Is marriage still a topic in today’s theological reflection and discussion? In the field of dogmatic theology, marriage has never played a prominent role. As it was not counted amongst the sacraments until the 13th century, it falls within the scope of sacramental theology and is simply one of the seven sacraments. Canonists, on the other hand, tend to be more interested in marriage, but this is particularly the case when the question of annulment arises. One might also expect moral theologians to focus intensively on marriage. However, as the emphasis in sexual ethics shifts, marriage is increasingly seen as less important in sexual relationships. New forms of partnership are recently contributing to marriage being replaced by alternative ways of life, which sometimes seem just as suitable. If one looks beyond the theological debate, it becomes clear that this change is widespread in Western societies: although marriage continues to play a part in personal and social relationships, its importance is gradually waning. This raises the question all the more: why should marriage still be the focus of attention today and, more than that, why does a more in-depth theological examination of marriage seem so urgently necessary?
This question was the subject of discussion by a group of academic theologians and canonists from various European countries. As they saw this issue as a major challenge for the Church and theology, they embarked on a long-term project which culminated in 2026 in an INTAMS Research Report entitled The Theology of Marriage after Vatican II: Theological and Canonical Perspectives. The document was officially presented on 12 May 2026 at the Lateran University in Rome, in collaboration with the International Academy for Marital Spirituality (INTAMS, Leuven) and the John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences (Rome). In the following, some reflections based on the findings of this document may help to provide a better understanding of the urgency of re-addressing the issue of marriage. To make this clear from the outset: the Report’s intention was not to draft a “new theology of marriage” capable of answering all the questions currently facing the Church; nor was it intended to set out a path by which the often-cited and much-maligned Catholic sexual morality could finally be overcome. The purpose was far more modest – yet at the same time more ambitious than is often assumed.
What prompted the theologians and canonists to look into the matter again, was the conviction that the theology of marriage – for which the Second Vatican Council laid the foundations – must first be purged of pre- and anti-conciliar vestiges before a conception of marriage and a sexual ethic can be developed that do justice to the challenges of our time. In the Pastoral Constitution, Gaudium et spes (GS), marriage is aptly defined as “the intimate partnership of married life and love”, which has been established by God and is brought about by an irrevocable consent which leads the spouses to a free and mutual gift of themselves (GS 48). Since God is the source and author of love between a man and a woman, conjugal love is the sole foundation and the main goal of married life, which is not subordinated to any external, overarching ends. Through mutual giving and receiving, through an intimate union of their persons and of their actions, the married persons form a close bond which serves the good of the spouses themselves, of their children, and of society, and which, no longer subject to human caprice, creates a lasting union of love and fidelity. This succinct description of marriage is now part of the common vocabulary of theological reflection and has also become part of the consciousness of the faithful. However, two aspects in particular were obscured and ignored in post-conciliar times: firstly, that conjugal love is the very essence of marriage which takes undisputed precedence over all other properties and purposes of marriage, particularly procreation; and secondly, that the Council Fathers deliberately refrained from providing a clear definition of human sexuality. Two examples, both of which focus on the meaning of the spouse’s consent, should suffice to highlight the shortcomings of post-conciliar teaching.
A definition of marriage, from both a theological and canonical perspective, can be found in the Code of Canon Law (CIC 1983), can. 1055 §1 and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), par. 1601. In accordance with GS, both passages refer to “the matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life” (emphasis added) – yet they omit what Vatican II described as “married love”. I don’t want to get bogged down in terminological subtleties, but the prevailing juridical mindset is evident: What the two partners consent to is not merely what the Council refers to as a “covenant”, but a contract that binds them unconditionally – so far, so good – but then forces them into a Procrustean bed that leaves scarcely any room for the realities of married life and love. As if marriage, once it has been contracted (matrimonium in fieri), automatically guaranteed everlasting fidelity! As if it ruled out divorce! But that does not work, for spouses commit themselves to a dynamic, evolving, ongoing and long-term process (matrimonium in facto) that must be continually nurtured and strengthened – with all the joys and setbacks that this entails. To believe that a marriage can be achieved in a single moment is a great illusion and a theological error.
Equally flawed is the view that the first sexual act (consummatum), which follows the moment of ratification (ratum) of marriage, renders the marital bond “absolutely indissoluble” – a concept of “consummation” which is used in CIC 1983, cann. 1061 §1 and 1141. Historically speaking, canonists had good reasons for this solution, which, in the Middle Ages, represented a compromise between two conflicting schools of thought. Nevertheless, it is surprising that sexual relations are given such significant importance in canon law. The full scenario, however, only becomes apparent when one realises that “each and every marriage act must remain open ‘per se’ to the transmission of life” (CCC 2366, quoted from Humanae vitae, 11). The procreation-centred vision, which Vatican II abandoned, regains the upper hand in the Church – with the harmful implication that human sexual relations are legitimate only if two conditions are met, namely that they take place within marriage and are inherently directed towards procreation. The Council Fathers, too, saw no alternative but to understand human sexuality in the context of marriage, but they confined themselves to stating that marital sexual relations should be lived out humano modo, in a human way (GS 49). In post-conciliar teaching, however, the multifaceted nature of sexuality, which is now generally recognised, is again reduced to the sexual act which must be procreative – a view which was not that of the Council Fathers.
Most moral theologians will today agree that the legacy of the vision of Vatican II has led to inconsistent, deficient and, at times, harmful excesses which need to be rectified, particularly with regard to issues of sexual morality. The INTAMS Research Report, however, was not primarily intended to simply brush the shortcomings aside and propose new solutions, but rather to re-identify the root causes of the post-conciliar inadequacies. In our discussions, we realised that the theological focus should not be broadened too quickly to include “marriage and family” – as is often the case in church discourse – but that we should initially confine ourselves to the issue of “marriage” before broadening our perspective. It was also decided that the widespread phenomenon of cohabitation before marriage or outside marriage, which is considered a sensitive issue in ecclesiastical discourse, should not be equated with marriage too lightly. The Report also mentioned same-sex marriage, but it did not go into further detail. This was not because same-sex union and non-marital cohabitation are incompatible with the Church’s teaching, but because the concept of marriage as the pre-eminent core of sexual relations has not yet been fully developed. Therefore, we opted to examine from the ground up both the merits and the shortcomings left behind by the Council, in the hope that this can open up new perspectives in response to today’s challenges.
A final remark might be helpful in putting the Research Report into context. As mentioned at the beginning of the essay, marriage is becoming less significant in Western societies. Some may find this realisation unsettling, whilst others may be delighted that the yoke imposed on them by marriage has finally been cast off. There is no doubt that marriage has had its dark sides in the past and will continue to have them in the future. But we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Wisely, Vatican II highlighted that marriage is a covenant by which two persons establish between themselves a lifelong union of life and love, and saw in this the greatest reflection of God’s covenant. Yet God’s covenant remains unbroken, while humans frequently and inevitably break this bond. Marriage is a prototype of this human condition: it has been, is, and will always be far removed from what the conjugal covenant aspires to, but it inspires and it embodies the way in which intimate sexual relations ought to be. Were we to lose this theological foundation, we would be abandoning the very essence of our Christian faith and our culture.