forming a somewhat enduring union
with some other woman than the wife, or such union between two
unmarried persons, has prevailed to some extent among most
peoples, even among some that had attained a high degree of
civilization, as the Greeks and Romans (for detailed proof of the
foregoing statements, see Westermarck, op, cit., passim). In a
word, fornication and adultery have been sufficiently common at
all stages of the world's history and among almost all peoples, to
arouse the anxiety of the moralist, the statesman, and the
sociologist. Owing to the growth of cities, the changed relations
between the sexes in social and industrial life, the decay of
religion, and the relaxation of parental control, these evils have
increased very greatly within the last one hundred years. The
extent to which prostitution and venereal disease are sapping the
mental, moral, and physical health of the nations, is of itself
abundant proof that the strict and lofty standards of purity set
up by the Catholic Church, both within and without the marriage
relation, constitute the only adequate safeguard of society.

(4) Divorce

This is a modification of monogamy that seems to be no less
opposed to its spirit than polyandry, polygamy, or adultery. It
requires, indeed, that the parties should await a certain time or
a certain contingency before severing the unity of marriage, but
it is essentially a violation of monogamy, of the enduring union
of husband and wife. Yet it has obtained among practically all
peoples, savage and civilized. About the only people that seem
never to have practised or recognized it are the inhabitants of
the Andaman Islands, some of the Papuans of New Guinea, some
tribes of the Indean Archipelago, and the Veddahs of Ceylon. Among
the majority of uncivilized peoples the marital unions that
endured until the death of one of the parties seem to have been in
the minority. It is substantially true to say that the majority of
savage races authorized the husband to divorce his wife wherever
he felt so inclined. A majority of even the more advanced peoples
who remained outside the pale of Christianity restrict the right
of divorce to the husband, although the reason for which he could
put away his wife are, as a rule, not so numerous as among the
uncivilized races. In all those countries that adopted the
Catholic religion, however, divorce was very soon abolished, and
continued to be forbidden as long as that religion was recognized
by the State. The early Christian emperors, as Constantine,
Theodosius, and Justinian, did, indeed, legalize the practice, but
before the tenth century the Catholic teaching on the
indissolubility of marriage had become embodied in the civil
legislation of every Catholic country (see Divorce). The Oriental
Churches separated from Rome, including the Greek Orthodox Church,
and all the Protestant sects, permit divorce in varying degrees,
and the practice prevails in every country in which any of these
Churches exercise a considerable influence. In some of the non-
Catholic countries divorce is extremely easy and scandalously
frequent. Between 1890 and 1900 the divorces granted in the United
States averaged 73 per 100,000 of the population annually. This
was more than twice the rate in any other Western nation. The
proportion in Switzerland was 32; in France, 23; in Saxony, 29;
and in the majority of European countries, less than 15. So far as
we are informed by statistics, only one country in the world,
namely, Japan, had a worse record than the United States, the rate
per 100,000 of the population the Flowery Kingdom being 215. In
most of the civilized countries the divorce rate is increasing,
slowly in some, very rapidly in others. Relatively to the
population, about two and one half times as many divorces are
granted now in the United States as were issued forty year ago.

But the practice of attempting to dissolve the bond of marriage by
law, is not confined to Protestant, schismatic, and pagan
countries. It obtains to some extent in all the Catholic lands of
Europe, except Italy, Portugal, and Spain. South America is freer
from it than any other continent. The majority of the countries in
the geographical division do not grant absolute divorce. A notable
fact in the history of divorce is that those countries which have
never been Christianized, and those which remained faithful to the
Christian teaching for only a short time (e.g., the regions that
fell under the sway of Mohammedanism) conducted the practice on
terms more favourable to the husband than to the wife. About the
only important exception to this rule was pagan Rome in the later
centuries of her existence. In modern countries which permit
divorce, and yet call themselves Christian, the wife can take
advantage of the practice about as easily as the husband; but his
is undoubtedly due to the previous influence of Christianity in
raising the civil and social status of woman during the long
period in which divorce was forbidden. In the long run divorce
must inevitably be more injurious to a women than to men. If the
divorced woman remains single generally has greater difficulty in
supporting herself than the divorced man; if she is young her
opportunities of marrying again may, indeed, be about as good as
those of the divorced man who is young; but if she is at or beyond
middle age the probability that she will find a suitable spouse is
decidedly smaller than in the case of her separated husband.

The fact that in the United States more women than men apply for
divorces proves nothing as yet against the statements just set
down; for we do not know whether these women have generally found
it easy to get other husbands, or whether their new condition was
better than the old. The frequent appeal to the divorce courts by
American women is a comparatively recent phenomenon, and is
undoubtedly due more to emotion, imaginary hopes, and a hasty use
of newly acquired freedom, than to calm and adequate study of the
experiences of other divorced women. If the present facility of
divorce should continue fifty years longer, the disproportionate
hardship to women from the practice will probably have become so
evident the number of them taking advantage of it, or approving
it, will be much smaller than today.

The social evils of easy divorce are so obvious that the majority
of Americans undoubtedly are in favour of a stricter policy. One
of the most far-reaching of these evils is the encouragement of
lower conceptions of conjugal fidelity; for when a person regards
the taking of a new spouse as entirely lawful for a multitude of
more or less slight reasons, his sense of obligation toward his
present partner can not be very strong or very deep. Simultaneous
cannot seem much worse than successive plurality of sexual
relations. The average husband and wife who become divorced for a
trivial cause are less faithful to each other during their
temporary union than the average couple who do not believe in
divorce. Similarly, easy divorce gives an impetus to illicit
relations between the unmarried, inasmuch as it tends to destroy
the association in the popular consciousness between sexual
intercourse and the enduring union of one man with one woman.
Another evil is the increase in the number of hasty and
unfortunate marriages among persons who look forward to divorce as
an easy remedy for present mistakes. Inasmuch as the children of a
divorced couple are deprived of their normal heritage, which is
education and care by both father and mother in the same
household, they almost always suffer grave and varied
disadvantages. Finally there is the injury done to the moral
character generally. Indissoluble marriage is one of the most
effective means of developing self-control and mutual self-
sacrifice. Many salutary inconveniences are endured because they
cannot be avoided, and many imperfections of temper and character
are corrected because the husband and wife realize that thus only
is conjugal happiness possible. On the other hand, when divorce is
easily obtain there is no sufficient motive for undergoing those
inconvenience which are so essential to self-discipline, self-
development, and the practice of altruism.

All the objections just noted are valid against frequent divorce,
against the abuse of divorce, but not against divorce so far as it
implies separation from bed and board without the right to
contract another marriage. The Church permits limited separation
in certain cases, chiefly, when one of the parties has been guilty
of adultery, and when further cohabitation would cause grave
injury to soul or body. If divorce were restricted to these two
cases some pretend that it would be socially preferable to mere
separation without the right to remarry, at least for the innocent
spouse. But it would surely be less advantageous to society than a
regime of no divorce. Where mere separation is permitted, it will
in a considerable proportion of instances need to be only
temporary, and the welfare of parents and children will be better
promoted by reconciliation than if one of the parties formed
another matrimonial union. When there is no hope of another
marriage, the offenses than justify separation are less likely to
be provoked or committed by either party, and separation is less
likely to be sought on insufficient grounds or obtained through
fraudulent methods. Moreover, experience shows that when divorce
is permitted for a few causes, there is an almost irresistible
tendency to increase the number of legal grounds, and to make the
administration of the law less strict. Finally, the absolute
prohibition of divorce has certain moral effects which contribute
in a fundamental and far-reaching way to the social welfare. The
popular mind is impress with the thought that marriage is an
exclusive relation between two persons, and the sexual intercourse
of itself and normally calls for a lifelong union of the persons
entering upon such intercourse.

The obligation of self-control, and of subordinating the animal in
human nature to the reason and the spirit, as well as the
possibility of fulfilling this obligation, are likewise taught in
a most striking and practical manner. Humanity is thus aided and
encouraged to reach a higher moral plane. In the matter of the
indissolubility, as well as in that of the unity of marriage,
therefore, the Christian teaching is in harmony with nature at her
best, and with the deepest needs of civilization. "There is
abundant evidence", says Westermarck, "that marriage has, upon the
whole, become more durable in proportion as the human race has
risen to higher degrees of civilization, and that a certain amount
of civilization is an essential condition of the formation of
lifelong union" (op. cit., p. 535). This statement suggests two
tolerably safe generalizations: first, that the prohibition of
divorce during many centuries has been a cause as well as an
effect of those 'higher degrees of civilization" that have been
already attained: and, second, that the same policy will be found
essential to the highest degree of civilization.

(5) Abstention from Marriage

With a very few unimportant exceptions all peoples, savage and
civilized, that have not accepted the Catholic religion, have
looked with some disdain upon celibacy, Savage races marry much
earlier, and have a smaller proportion of celibates than civilized
nations. During the last century the proportion of unmarried
persons has increased in the United States and in Europe. The
causes of this change are partly economic, inasmuch as it has
become more difficult to support a family in accordance with
contemporary standards of living; partly social, inasmuch as the
increased social pleasure and opportunities have displaced to some
degree domestic desires and interests; and partly moral, inasmuch
as laxer notions of chastity have increased the number of those
who satisfy their sexual desires out side of marriage. From the
viewpoint of social morality and social welfare, this modern
celibacy is an almost unmixed evil. On the other hand, the
religious celibacy taught and encourage by the Church is socially
beneficial, since it shows that continence is practicable, and
since religious celibates exemplify a higher degree of altruism
than any other section of society. The assertion that celibacy
tends to make the married state seem low or unworthy, is
contradicted by the public opinion and practice of every country
in which celibacy is held in highest honor. For it is precisely in
such places that the marriage relation, and the relations between
the sexes generally, are purest (see Celibacy).

(6) Marriage as a Ceremony or Contract

The act, formality, or ceremony by which the marriage union is
created, has differed widely at different times and among
different peoples. One of the earliest and most frequent customs
associated with the entrance into marriage was the capture of the
woman by her intended husband, usually from another tribe than
that to which he himself belonged. Among most primitive peoples
this act seems to have been regarded rather as a means of getting
a wife, than as the formation of the marriage union itself. The
latter subsequent to the capture, and was generally devoid of any
formality whatever, beyond mere cohabitation. But the symbolic
seizure of wives continued in many places long after the reality
had ceased. It still exits among some of the lower races, and
until quite recently was not unknown in some parts of Eastern
Europe. After the practice has become simulated instead of actual,
it was frequently looked upon as either the whole of the marriage
ceremony or an essential accompaniment of the marriage. Symbolic
capture has largely given way to wife purchase, which seems to
prevail among most uncivilized peoples today. It has assumed
various forms. Sometimes the man desiring a wife gave one of his
kinswomen in exchange; sometimes he served for a period his
intended bride's father, which was a frequent custom among the
ancient Hebrews; but most often the bride was paid for in money or
some form of property. Like capture, purchase became after a time
among many peoples a symbol to signify the taking of a wife and
the formation of the marriage union. Sometimes, however, it was
merely an accompanying ceremony. Various other ceremonial forms
have accompanied or constituted the entrance upon the marriage
relation, the most common of which was some kind of feast; yet
among many uncivilized peoples marriage has taken place, and still
takes place, without any formal ceremony whatever.

By many uncivilized races, and by most civilized ones, the
marriage ceremony is regarded as a religious rite or includes
religious features, although the religious element is not always
regarded as necessary to the validity of the union. Under the
Christian dispensation marriage is a religious act of the very
highest kind, namely, one of the seven sacraments. Although Luther
declared that marriage was not a sacrament but a "worldly thing",
all the Protestant sects have continued to regard it as religious
in the sense that it ought normally to be contracted in the
presence of a clergyman. Owing to the influence of the Lutheran
view and of the French Revolution, civil marriage has been
instituted in almost all the countries of Europe and North
America, as well as in some of the states of South America. In
some countries it is essential to the validity of the union before
the civil law, while in others, e.g., in the United States, it is
merely one of the ways in which marriage may be contracted. Civil
marriage, is not, however a post-Reformation institution, for it
existed among the ancient Peruvians, and among the Aborigines of
North America.

Whether as a state or as a contract whether from the viewpoint of
religion and morals or from that of the social welfare, marriage
appears in its highest form in the teaching and practice of the
Catholic Church. The fact that the contract is a sacrament
impresses the popular mind with the importance and sacredness of
the relation thus begun. The fact the union is indissoluble and
monogamous promotes in the highest degree the welfare of parents
and children, and stimulates in the whole community the practice
of those qualities of self-restraint and altruism which are
essential to social well-being, physical, mental, and moral (see
Family; Divorce; Celibacy).

JOHN A. RYAN
Transcribed by Ginny Hoffman

From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc.

Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).

This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the  entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this  worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For  more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.

-------------------------------------------------------

  Provided courtesy of:

       Eternal Word Television Network
       PO Box 3610
       Manassas, VA 22110
       Voice: 703-791-2576
       Fax: 703-791-4250
       Web: http://www.ewtn.com
       Email address: [email protected]

-------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.ratthing.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.