In this opening segment of Chapter 4, Justice Toward the Creator, Wojtyla explains why marriages should be monogamous and indissoluble. He cites the personalistic norm (that one should never use another person as merely an object) as the source and foundation of this principle. "If a person can never in any circumstances be a mere object of enjoyment for another person, but can only be the object (or rather the co-subject) of love, the union of man and woman needs a suitable framework, one which permits the full development of the sexual relationship while ensuring the durability of their union. Such a union is, of course, called a marriage."

The principle of the personalistic norm, which "bids us show 'loving kindness', and treat a person in a manner appropriate to his or her essential nature," is fully compatible only with monogamy and the indissolubility of marriage. If a marriage is not based on this principle, it is only or mainly an institutional framework in which a man and woman obtain sexual pleasure, and not a durable union of persons based on mutual affirmation of the value of the person. The group discussed how marriage is not solely for procreation but for the bonding and union between man and wife. Procreation is intertwined with the love of the marriage. Peter added that every marriage is supposed to be fruitful, and if the husband and wife cannot for some reason bear children then they are called to be parents in another sense.

Marriage, the pope explains, is strictly a feature of man's physical and terrestrial existence, so that it is naturally dissolved by the death of one of the spouses; the other is then free to marry someone else. Peter reminded us that marriage is a means of sanctification for oneself and one's spouse -- the goal is to grow in love, to attain heaven to become holy, and to love like God loves.

Christ dealt decisively with the question of monogamy and the indissolubility of marriage. He constantly referred back to Genesis, where marriage as instituted by the Creator was originally strictly monogamous and indissoluble. In the first year of Theology of the Body (original unity of man and woman), the pope explored the question of the Creator's intention of marriage. And in these pages, he writes: "The idea of monogamous marriage which dwelt in the mind and will of the Creator ('... in the beginning it was not so') was distorted by the 'chosen people' as well as others." He continues to explain that the abolition of polygamy and the re-establishment of monogamy and the indissolubility of marriage are a "necessary consequence of the command to love..."

"...if we adhere strictly to the personalistic norm, we must admit that where there are serious reasons (marital infidelity is a particularly serious one) why husband and wife cannot go on living together there is only one possibility - separation, but without dissolution of the marriage itself. Obviously, even separation is an evil ('a necessary evil') if we take the view that marriage is of its nature a lasting union of man and woman."

By email, Father Koterski helped explain what Wojtyla meant by 'a necessary evil.' Father writes: I think that this is a good translation of the point in question. But perhaps a distinction may help here to understand it, namely, the distinction between "doing an evil" and "undergoing an evil". It is never permitted that we deliberately choose to do what is morally evil. But there are times when we need to do actions which have an unfortunate side-effect that we can foresee but do not desire or intend that unfortunate side-effect. In moral theology, this is called "the principle of the double effect." (You may find it helpful to read more about that idea.) I think that this is what is meant here by "necessary evil" -- namely, that separation is not in itself desirable, but it may be necessary in order to do something like saving one spouse from getting beaten by the other spouse."

Wojtyla writes that in their conjugal life a man and a woman unite as person and their union therefore lasts as long as they live. We cannot accept, he says, that their union lasts only as long as the persons themselves wish it to last, for that would be a contradiction of the personalistic norm. They cannot change their mind and cancel the fact that they are objectively united as man and wife. The personalistic norm takes precedence of the will and the decisions of either person. Laura added that even if the two are OK with separating, each is still saying "I give up on you." And that is not affirming the value of the person.

Tata, Luisa's friend visiting from the Philippines, spoke about his own marriage. He said he has been married for 10 years, and while he and his wife have been necessarily separated many times over the years, they have endured with God as the center of their marriage. The common denominator is love, and to nurture love, we need someone in the center of that love, and that is God. Laura commented that this focus on God is not worship of self but worship of Go. Often the husband or wife want too much for themselves, but with God at the center, there is a humility and selflessness that leads to self donation to the spouse. John added that marriage is not two people looking at each other, it's two people looking in the right direction. Peter commented on a book he has just read written by a priest who had served 18 years on the Roman Rota (marriage tribunal). This priest underscored several important points about marriage. He said that not only should we accept that we are imperfect, but it is because we are imperfect that we need marriage as a means of sanctification, as a chance to grow. He cited an example of a wife who endured a difficult marriage and by doing so showed an example of saintliness. Jackie added that graces will come even more if one is serious about being true to the marriage vow.

"The principle of monogamy and the indissolubility of marriage make necessary the integration of love. ... Without integration marriage is an enormous risk." This integration the pope describes is the integration of the components of love, the raw materials as he calls them: the sensual, the psychological and, importantly, the will -- making the decision to love even when the sensuality and emotions are not there. Laura commented that this component of will is necessary for any strong relationship, with family, friends, to encounter conflict and grow together. "A man and a woman whose love has not begun to mature, has not established itself as a genuine union of persons, should not marry for they are not ready to undergo the test to which married life will subject them. This does not, however, mean that their love must have reached full maturity at the moment of marriage, but only that it must be ripe enough for its continued ripening in and through marriage to be ensured."

Father Koterski also summarized the final paragraph of this section: I take the pope to be saying that both sound moral theology (with its source in revelation) and sound moral philosophy (the natural law, the personalist form) require that marriage be monogamous, that marriage may not be polygamous. His point is that revelation makes this perfectly clear, but that even if one did not believe in the truth of revelation, then even human reasoning unaided by faith will still make it clear. Why? Because even unaided human reasoning can see that the value of the person requires that the parties to any marriage be equal. Polygamy, on the other hand, makes one party superior to any one of the several parties of the other sex; the plural parties will not be respected as equals but will be treated as having an importance in proportion to the use they provide to the more important party. But such a utilitarian! evaluation fails to honor the person as person and instead makes the person a mere means to the other's end.