Nevertheless, in the union of the sexes, besides the divine physical law common to all living beings, there is another divine law, as immutable as all God’s laws, and exclusively moral: the law of love. God has willed for individuals to be united not only through the ties of the flesh, but also through those of the soul, so that the mutual affection of the spouses is extended to their children, and that there should be two, instead of one, to love them, care for them and enable them to progress. In the conventional conditions of marriage, is this law of love taken into consideration? Not in the least. The affection of two individuals attracted to one other by a mutual sentiment is not confirmed, and in the majority of cases this affection is shattered for the sake of other interests.38  What is sought is not the satisfaction of the heart but the satisfaction of pride, vanity and cupidity; in short, the satisfaction of all interests of a material nature. When everything is well according to such interests, the marriage is said to be suitable, and when the material assets are well matched,  it is said that the spouses are also suited for each other and ought to be very happy.

However, neither civil law nor the commitments that it contracts can replace the law of love if it does not preside over the union; the result is that what  has been joined forcibly separates on its own; that the oaths sworn at the altar become perjury if they are pronounced as a banal formula. As a consequence, there are the unhappy unions that end up becoming criminal, a double disgrace that could be avoided if within the marriage the only law that sanctions it in God’s eyes were not left out: the law of love. When God stated, “The two shall become one flesh only,” and when Jesus says, “Let no man separate what God has joined,” one must understand the union according to the immutable law of God and not according to the changeable law of human beings.