Q1. Whether it is expedient to marry in the Age of Unleavened Bread.
I answer that, absolutely speaking, that is to say, just considering the terms of the question and not the particular circuмstances in which the question can arise for a particular person, it is not expedient. This answer is given to us in the first place by St. Paul in the first letter to the Corinthians where he asserts that the unmarried is concerned with the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; the married with the concerns of the spouse.¹ And it is also implied by his wish which is formulated under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that all should be as he is, i.e., continent.² This teaching is confirmed by the Council of Trent, defining that it is more blessed to remain in celibacy.³ The theological reasoning of St. Thomas is that our end, our goal, is the perfection of charity, and that the specific cares and pleasures of marriage have a tendency to retard our pursuit of this goal.⁴ Finally, we have the counsel of Christ in the NT which implies also the promise of the grace to follow the counsel of celibacy.⁵
Nevertheless, for a given individual, it can be expedient to marry, in particular if he foresees that he will be subject to concupiscence to a degree that would endanger his salvation. St. Paul confirms this in his statement that it is better to marry than to burn.⁶ There could also be other reasons why it could be expedient for him to marry, for example, if some great good of a spiritual nature would result for a multitude, for example, woman who foresees that she would convert her pagan husband who is a very powerful man, such as a king, or some other man of great power.
Now, turning to the particular arguments that were put forward by the two sides. The argument that it is expedient to marry. First of all, it was stated that there was a precept given to the human race to be fruitful and multiply, therefore it is expedient to marry. I answer that this precept was given to the human race in general, but not to each individual, and that the good of temporal life which is achieved by this precept is less than the good of eternal life, and therefore this precept does not refute the expedience of celibacy, which is adopted for eternal life, especially as we can be confident that, in fact, only a minority would choose celibacy and therefore the temporal good of human procreation will not be impeded by those who follow the way of celibacy.
The second argument was that grace builds on nature and does not destroy it. I concede this point, but add that the natural law of fruitfulness is not destroyed by the counsel of celibacy, especially as we can foresee that only a minority will pursue the latter.
The next argument is that sacraments provide grace and are the ordinary means of salvation, and therefore, as marriage has been raised to a sacrament it is expedient for this way of salvation to be pursued. I answer that the other sacraments provide grace abundantly sufficient for salvation, and that per se they are received more fruitfully by those who have a resolve of celibacy for the kingdom of heaven.
The next argument was that St. Paul says that those who cannot contain themselves should marry, and that is a result of original sin. All are unable to contain themselves, therefore all should marry. I deny the minor premise, since through grace given in the sacraments other than marriage it is possible to be continent.
And the final argument given for the expedience of marrage was that Christ accepted the words of the disciples, saying it is not expedient for a man to marry.⁷ I answer that he neither acquiesces in or rejects that statement of the disciples, but rather proposes the counsel of celibacy for those who can receive it. Likewise the argument connected with that, was that Christ is one we should imitate and he leaves us the example of spousal fidelity to the Church, therefore we should imitate him by marrying and being faithful to our spouses. I answer that his example is an example of a spiritual union with the Church, one which is therefore more precisely imitated by spiritual union with Christ, consequent on a vow of celibacy.
Now turning to the arguments on the other side, that it is not expedient to marry. The first was that it is better not to be encuмbered since time is short, according to St. Paul, the appointed time is growing very short.⁸ I agree.
The second argument was that it is better to order oneself to permanent things rather than transitory things and this is done more by celibacy than marriage. I agree with the proviso that one should order oneself to permanent things only insofar as this is compatible with ones’ duty to transitory things.
The third argument was that the unmarried is more free to think of spiritual things.⁹ I concede this argument.
The fourth argument was that the Jєωs traveling to the Promised Land are a prefigurement of the Christians traveling to the Promised Land of Heaven, and that they were unencuмbered and therfore so we should be. I agree that the Jєωs were a prefigurement of us traveling to the Promised Land of Heaven. I am not aware of Scripture, though, speaking of them particularly as being unencuмbered. They were told to take the silver and gold out of Egypt,¹⁰ and they also, if I remember correcdy, had flocks and herds in the desert to support them. So I am not sure that the alegorical argument works.
And the last argument for non-expediency was that in the Old Testament the mode of propogation of the People of God was carnal by human procreation, and in the New Testament it is spiritual by baptism in water and the Holy Spirit. I agree that the NT is more spiritual than the OT, as evidenced by the comparison of these two means of increasing the People of God, and I agree that celibacy is more spiritual than marriage and in that sense there is a fittingness for celibacy in the NT. Nevertheless, I would add that it was not simply by procreation that the People of God was increased in the OT, but also, it had to be followed by circuмcision, and by some other unknown rite for female children, and I would also add, as was said in the objections, that even in the NT the People of God, which is increased by Baptism, the people to be baptized normally come about through procreation, though they can also come about as adult catechumens, by conversion.
Right, now to look at some of the objections that were put forward in the 5 minute periods that have not been covered by what has already been said. One of them was the general counsel of celibacy is presumptuous, it presupposes that we know that the end is near, and that the elect have already been filled up. So there is no need for continuing procreation. I say that this is a frivolous argument, because we can know for a fact that most people will not follow the counsel of celibacy, but this does not prevent it from being, absolutely speaking, expedient, and also the People of God can be increased by conversions of adults.
It was said that St. Paul gives only a counsel and not a command to celibacy. I agree, but, as it was an inspired counsel, it therefore carries expediency with it as a consequence.
It was said that there will be no marriage in heaven, and therefore it is on earth that marriage is expedient. I say that this does not follow, it simply shows on earth that marriage happens, not that it is on earth that marriage is expedient.
And finally, it was said that the more perfect state gives the exemplar for the whole species. It is more perfect for a man to be celibate, and this gives an exemplar for the whole species. It was objected to this that this was pelagian, as implying that nature could be made perfect by ones own efforts. I answer that this does not follow, because there was nothing that was said about it being by ones own efforts.

---

Endnotes
¹ Cf. 1 Cor. 7:32-34.
² Cf. 1 Cor. 7:8.
³ Cf. Session XXIV of the Council of Trent, Nov. 11, 1563 (DS 1810).
⁴ Cf. ST Ila-IIae q. 186, a. 4.
⁵ Cf Mt. 19:11, 12.
⁶ Cf. 1 Cor. 7:9.
⁷ Cf. Mt. 19:10-12.
⁸ Cf. 1 Cor. 7:29.
⁹ Cf. 1 Cor. 7:34.
¹⁰ Cf Ex. 3:22; 12:35.