Is Marriage No Longer a “Remedy for Concupiscence”?

In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, marriage is defined, partially, as a “remedy of concupiscence” (1013).

When the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) reflected on marriage, it refused to endorse that phrase (Gaudium et Spes 47–52). The phrase has since disappeared from the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and it does not occur in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

This raises questions. Did Vatican II change Church teaching? Did it abolish the idea that marriage is a remedy for concupiscence?

1. Concupiscence

To understand how marriage can be a remedy for concupiscence, it is useful to begin by clarifying the idea of concupiscence.

The word “concupiscence” originates from the (Latin) verb “to desire.” In theology it tends to have the specific meaning of the disordered desires which arise due to Original Sin (see “Original Sin: Clarifying Ideas and Avoiding Misconceptions”).

People have good desires which contribute to their well-being. For example, they become hungry and desire food to nourish themselves. However, their desires can be infected with concupiscence, and become disordered. A good hunger can become the disordered desire of a bad gluttony.

The same issues apply to sexuality. There is a good sexual desire which brings people together into marriage. And there is a disordered version of it, which can be called concupiscent “lust.”

One of the problems with discussing sexual desire is that many languages lack a specific word to refer to the good desire, thus making it difficult to refer to a distinction between the two types of desire.

We have the word “lust” for the bad, concupiscent, sexual desire. But we don’t have a specific word for the good desire of “sexual attraction.” It can be called “love” but that is potentially misleading, as there are types of love which are not sexual attraction (e.g., parental love).

Over the centuries, linguistic limitations have contributed to confusions. Unable to name anything other than “love” and “concupiscent lust,” it was too easy to assume that these categories exhausted the distinction. And consequently, contrasting a non-sexual love with the sexual desires of concupiscent lust, could seem to imply that all sexual desires were in fact concupiscent lust.

Why would people leap to such a mistaken conclusion? One reason arises from a misinterpretation of the Bible.

2. Misinterpreting St. Paul

When St. Paul talks about marital relations, he says that there are situations in which sexual abstinence can be helpful, but he warns against extremes. He concludes his comments by saying, “This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command” (1 Corinthians 7:6).

The word translated into English as “concession” was rendered in Latin versions of the Bible as venia or indulgentia. Both those Latin words can imply sin, as we can see echoed in English phrases about “venial sins” and “indulgences.”

This means that St. Paul can be misinterpreted as saying that spouses may abstain from marital relations if they wish, and it is “forgivable” (in the sense of forgiving a sin) when they resume their marital relations.

If sexual relationships within marriage are sinful (but forgivable), then that implies that the sexual desires which cause the sexual relationships must be sinful too. So, St. Paul can be misinterpreted as saying that all sexual attraction, even when it occurs in marriage, is a sinful concupiscent lust.

3. Marriage as a Safe Space for Concupiscence

St. Paul also said that “it is better to marry than to burn.” Or, as a modern translation puts it: “It is better to marry than to be on fire” (1 Corinthians 7:9).

If this text is read with the assumption that all “burning” desires are sinful concupiscent lust, then this leads to a simplistic idea of how marriage can be a remedy for concupiscence. Marriage is a safe space where people can work off their out-of-control lustful desires.

But that view conflicts with the common-sense realization that out-of-control sexual desires are not exactly conducive to building successful marriages. Marriages require self-control, as married people may have to spend time apart, and illness can impact upon marital life. Married people may also have to deal with situations such as Joseph’s encounter with Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:7).

St. Paul’s wider views on marriage are also a rejoinder to the “safe space” view of marriage. In the same passage where he says that “it is better to marry than to burn,” he also talks about the value of sexual abstinence “to be free for prayer” (1 Corinthians 7:5).

If St. Paul thinks that marriage benefits from the self-control which would enable sexual abstinence and marital chastity, then he can hardly be envisaging it as a “safe space” for an out-of-control, lustful, concupiscence.

So it cannot be correct to view marriage as a remedy for concupiscence, on the basis that it provides a “safe space” for concupiscence.

4. St. Augustine

St. Augustine of Hippo (d. 431) is one of the most important theologians for the development of ideas relating to concupiscence, and his writings have impacted heavily upon issues to do with sexuality and marriage. They have led to the “excuse” model of marriage, as a way of explaining how marriage can be a remedy for concupiscence.

Augustine’s views were often developed in theological conflicts. This means that isolated comments, in polemical situations, may not always represent his full balanced view. To do him justice, it is important to be aware of the nature of his major theological conflicts.

One of his major opponents was the Manichees. They thought that matter was evil. So they considered marriage to be potentially evil, as it involved spouses bringing more matter into the world when they had children.

To combat the Manichees, St. Augustine stressed, and restressed, the importance of having children, as a key feature of what makes marriage good.

Another major set of opponents were the Pelagians. They had an elitist view of morality and insisted that anyone can be good, if they just try hard enough.

To combat Pelagian elitism, St. Augustine insisted that concupiscence wrecked human desires, and left humans completely helpless without God’s continual assistance.

In the heat of controversy Augustine was not always clear in distinguishing between good desires and the out-of-control desires of concupiscence, as it was the concupiscent lack of control which was the point that he was emphasizing to the Pelagians. This means that he can be misread, in places, as equating all sexual desire with bad, out-of-control, concupiscent lust.

We know that this isn’t Augustine’s full view, because writing in a noncontroversial context he can perfectly easily distinguish between a good sexual desire and a bad concupiscent lust (e.g., De Bono Coniugali).

However, as Pelagianism was a serious theological problem for many centuries, it was Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works which were studied closely by theologians. And so a misunderstanding of Augustine’s position arose, which viewed all sexual attraction as equivalent to a sinfully concupiscent lust: even when it occurs within marriage.

This misunderstanding of St. Augustine was all the more attractive to theologians, as it seemed to be consistent with the misinterpretation of Latin translations of St. Paul.

It implied a negative view of marriage, as marriage would always involve the inevitable sin of sexual desires. But it thought that those sinful desires could be excused if they arose in pursuit of a greater good, such as having children.

So, marriage is a remedy for concupiscence in the sense that it provides an excusable context, and set of conditions, in which people may indulge in their sinful concupiscent lust.

5. St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274)

By the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas could see that there was something very wrong in some of his predecessors’ theological views of marriage.

He was perfectly able to distinguish between a good sexual attraction and a bad lust, and he could see that some of his predecessors had been confused on the issue. He also acknowledged that St. Paul’s language is occasionally infelicitous (inconveniens), as it can be misinterpreted. (See his Commentary on 1 Corinthians.)

So, Aquinas subtly reinterpreted early medieval confusions. Instead of seeing marriage as a remedy which excused the expression of lustful concupiscence within marriage, he saw the grace of marriage as a prevention of a concupiscence, which could otherwise mar the goodness of marriage. (See Aquinas’ Commentary on the Sentences.)

He also reinterpreted the excuse model of marriage. Rather than marriage involving excusable sins of concupiscent lust, he viewed it as involving an excusable imperfection. Choosing marriage was obviously less perfect than following the unmarried example of Jesus and St. Paul. But it was an excusable imperfection, in the sense that no one is obliged to seek a supererogatory perfection.

Aquinas’ views give a very different vision of what it means to say that marriage is a remedy for concupiscence. It is no longer about licensing sin; it is about preventing sin. Marriage remedies concupiscence because it provides the grace to help spouses resist concupiscence.

6. Vatican II (1965)

By the time of Vatican II, Catholic theology had had centuries to refine its view of how marriage is a remedy for concupiscence. Aquinas’ insights had triumphed, and they provided the conceptual underpinning for the theology of marriage, as can be seen in encyclicals such as Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii (1930).

But it was also clear that early medieval confusions about concupiscence had exacted a theological price, leaving the vestiges of lingering negativities within theological reflection, especially amongst those favoring Augustinian approaches.

By the 1960s it was becoming clear that marriage was being challenged by the modern world. Movements such as the “Swinging Sixties” were critiquing the point and value of marriage, in ways which were unprecedented.

Vatican II could see that a reaffirmation of marriage would be helpful, especially to those in pastoral situations who were engaging and challenging representatives of the modern world.

Some theologians at Vatican II thought that the Church should just repeat its tried and tested language about marriage being a remedy for concupiscence. As a result, that language appeared in the first draft of the council’s Dogmatic Constitution on Marriage.

But a significant number of theologians thought that there was no point repeating older language. People could already read that older language in older Church documents. What was needed was a clearer and simpler summary of the Church’s position, which targeted the current problem of a growing societal negativity towards marriage. What was needed was a statement which used unambiguously positive language about marriage.

In that context, describing marriage in terms of “excuses,” “remedies” and “concupiscence” was not what was needed. And so the council declined to repeat the traditional formula that “marriage is a remedy for concupiscence.”

Conclusion

When Vatican II chose to refrain from describing marriage as a “remedy for concupiscence,” it was not reversing doctrine or rejecting previous teaching. It was simply choosing to find a new way of presenting marriage, which addressed what it saw as the contemporary issue which needed addressing.

If modern Catholics wish to continue talking of marriage as a “remedy for concupiscence,” then they are free to do so. Although, in doing so, they will need to take care to avoid the confusions and negativities which earlier medieval discussions fell into.

In academic contexts, such as Seminaries and Universities, there is undoubtedly benefit in continuing to discuss the concept of marriage as a remedy for concupiscence.

But Vatican II was pitching itself to be accessible to a wider audience, and so it was trying to avoid unnecessarily complicating its teachings with the echoes of older controversies and complexities. And in a context of growing negativity about marriage, it was particularly keen to avoid any language which could be misconstrued, or misused, to justify a negativity about marriage.

So, marriage remains a remedy for concupiscence, but it is also the case that that may no longer be the clearest way of describing it to the modern world.