Newsroom (11/27/2025 10:51, Gaudium Press) The doctrinal note Una Caro: In Praise of Monogamy, published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on November 25. It arrives precisely as global trends challenge monogamy. In the West, acceptance of polyamory grows, while in parts of Africa and Asia, polygamy remains structural. Amid these distinct challenges, Una Caro aims to defend monogamy as fundamental, offering both doctrinal affirmation and pastoral guidance for multicultural realities. However, by leaning heavily on cultural and literary references, the note risks diluting its most urgent message: a clear, compelling defense of monogamy grounded in Church teaching.
The document’s initial strength is undeniable. It clearly reaffirms that monogamy should not be seen merely as the opposite of polygamy, but as a positive expression of God’s plan for marriage. The Catholic News Agency (CNA) highlights this affirmative character, noting that the note presents monogamy as a good in itself, not merely as a restrictive norm. This perspective is solidly grounded in the personalist anthropology of St. John Paul II, who reminds us that only exclusive reciprocity between two people guarantees that each is treated as a subject. In a culture that often reduces relationships to emotional or sexual utility, this affirmation takes on a profoundly countercultural and evangelical value.
The document also emphasizes that defending monogamy is inseparable from defending women’s dignity, which is particularly important in contexts where polygamy is socially legitimized. The CNA points out that the text highlights how marital unity protects women from moral, emotional, and economic vulnerability. This is a pastoral point of enormous relevance, especially in regions where the first wife is often the most exposed to silent suffering.
Despite notable strengths, Una Caro is pulled in many directions. As The Pillar observes, the document casts a wide net: speaking to both Western and African audiences, addressing polyamory and polygamy, and weaving together theology, philosophy, and literature. While aiming to present a comprehensive case for monogamy, this ambitious scope sometimes blurs the document’s central argument: monogamy must be defended confidently and clearly as an essential Christian value.
The Pillar notes that the document quickly runs through Sacred Scripture—from Genesis to Pauline nuptial symbolism—and then traverses two millennia of patristic, medieval, and modern tradition, mentioning everyone from St. John Chrysostom to Rahner, including St. Augustine, St. Bonaventure, and St. Alphonsus. The problem is not the orthodoxy of these references, but the rapidity. Fundamental themes are treated so briefly that they risk appearing to be nothing more than an inventory of quotations. The same is true of the philosophical excursions: Kierkegaard, Levinas, Sertillanges, and Maritain. The variety is impressive, but at times it seems disproportionate to the pedagogical function of a doctrinal note, which should enlighten rather than dazzle.
Even more controversial is the document’s aesthetic foray into poetry. The presence of Whitman, Neruda, Tagore, and Dickinson may be culturally interesting, but The Pillar notes that it may confuse the reader as to the document’s intent. The Doctrine of Faith is not intended to be a literary anthology. Even if these references offer useful metaphors, they also risk turning a doctrinal reflection into an essay. Doctrine does not need literary embellishments to be beautiful; its strength lies in the truth it reveals.
A chapter extends the debate to India. It mentions texts such as the Thirukkural and the Manusmṛti, and is intellectually curious, but again seems too ambitious for a document that should have a pastoral focus. The intention is to demonstrate that monogamy is an ideal present in diverse cultures, and this is anthropologically correct. However, the multiplicity of sources and the panoramic tone may dilute the clarity needed at a time when the Church faces doctrinal confusion and social pressures that demand direct and luminous language.
Despite this, the final part of the document—as highlighted by The Pillar—offers greater clarity. Here, the concepts of “mutual belonging” and “marital charity” emerge. It synthesizes all the previous reflections in an accessible and theologically consistent way. It is clear that Christian marriage is a totalizing, exclusive union, ordered to the integral good of the spouses and open to life. This synthesis is undoubtedly the most pedagogical, magisterial, and pastorally useful part of the entire note. It is significant that Cardinal Fernández himself recommends that readers begin with this part. This seems to demonstrate a certain internal awareness that the rest may be too dense for many recipients.
The Pillar analysts also emphasize that cooperation between the Dicastery and African bishops is a new and positive development, especially after the tensions caused by Fiducia Supplicans. African participation reinforces the universal character of the reflection, avoiding the risk of a Eurocentric view. However, the attempt to respond simultaneously to Western polyamory and African polygamy seems to leave some points overlapping. African polygamy, marked by social and economic structures, is distinct from hypermodern polyamory, often linked to individualism and the pursuit of immediate emotional satisfaction. Placing these phenomena under a conceptual umbrella is risky for analytical and pastoral reasons.
Overall, Una Caro is a valuable, necessary, and doctrinally sound document. The CNA is correct in pointing out that it is a timely affirmation of the Catholic view of the exclusive and permanent union between a man and a woman. However, following The Pillar’s observation, the note sometimes seems indecisive about its purpose: at times it speaks as a magisterial document, at times as a literary essay, at times as a pastoral manual, and at times as a comparative philosophical overview. The result is a work of great richness, but one that would have been more effective if it had been more concise, more direct, and less ornate.
The truth about Christian marriage remains clear: unity, exclusivity, openness to life, total and mutual self-giving. Una Caro reaffirms this truth beautifully, but at times with literary excesses that obscure its pedagogical scope. At a time when culture confuses love with emotional consumption, the Church needs to speak with the simple authority of one who proclaims the truth. The note fulfills this role—yet it could fulfill it even better if it relied more on the strength of doctrine and less on cultural embellishment, which, although interesting, can distract from the essential.
Compiled by Dominic Joseph
Related Images:
